Scientists Are Freaking Out About Ocean Temperatures

[Danderman123]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You haven't posted much about scientists "freaking out" so you must be off topic yourself.

I post about the data, not the personalities.

 

You can't discuss the data since you flunked Science back in the day.

[Danderman123]

On 3/6/2024 at 5:59 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Exactly. What the instruments don't show is the Man Made element. They show the planet is warming, but it's the tame scientists that make it about humans being naughty. If it was accepted that it's a natural cycle they would not be able to tax us for it.

Follow the money.

The isotopic data shows that the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 430+ ppm is manmade.

 

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans

 

Do you have any data to the contrary?

Edited March 7 by Danderman123

[Danderman123]

https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

 

Here is the most recent global temperature data from Dr. Roy Spencer, a leading global warming skeptic.

 

Despite being a skeptic, he still has his job.

 

BTW, perhaps you Deniers can post articles about scientific Deniers who lost their jobs for political reasons.

[JackGats]

28 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Classic Conspiracy Theory. 

 

Most scientists collect data. They get paid regardless of what their data shows.

 

A scientist who "suspects" something after looking at the data may lose their jobs for any number of reasons, but the data is still there. Do you have any *data* to show that underseas volcanos cause ocean warming?

 

Spoiler alert: volcanos cause short term cooling.

There's limited fully ignored data. Your "spoiler alert" shows you conflate aerial and submarine volcanisms, which are two different animals. Aerosols play no part in underwater volcanism and the heat in underwater volcanism is transferred directly to the ocean, which is what the title of the article ("ocean temperatures") is about. Beyond some minor contributions to ocean chemistry, the contribution of seafloor volcanism to the oceans is thermal. Not that climate science would be interested of course, it has better things to do, like chastising "climate deniers".

[Danderman123]

45 minutes ago, JackGats said:

There's limited fully ignored data. Your "spoiler alert" shows you conflate aerial and submarine volcanisms, which are two different animals. Aerosols play no part in underwater volcanism and the heat in underwater volcanism is transferred directly to the ocean, which is what the title of the article ("ocean temperatures") is about. Beyond some minor contributions to ocean chemistry, the contribution of seafloor volcanism to the oceans is thermal. Not that climate science would be interested of course, it has better things to do, like chastising "climate deniers".

if undersea volcanos are warming the oceans, please produce data showing an increase in undersea volcanos causing the warming of the oceans.

[Danderman123]

Why is it that the people here who know the least about science are the most critical of the Global Warming hypothesis? You know, the types who never provide any data, they just offer uninformed opinions.

 

You may notice that they often contradict each other but never comment on it.

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Your post is predicated on there being an underlying problem that requires mitigation of the amount of pollutions people generate.

 

You decry government programs to reduce pollution, and then propose government programs to reduce pollution.

 

So, you advocate socialist efforts to combat Global Warming.

I can't speak for him, but IMO pollution is bad as it causes health problems and litter is unsightly.

So, reducing pollution is a good thing as long as it isn't politicised, and claimed that it's to save the planet.

[thaibeachlovers]

11 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Why is it that the people here who know the least about science are the most critical of the Global Warming hypothesis? You know, the types who never provide any data, they just offer uninformed opinions.

 

You may notice that they often contradict each other but never comment on it.

For all your warbling on about man made climate change, you have provided nothing that would convince me that you know what you are talking about.

If it gets a bit warmer in NZ I'll be very happy about that.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

I post about the data, not the personalities.

 

You can't discuss the data since you flunked Science back in the day.

I see that you are stating as a fact that I flunked Science back in the day. Given that you have no way of knowing that, I say that you are, again, lying.

[Danderman123]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I see that you are stating as a fact that I flunked Science back in the day. Given that you have no way of knowing that, I say that you are, again, lying.

 a conclusion based on your posts.

 

You are incapable of enunciating a cogent opinion expressing why you don't agree with the Global Warming hypothesis.  Instead, we get a childlike "it's not true".

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

 a conclusion based on your posts.

 

You are incapable of enunciating a cogent opinion expressing why you don't agree with the Global Warming hypothesis.  Instead, we get a childlike "it's not true".

 

 

Have you been smoking something mind altering? I said that you were lying when you state as a fact that I flunked science ( which you have no way of knowing and it's wrong anyway ) and you deflect that to my opinion on man made climate change.

The alternative, IMO is that you are actually a badly programmed argue bot.

[Danderman123]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Have you been smoking something mind altering? I said that you were lying when you state as a fact that I flunked science ( which you have no way of knowing and it's wrong anyway ) and you deflect that to my opinion on man made climate change.

The alternative, IMO is that you are actually a badly programmed argue bot.

Your post proves my point.

 

You clearly don't know enough about science to dispute the Global Warming hypothesis. Instead, all you've got are rants and insults.

 

The way to disprove me is with a logical post about the GWH, not childish rants.

[thaibeachlovers]

17 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Your post proves my point.

 

You clearly don't know enough about science to dispute the Global Warming hypothesis. Instead, all you've got are rants and insults.

 

The way to disprove me is with a logical post about the GWH, not childish rants.

I'm sorry it has come to this. I promised to never put you on ignore, but that doesn't mean I have to reply to your one track circular posts. You lied twice about me and no apology, so I will not be replying to any post from you without a specific point to make in future.

[Danderman123]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm sorry it has come to this. I promised to never put you on ignore, but that doesn't mean I have to reply to your one track circular posts. You lied twice about me and no apology, so I will not be replying to any post from you without a specific point to make in future.

This topic is about Global warming's impact on ocean temperatures. 

 

I'm so sorry that your rants are off topic *and* pointless.

 

And still, the planet is warming from human pollution.