Global Ocean Cooling

[Jack Hays]

This is a weird semantic quibble only made more amusing by the fact that it's wrong.

"Cooling" clearly indicates a decline in temperature. "A lack of warming" could be a flat temperature.

Tsk tsk. All cooling is a lack of warming but not all lack of warming is cooling.

 

[vegas giants]

:lamo

You didn't dismiss anything as YOU posted an opinion of your own without merit.

Steve, went beyond the level of opinion by showing the IPCC statement:



He then pointed out how little warming that is, MATHEMATICALLY, to which YOU didn't address or dispute at all.

You are looking foolish here.

Claiming it is a little warming is a uneducated opinion

 

[Steve Case]

His opinion on the math is noted and dismissed

While we're on the topic of opinion and facts, please note that the IPCC quote

Over the period 1961 to 2003, global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10°C ...

claims 0.10° not 0.1° That extra zero means they have claimed three place
accuracy, not 0.11° nor 0.09° but 0.10° They are claiming they can measure
ocean temperature to within 0.01°C. And that's B.S.

 

[vegas giants]

While we're on the topic of opinion and facts, please note that the IPCC quote



claims 0.10° not 0.1° That extra zero means they have claimed three place
accuracy, not 0.11° nor 0.09° but 0.10° They are claiming they can measure
ocean temperature to within 0.01°C. And that's B.S.

And your opinion as a person who is not a scientific expert in this field is noted and dismissed

 

[Deuce]

Tsk tsk. All cooling is a lack of warming but not all lack of warming is cooling.

More weird semantic nonsense that adds nothing to the conversation.

 

[Threegoofs]

While we're on the topic of opinion and facts, please note that the IPCC quote



claims 0.10° not 0.1° That extra zero means they have claimed three place
accuracy, not 0.11° nor 0.09° but 0.10° They are claiming they can measure
ocean temperature to within 0.01°C. And that's B.S.

When normal people are confronted by data that they don’t understand how it’s derived, but are told is true by experts, they usually accept their ignorance and give experts the benefit of the doubt.

When deniers see data they don’t like and don’t understand, they pretend it’s not real.

 

[vegas giants]

When normal people are confronted by data that they don’t understand how it’s derived, but are told is true by experts, they usually accept their ignorance and give experts the benefit of the doubt.

When deniers see data they don’t like and don’t understand, they pretend it’s not real.

And then they pretend they are the experts....

 

[jdog21]

Tsk tsk. All cooling is a lack of warming but not all lack of warming is cooling.

Its funny cause you are both right but people who cant understand that you are more right will have a harder time trying to wrap there mind around climate change. I blame a lack of physics being taught in high schools.

 

[jdog21]

When normal people are confronted by data that they don’t understand how it’s derived, but are told is true by experts, they usually accept their ignorance and give experts the benefit of the doubt.

When deniers see data they don’t like and don’t understand, they pretend it’s not real.

And what do scientists do when they are confronted with preponderance of the evidence?
I'll cave and answer that for you, they seek to prove the evidence wrong.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Its funny cause you are both right but people who cant understand that you are more right will have a harder time trying to wrap there mind around climate change. I blame a lack of physics being taught in high schools.

Why don't you start by actually proving the "climate" has changed and isn't part of some cyclical pattern.

Then, prove that the changing climate is due to mankind rather than nature...

Do you understand what the definition of "climate" is?

Where has the climate changed?

 

[vegas giants]

Why don't you start by actually proving the "climate" has changed and isn't part of some cyclical pattern.

Then, prove that the changing climate is due to mankind rather than nature...

Do you understand what the definition of "climate" is?

Where has the climate changed?

NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

 

[Jack Hays]

More weird semantic nonsense that adds nothing to the conversation.

Nope. Just clarifying.

 

[jdog21]

Why don't you start by actually proving the "climate" has changed and isn't part of some cyclical pattern.

Then, prove that the changing climate is due to mankind rather than nature...

Do you understand what the definition of "climate" is?

Where has the climate changed?

I fear that would just be a circle jerk, I believe that the climate is always changing and will forever continue to change and humans only play a small part in that. We are powerless to change it. So our time is wiser spent acknowledging that and focusing on how to adapt so the quality of life as we know it now doesn't get affected as much as possible.

 

[ecofarm]

FYI in thermodynamics there is no such thing as cold or cooling, only heat or a lack of heat. So speaking as a lack of warming would be put in layman's terms as cooling.

How moronic. A lack of warming refers to less heating. Not cooling.

The OP title is a lie and it's supported by lies (graphs presented as if temp).

I have an actual grad degree in the subject. You guys are being led around like fools by lying bs.

 

[Threegoofs]

And what do scientists do when they are confronted with preponderance of the evidence?
I'll cave and answer that for you, they seek to prove the evidence wrong.

Yes.

But they don’t declare the evidence wrong just because they don’t like the conclusions.

 

[Threegoofs]

I fear that would just be a circle jerk, I believe that the climate is always changing and will forever continue to change and humans only play a small part in that. We are powerless to change it. So our time is wiser spent acknowledging that and focusing on how to adapt so the quality of life as we know it now doesn't get affected as much as possible.

Well.... you’re wrong.

And there is a ton of science that says so.

Amateur opinion dismissed.

 

[jdog21]

Yes.

But they don’t declare the evidence wrong just because they don’t like the conclusions.

Then I implore you to advocate for scientists to try and prove the climate change narratives fictional. Don't discourage and belittle the people who are putting out there their hypothesis.

 

[Threegoofs]

Then I implore you to advocate for scientists to try and prove the climate change narratives fictional. Don't discourage and belittle the people who are putting out there their hypothesis.

That’s like advocating for creationists to prove evolution is false, or flat earthers to prove the globe doesn’t exist, or advocating for vaccines to be not used because I don’t want to belittle a hypothesis.

The pinnacle of stupidity.