Is the ocean broken?

If you want any scientific credibility you will need to select scientific studies. If you do that I will be interested in what you produce. And because the science has evolved, more recent studies are generally taken more seriously than older studies.

 

AGW attempts to add sparkle to it's politics using the good name of science. Doesn't work that way. All you suceed doing is lowering science to the disreputable level of politics. And nothing evolves. It's a busted theory.

Darwin’s Theory of Gradual Evolution Not Supported by Geological History, NYU Scientist Concludes https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2010/november/darwins-theory-of-gradual-evolution-not-supported-by-geological-history-nyu-scientist-concludes-.html

The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality | Quanta Magazine https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/

“DNA Evolution is Impossible” | Reilley Knott http://sites.nd.edu/reilley-knott/2020/04/24/dna-evolution-is-impossible/



So the idea society can evolve, Marx plagiarized from Darwinism is also garbage. He dedcated the Communist Manifesto to Darwin. Evidence suggests governments inevitably become worse, more authoritarian and less free. Not Better. I remember when we were freer than now. 1950s. Some groups were not freer then. No argument. Power corrupts. Government seldom deregulates. More and more laws and regulations are the norm. That is society devolving.

 

I mistakingly thought your report was going to be about AGW.

 

My report was an IF I wrote a report with the same ethics or lack of scientific ethics as the IPCC. They cherry pick. IPCC and AGW has no credibility.

 

Ocean temps began to rapidly rise later than we thought

• Previous calculations have often presented the rate of ocean warming as a gradual rise from the mid-20th century to today
  
• New findings suggest there wasn’t an onset of an imbalance until about 1990, which is later than most estimates
  
• These findings are the result of the addition of a largely underexplored factor in ocean heat content: deep ocean temperatures
  
• Because of the challenges involved in getting temperature measurements in the deep ocean (below 2,000 meters) that region has gone largely unaccounted for, and data has been sparse

The paper was published in Nature Communications.

 

data sparse? Certainly not global or remotely global so meaningless. Inconclusive, just more hoist and see who salutes rough speculations. If no one can disprove it, say anything. Not science, but politics has never been concerned with being ethical.

 

From your study:

Another study about deep ocean temperatures says the deep ocean is still cooling as a residual from the "Little Ice Age".
Harvard Study Shows Deep Oceans Are Actually Getting Colder - Electroverse https://electroverse.net/harvard-study-shows-deep-oceans-are-actually-getting-colder/
I can't imagine how that works, but this study suggests a cooling event that ended hundreds of years ago is still at work cooling the deep Pacific Ocean.

Even if they are straight up inventing the cause, they claim to have measured and collected the raw temperature data of the Pacific Ocean below 2000 feet and compared it to measurements taken over a hundred years ago by the HMS Challenger

To be clear, I do not believe the conclusions in this article, but the study was done and written about on the Harvard University Web site, so I assume the data is accurate.

-Will

 

Why?

 

Any discussion about science that hushes or shames dissenting points of view is not a discussion. It is tyrannical propaganda.

 

Because the article refers to a study that appears to be real, but does not draw the same conclusions. I did not read the study, but read a Harvard.edu-based synopsis instead, and they don't draw the conclusion that the Earth is heading for a cooling period in the study.

I don't see the data as indicative of either concluding that the deep ocean is still cooling due to the "Little Ice Age" or that we are heading for a cooling cycle.

It makes no sense that once a strong temperature variation, such as the "Little Ice Age" is removed from conducting ocean energy away, that that energy movement would continue beyond simple dissipation and entropy. How could any area continue to loose energy (cool) without some other area gaining it (warm) and do so, such that the coolest areas get cooler? If you shows me that the surface temperatures were cooler than the deep ocean temperatures, then I could believe the deep ocean could loose energy to the surface, but where the surface is warmer and less dense, I can't see the deep ocean energy moving away. If the Pacific deep ocean is cooling, it is because a heat source has been removed. Perhaps the core is off center and friction in the magma is warming the Atlantic while an asymmetrical cooling under the Pacific is causing asymmetrical core growth. Nothing to do with the "Little Ice Age".

-Will

 

Will,
You must have a very jaundiced view of the scientific community to disagree with an expert in a subject you know very little about without even bothering to read the rationale for how he come to his conclusions. You're reminding me more and more of Yob and Hoyt.

The Little Ice Age and 20th-century deep Pacific cooling https://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6422/70

 

I should add that the Electroverse article you linked to contained BOTH a synopsis of the scientist's study AND a bunch of questionable comments by the article's author, which were not supported by the scientific article.

 

You remind me of someone too. He spread propaganda for the little wallpaper hanger. I knew people who had to live under his regime. I know people who had to live under communism too. I don't want to live like that and I will resist you until the end.

 

You seem to advocate acceptance of ideas based on an authoritative status instead of applying one's own logic. I could be, probably am, wrong, but I don't see the logic in what the "authority" is telling me. It defies the education given to me by other "authorities" and thus, I doubt.

The fact that the author is an authority puts me in a more interested and receptive state for considering the ideas, but it does not make the arguement, not sway my own thinking.

-Will

 

Little i always appeals to authority for his arguments. He completely fails to understand we are each the foremost authority concerning our own bodies and minds. It's our God given right to be free of the whims of others and decide for ourselves. What's most amazing, he believes scientists are objective, immune to preconceptions, bias, prejudices and axes to grind like everyone else has.

Just as there are mediocre car mechanics and some dishonest ones, not all phd's are creme de la creme. All professions have there percentage of dregs except politicians are nearly all dregs.