Ocean Heat Has Shattered Records for More Than a Year. What’s Happening?

The devastating effects of AGW are only starting to be felt now. Up until about... this point (and maybe we aren't there yet) it has only been "too hot". But the most devastating consequences should continue getting worse and worse between now and the end of the century. And there is no way to revert them now. You can thank your pseudo-science blogs for having a hand on this. Only thing we could do now is not make them worse. Technology to deal with them may or may not keep up. We don't know that for sure, but it is very unlikely that it will.

 

That is contrary to the way science works. Science is based on questioning. In that way, more and more is learned each day.

 

Yes. YOU.

Your statement was: "Globally fires are becoming less of a problem AS the planet warms." (caps added for emphasis)

Similar phrases in English:
"Sally is becoming better in her tennis skills AS she practices"
"John is becoming grumpier AS he gets old"
"Traffic is becoming less of a problem AS vehicles are restricted from entering the city"

Causality is OBVIOUS.

Now... if you want to CORRECT your statement... just do it! But don't blame anybody else for what YOU write.

There is an inverse correlation between the number people who die trying to get to space and the increase in manned space missions.

The above would be considered an absurd statement UNLESS we were trying to establish causation.

 

Why even bother with such absurd fabrications?

 

Uhm.... because the GW part in AGW literally STANDS for "Global Warming".

Nah! Just English.

I don't necessarily understand "THE" science (climatology requires 6 to 8 years of studies in higher education). But I do understand SCIENCE very well.

What scientists believe is irrelevant. Only thing that matters is what they can PROVE.

I don't know. Is believing FACTS considered "politically correct"?

 

You have no clue how science works. Despite the fact that you have been corrected... too many times to count, you STILL insist again and again that "science" is what scientists "believe".

 

Obviously, you don't know enough basic climate science -- and never will -- to know that higher temperature accelerates the hydrological cycle, increasing precipitation and reducing fire hazards. Wet grass and trees don't burn.

It hasn't changed much in 50 years.

 

You are in error. As usual your unsubstantiated opinion conflicts with evidence. Let’s have a look at some. From “science news explores” to start.

https://www.snexplores.org/article/scientists-say-correlation-causation-definition-pronunciation

Causality is not obvious in your above examples. Sally could be getting better at tennis because she is becoming physically more powerful from growth caused by nutrition or hormone driven physical maturity. Her improvement is not necessarily caused by practice.

Your problem is you don’t know enough about biology or science in general to be taken seriously in such discussions. Your assumption that a person is becoming better at tennis BECAUSE of practice flies in the face of not only logic, but biological sciences and even the scientific method.

You are welcome to admit your error but you won’t. You will post fallacy. So post fallacy. Ignore evidence you are incorrect. It’s amusing.

 

Sorry, but the "devastating effects" thus far are zero.

 

But does not stand for "primary ...."

I have had more higher education than that including around five years in the sciences.

But ultimately, proving means that they believe it. If they did not believe it, it would not be considered proven.

But how do you know they are facts, if you do not understand the science.

If scientists did not believe it, it would not be considered proven.

I am still waiting on a valid reason of why you believe AGW is the primary cause of global warming.

 

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

Why are you trying to pretend that local weather is global climate?

​

"Suggests" but does not provide credible empirical evidence.

 

Yep! We have the same old drones, Instant Foam, RVCs, AI sensors, satellite monitoring systems... we had 50 years ago.

 

That's about as silly as it gets from someone who likes to invoke epistemology.
The statement presents two unrelated things. As:
"John continued working AS the hours passed."
The hours do not cause John's work.

 

Logic is not exactly your strong suit, is it?

Ain't that the truth....

You have repeatedly proved you do not:

See? Empirical science does not deal in proofs.

 

Correct! But if THAT were the point, THAT would be what you would be writing about. Not about her practicing.

"AS", in this phrase structure, indicates cause... Otherwise you don't USE "as". Especially because you are responding to a post ABOUT cause.

The more you look for excuses, the more obvious it is that you are talking nonsense!

 

I don’t need excuses. I’m using language of science as demonstrated by my source cited. Your opinions that conflict with logic and science are noted.

You are welcome to critique the cited source and/or correct your erroneous examples. But I’m uninterested in your further fallacious arguments.

 

Could be. That's why I said "maybe we aren't there yet". However, as more and more of the expected consequences are becoming visible... that "maybe" part draws closer and closer to a "we definitely are there"

 

It would be amazing that a phenomenon is named after a cause that is not primary.

In any case, discussions with you invariably devolve into the ridiculous. Even more than what this one has already devolved into. And sometimes that's fun... But today I'm just not in the mood. Maybe tomorrow...

 

But that does not "prove" anything.

You hide behind that excuse every time you cannot answer a question.

Just more question. How do you know that it has been proved?

 

Not going into the grammatical nuances which tell us that in "is becoming" the verb (to be) is stative (refers to a state), while in "continued working" the verb (to continue) is dynamic (refers to an action).

Instead let's do it like this:

To any rational reader: Please compare
"Globally fires are becoming less of a problem AS the planet warms."

to

"John continued working AS the hours passed."

and then to

"Sally is becoming better in her tennis skills AS she practices"
"John is becoming grumpier AS he gets old"
"Traffic is becoming less of a problem AS vehicles are restricted from entering the city"

To which structure does "Globally fires are becoming less of a problem AS the planet warms." compare to better in your mind?

Especially given that the context of this WHOLE thread is the CAUSE of those fires.

The more you try to justify the unjustifiable with such ridiculous excuses, the more any reader of average intelligence or above can discern who is making up the B.S.

 

It doesn't. It only answers your question.

 

We aren't moving there at all.

 

Not even close.

However, how do you know that it is proved that AGW is the primary cause of global warming?

 

You are being misled both by inadequate language skills and your preconceived notions of climate.
The simple part first:
"Globally fires are becoming less of a problem AS the planet warms."
is to be paired with
"John continued working AS the hours passed."
because both describe two ongoing things not in a causal relationship.

The assumption of causation is provided only by your own preconceived notion -- bias.

 

It makes no difference if it's ongoing. "Work" refers to an action. "Become" refers to a state. But any English speaker in the forum who looks at it objectively can look at my post and decide where it fits best. However, in the end, it doesn't actually matter. The fact is that the post he is responding to is about a CAUSE.... So there can be no doubt that the context is CAUSE.