Greenland Has Been Cooling In Recent Years – 26 Of Its 47 Largest Glaciers Now Stable

[Legion]

The article is more than one sentence long. Is is several pages that include some big words that I am sure you will be able to look up in a dictionary. If you read the article and still don't understand it, ask questions and I will explain it to you. I see no reason to be "articles for dummies" for you since you claim to be an intelligent child.

So you are unable explain how "observations and modeling trace the origins of this cooling to anomalous wintertime heat loss in the boundary current that circulates around the southern half of Greenland" means "warming is changing the ocean currents around Greenland?"

[Legion]

You didn't read the article you posted, did you? It lays out the changes in the currents around Greenland.

Does it say "observations and modeling trace the origins of this cooling to anomalous wintertime heat loss in the boundary current that circulates around the southern half of Greenland" or "warming is changing the ocean currents around Greenland?"

[Legion]

In a paper in Nature this week, scientists present palaeo-oceanographic evidence that deep convection of surface waters in the North Atlantic — the engine that keeps the AMOC in constant motion — began to decline as early as around 1850, probably owing to increased freshwater influx from Arctic ice that had melted at the end of a relatively cold period called the Little Ice Age (D. J. R. Thornalley et al. Nature 556, 227–230; 2018). This could have caused a weakening in the ocean circulation.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04322-x

[Poor Richard Saunders]

In a paper in Nature this week, scientists present palaeo-oceanographic evidence that deep convection of surface waters in the North Atlantic — the engine that keeps the AMOC in constant motion — began to decline as early as around 1850, probably owing to increased freshwater influx from Arctic ice that had melted at the end of a relatively cold period called the Little Ice Age (D. J. R. Thornalley et al. Nature 556, 227–230; 2018). This could have caused a weakening in the ocean circulation.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04322-x

Gosh, I wonder if glaciers on Greenland are ice and if there would be an influx of freshwater when they melt as they have been doing over the last few decades. You should go read the article you still haven't bothered to read.

(You really should read it before you make your next post.)

[countryboy]

NASA says there has been no change in the North Atlantic Conveyor.

https://www.thegwpf.com/nasa-observa...lt-is-slowing/

Lol, the same NASA that pushes the global warming hoax, you know, when they're not getting busted manipulating data.

[Legion]

Gosh, I wonder if glaciers on Greenland are ice and if there would be an influx of freshwater when they melt as they have been doing over the last few decades. You should go read the article you still haven't bothered to read. (You really should read it before you make your next post.)

I suppose you think there were SUVs in 1850?

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Does it say "observations and modeling trace the origins of this cooling to anomalous wintertime heat loss in the boundary current that circulates around the southern half of Greenland"

That is actually a quote from the abstract of the article.

or "warming is changing the ocean currents around Greenland?"

The article cites ECCO for data on the cooling of the Northern Atlantic. You haven't even read the article on Greenland. I'm sure you have no clue as to the data ECCO has about the oceans.

[Legion]

That is actually a quote from the abstract of the article.

It appears to be a question, doesn't it? Yet you presented it -without attribution - as a conclusion.

It seems that warming is changing the ocean currents around Greenland.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I suppose you think there were SUVs in 1850?

Thanks for proving how stupid you really are. Are all conservatives as stupid as you are?

Let's look at the silliness of your statement by providing other stupid examples that use the "there is only one cause" idiocy you have introduced.
Since man dammed the Colorado with the Hoover dam that means no river was ever dammed by rock slides or beavers prior to man.
Since man plants corn with machines that means corn never grew before machines existed to plant it.
Since man uses electricity to start fires there has never been a fire started from lightning.

Thanks for playing, "How stupid can Legion look." Let's see what other depths you want to descend to.

[Legion]

Thanks for proving how stupid you really are. Are all conservatives as stupid as you are? Let's look at the silliness of your statement by providing other stupid examples that use the "there is only one cause" idiocy you have introduced. Since man dammed the Colorado with the Hoover dam that means no river was ever dammed by rock slides or beavers prior to man. Since man plants corn with machines that means corn never grew before machines existed to plant it. Since man uses electricity to start fires there has never been a fire started from lightning. Thanks for playing, "How stupid can Legion look." Let's see what other depths you want to descend to.

You seem angry because I pointed out the ridiculousness of attributing your warmist beliefs to anthropogenic causes.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

It appears to be a question, doesn't it? Yet you presented it -without attribution - as a conclusion.

Your statement makes no sense.
My statement was not a question when I first made it.

It wasn't a quote so it didn't need to be attributed to anything.

"It seems" <--- is not the start of a sentence that includes a conclusion.

It was a statement about the article which you haven't read so I am unsure how you can say it is wrong without looking like a fool since the article uses data that shows that the ocean currents around Greenland have changed for several reasons.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You seem angry because I pointed out the ridiculousness of attributing your warmist beliefs to anthropogenic causes.

You didn't point out anything but your own stupidity. When did I use the phrase "anthropogenic causes?" You are the one that said there can be only one cause for warming. I have never said that.

[Legion]

My statement was not a question when I first made it.

But it was one in the paper Y O U cited.

It wasn't a quote so it didn't need to be attributed to anything.

Yet you invested your entire argument on it, didn't you?

"It seems" <--- is not the start of a sentence that includes a conclusion.

Is that so? It seems you don't understand that calling it a "statement" instead of a question (which the article poses) is disingenuous at best.

It was a statement about the article which you haven't read so I am unsure how you can say it is wrong without looking like a fool since the article uses data that shows that the ocean currents around Greenland have changed for several reasons.

You have no idea what I have or haven't read. Clearly I have read your pitiful excuse for an argument.

[Legion]

You are the one that said there can be only one cause for warming. I have never said that.

I don't recall saying that, either. Can you cite the quote?

[Poor Richard Saunders]

It seems there isn't a single person willing to actually read the science article and discuss its contents.

Certainly not Legion, who implies there is only one cause for global warming and then tries to deny he did just that.

Let me know when you have read the article, Legion, and then we can try to discuss it. For instance we could discuss how surface heat helped cool the ocean around Greenland by affecting convective mixing and buoyancy.