2 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

No one is saying they are smarter than anyone, but maths are maths....

Instead of showing your math or working through Q = M x c x Delta T, you are hiding behind an "average of three AI models." Relying on an average of text summaries instead of executing basic multiplication is classic deflection.

To find out how much energy (Q) you need to heat something up, multiply how much of it you have (M) by how hard it is to warm up (c) by how many degrees you want to raise it (ΔT).

Averaging three AI hallucinations still doesn't beat high school maths.

"The AVERAGE temperature of the oceans has warmed by 1 degree C since the Industrial Revolution", is INCORRECT, you are conflating the Sea Surface Temperature (SST) with the entire ocean volume.

If the entire mass of the world's oceans had actually warmed by 1 C, thermal expansion alone would have already caused global sea levels to rise by roughly 2 to 3 meters (6 to 10 feet).

In reality, actual sea level rise observed since 1900 is about 20 centimeters (8 inches), directly confirming that warming is heavily concentrated in the thin upper layer of the ocean.

Bringing up the Irminger Current proves the stratification point, rather than refuting it.

The Irminger Current is an upper-to-intermediate Atlantic ocean current that flows at depths of 200 to 600 meters along the East Greenland shelf.

It delivers warm, salty subtropical water directly into glacial fjords, melting the shallow marine termini of Greenland's outlet glaciers (like Jakobshavn and Helheim).

This explicitly demonstrates that warming is concentrated in subsurface boundary currents near the top 600 meters—not in the 4,000-meter abyssal depths. Greenland is melting precisely because upper-ocean currents carry heat, not because the deep ocean floor has warmed by 1 C.

No one is attempting to "disprove" the First or Second Laws of Thermodynamics. The error lies in claiming that "Global warming is the 2nd Law, Climate change is the 1st Law."

Both physical laws operate simultaneously across all climate dynamics. Inventing an arbitrary split between "global warming" and "climate change" using two unified laws of physics is a rhetorical maneuver, not physical science.

What is the result of climate change? More intense storms, more frequently. Conversion of heat energy to kinetic energy , the first law of thermodynamics, all forms of energy are interchangeable. When yo drive a car, the chemical energy in gasoline is converted to heat, kinetic energy, and sound if the radio is on.

"Global sea surface temperatures (SST) have warmed by approximately 0.8°C to 0.9°C relative to the pre-industrial baseline (1850–1900), rather than a full 1°C. If you consider the entire depth of the global ocean, the average temperature increase is significantly lower (fractions of a degree) because deep ocean waters take centuries to heat.

The headline figure of "1°C of warming" refers to the overall global surface average (land and ocean combined):

• Land surface: Warms faster, having increased by roughly 1.5°C to 1.6°C since pre-industrial times.

• Sea surface: Warms more slowly due to water's high heat capacity, having increased by roughly 0.8°C to 0.9°C.

• Combined global average: Land and sea combined reached around 1.1°C to 1.3°C above pre-industrial levels (with individual hot years like 2023 and 2024 spiking slightly higher).

Even though the numerical temperature change in the ocean is lower than on land, the ocean absorbs over 90% of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases in Earth's climate system. Because of water's high thermal mass, that 0.9°C surface increase represents a massive influx of thermal energy, driving sea-level rise, marine heatwaves, and shifting weather patterns."

18 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

No one is saying they are smarter than anyone, but maths are maths....

Instead of showing your math or working through Q = M x c x Delta T, you are hiding behind an "average of three AI models." Relying on an average of text summaries instead of executing basic multiplication is classic deflection.

To find out how much energy (Q) you need to heat something up, multiply how much of it you have (M) by how hard it is to warm up (c) by how many degrees you want to raise it (ΔT).

Averaging three AI hallucinations still doesn't beat high school maths.

"The AVERAGE temperature of the oceans has warmed by 1 degree C since the Industrial Revolution", is INCORRECT, you are conflating the Sea Surface Temperature (SST) with the entire ocean volume.

If the entire mass of the world's oceans had actually warmed by 1 C, thermal expansion alone would have already caused global sea levels to rise by roughly 2 to 3 meters (6 to 10 feet).

In reality, actual sea level rise observed since 1900 is about 20 centimeters (8 inches), directly confirming that warming is heavily concentrated in the thin upper layer of the ocean.

Bringing up the Irminger Current proves the stratification point, rather than refuting it.

The Irminger Current is an upper-to-intermediate Atlantic ocean current that flows at depths of 200 to 600 meters along the East Greenland shelf.

It delivers warm, salty subtropical water directly into glacial fjords, melting the shallow marine termini of Greenland's outlet glaciers (like Jakobshavn and Helheim).

This explicitly demonstrates that warming is concentrated in subsurface boundary currents near the top 600 meters—not in the 4,000-meter abyssal depths. Greenland is melting precisely because upper-ocean currents carry heat, not because the deep ocean floor has warmed by 1 C.

No one is attempting to "disprove" the First or Second Laws of Thermodynamics. The error lies in claiming that "Global warming is the 2nd Law, Climate change is the 1st Law."

Both physical laws operate simultaneously across all climate dynamics. Inventing an arbitrary split between "global warming" and "climate change" using two unified laws of physics is a rhetorical maneuver, not physical science.

"Averaging three AI hallucinations still doesn't beat high school maths".

You must remember not everyone finished high school, obviously some folks actually never even reached high school!😆

20 hours ago, KhunLA said:

You better pray it doesn't, as life would cease to exist.

... "AI Overview

Without carbon dioxide (CO₂), most life on Earth would indeed cease to exist. CO₂ is the foundational building block for plant food via photosynthesis, drives the base of the global food chain, and acts as a vital greenhouse gas that keeps Earth warm enough to support liquid water." ...

I don’t need to pray on the matter.

Eliminating CO2 is not a thing, it’s a strawman that plays well to people who let fossil fuel shill do their thinking.

Nobody is calling for the elimination of CO2.