Is the ocean broken?

I agree that it is a civil debate, but it's not even clear whether most of the debaters are even scientists, let alone climate scientists. The only person who seems to know what he is talking about is Douglas Nuttall, though I have no idea what his credentials are. And I don't see that a conclusion was reached that CO2 does not/can not cause climate warming.

Here are most of the other debaters:
Michael Kowalik - Independent ["Independent" of what?]
Emmanuel V Murray - National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development
Emmanuel Uzohuo - Federal Polytechnic Nekede, Owerri, Nigeria
Zagir Ataev - Dagestan State Pedagogical University
Harasit Kumar Paul - Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University
Robert Gerard van de Ketterij - Ministry of Defense, Netherlands

If you think these "scientists" represent cutting edge scientific research in Climate Change, it is no wonder you are so confused.

 

Civil debate or civil war?
Let's be civil, not Sybil. Sibelius is good.
There are no civilians in a civil war.

 

You fail to accept people other than your "SCIENTISTS" have valid opinions. If that is NOT true, then go away, your own opinion has zero value.

 

I quite agree with you. I'm no scientist, let alone a climate scientist. That's why I present the "opinion" of climate scientists, not my own opinion (usually). And that is also why I discount your and Hoyt's and Gonzo's opinion -- because none of you are climate scientists, and because at least some of you seem to regularly be parroting what you hear in church rather than studying the "opinions" of subject-matter experts. If I criticized how you captain a ship based on the obscure opinion of someone who lived 2,000 to 4,000 years ago, you'd think me daffy -- and rightly so.

 

You have no idea what my science is.
Do you know why mountains only reach a certain height and no more?
Do you know what happens to a landmass when you remove its icy burden?
Do you know that the Canadian Shield is still rebounding from the last ice age?
Do you know that that rebounding of the northern end causes a sinking of the southern end, like a board on a teeter totter?
Do you know that the crust upon which you stand is actually floating, not on water, on magma?
Do you know that all these factors work and are interdependent together?

 

Your view is an elitist one, that only certain elite opinions matter. My opinion is your climate scientists were brainwashed as students to a nefarious ideology in a college run by ideologues. The two cultures in this country are on collission course. Mountain ranges like the Himalayas weren't created slowly upheaving over a lengthy time. Erosion would have cleared them away faster than they could rise. They were created by continents slamming into each other at speed. Hang on to something.

 

The Himalayas are as high as they can get because the magma beneath can't support(float) any more weight. Melt the snow on the Himalayas and they will float higher. You couldn't if you tried. Even if you nuked them the ice would reform in a short time.

 

Guilty as charged.

I prefer my brain surgeons to have acquired the relevant Fellowship. I prefer my plumbers to have their journeymen cards. I prefer my airplane pilots to be checked out on the airplanes they fly. I prefer my ship captains to hold masters licenses.

And I prefer my climate change information to come from multiple scientific disciplines, by multiple PhD scientists, which collectively present a coherent physical explanation backed by empirical data and scientific theory.

Sorry, but you only qualify for one of the disciplines mentioned above. Not really interested in your opinions on the other topics, no matter how fervently you hold them.

 

My qualifications are as a thinking person, not a parrot of a broken ideology. You are correct you don't care about what other people think. Unfortunately for you, normal people can be persuaded by logical rational discussion., and make up their own minds. Further more, they actually resent being considered sheep. Take care you don't confuse wolves with sheep.

 

I prefer to deal with minds of depth, not just Piled high and Deep.

 

Well, in that case I'm honored that you keep responding to my posts. <laugh>

 

Reluctantly I admit, that is a good rejoinder.

 

Touché.
Mon cœur saigne.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjABegQIAhAE&usg=AOvVaw3zOhh9NYYkgb87M3O40_dm
"Global mean sea level has risen about 8–9 inches (21–24 centimeters) since 1880, with about a third of that coming in just the last two and a half decades."
So, since 1990, that's approximately 80 mm. of sea level rise. (8-1/2" since 1990)

Assuming these numbers are average over time:
20mm in the '90s
+
3.2mm×15=48mm, from 2000 to 2015
+
4.8×5=24mm, since 2015
= 20+48+24=92mm or 9.2cm or 3-5/8" since 1990.
The data is consistent with NOAA.

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

3-5/8" since 1990?
Dangerous. Somebody build an ark for all of us to refuge from the flood.