Is the ocean broken?

The article has claims that are diametrically different from yours. In fact, it states that "Previous studies have found that comparing to the historical period, from the middle to high emission scenarios, the North Atlantic OHU takes more and more percentages in global OHU while the Southern Ocean OHU takes less and less share even though the Southern Ocean still contributes most to global OHU. However, the regional OHU change under the low-emission scenario is not well understood." Seems that in general you take a lot of liberties with facts and the truth.

 

Your quote refers to previous studies. You have not stated what the results of the current study is, nor have you pointed out where my synopsis does not agree with what the article said.

 

And you haven't told us when there wasn't climate change.

 

I answered your RED HERRING question in post 1005.

 

Imaginary Number is always evasive, misquotes and invents factoids to support his opinion.

 

Graph in post 1005 does NOT answer the question! The graph is distorted by compressing part of the timeline and extending part of the timeline in order to make it look like something it isn't.

 

If you find the graph to be beyond your capability to understand, read the text.

 

Climate change: China's forest carbon uptake 'underestimated'

• China is the world's biggest source of human-produced carbon dioxide, responsible for around 28% of global emissions
• China has pledged to peak those emissions before 2030 and then to move to carbon neutrality by 2060
• To reach those goals it must make deep cuts in fossil fuel use as well as pulling carbon out of the atmosphere
• China has planted billions of trees to tackle desertification and soil loss
• Two newly forested areas in China, about 35% of the country's land carbon "sink," has been underestimated
  
• However, a new forests' ability to draw down carbon declines with time as the growth rate declines and the systems move towards a more steady state

 

I well understand your intentionally misleading graph.
Your attempt to distort facts failed.

 

The graph posted by ImaginaryNumber shows millions of years of a tropical planet versus a few thousand years of temporary Ice ages. The other graphs he posted previously are of weather in a minute portion of the Earth's history, and at the end of the last Ice age. However, most of his posts are made up factoids. Comically, if you read the links ImaginaryNumber posts, they often contradict his opinions.

 

Actually, there are a number of periods of time when Earth is thought to have been almost, of not completely, frozen over for tens of millions of years at a stretch. That is why I challenged your idea that "tropical" is Earth's natural state. It is not. Earth has not had any one natural state.

Also, the "temporary Ice ages" that we are now in are not "a few thousand years," but have been cycling a couple of millions of years, which the chart I posted shows.

Snowball Earth

Estimate of Proterozoic glacial periods.
Dating of pre-Gaskiers glaciations is uncertain.
As for the Kaigas, its very existence is doubted by some.
An earlier and longer possible snowball phase,
the Huronian glaciation, is not shown.

 

Show us the ice.

 

It's packed solidly between your ears.

 

The stuff between your ears attracts flies I'm guessing.

 

Per the forum moderator's request we are not allowed to copy and paste whole articles, or even substantial portions of articles. "Factoids" is the best I can do. I strongly suggest that before commenting on a post you read the linked articles --- or better yet, the scientific study that the article is reporting on. It's pretty clear from some of the comments that some member don't read the articles before favoring us with their nonsense.