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.
Create an account or sign in to comment