5 ms·

The link in the article about measuring global warming by the speed of sound through the SOFAR channel is genius IMHO: https://www.science.org/content/article/

The link in the article about measuring global warming by the speed of sound through the SOFAR channel is genius IMHO: https://www.science.org/content/article/ocean-s-hidden-heat-measured-earthquake-sounds https://www.science.org/content/article/ocean-s-hidden-heat-... The embedded video shows how much energy in zettajoules the ocean has absorbed at the 20 second mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPH1TFgv6m8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPH1TFgv6m8 This is stuff that just can't be unseen, regardless of how hard deniers keep denying.

zmgsabst 5y ago
That chart claims there’s 0 ZJ in 1970… which seems unlikely, since the planet wasn’t at absolute zero then. I think you’d come across as more credible if the chart showed the contextualized change — rather than clearly being edited for dramatic effect.
- throwaway5752 5y ago
  It's assumed the viewer will be able to understand that it is the starting frame of reference, not absolute zero.
  - zmgsabst 5y ago
    Duh — but a reference/baseline you don’t share and showing only de-contextualized change scaled to “look scary” is classic lying with statistics. How much change does 200 ZJ represent? We’re purposefully not told that information because that chart is propaganda meant to make an emotional argument and not informational argument — and I think it speaks to the person I was replying to that they’re using emotive arguments rather than fact based arguments. Particularly when lobbing ad hominems at others.
  - Cthulhu_ 5y ago
    There's this saying about assumptions, I forgot what it was... Anyway, it's better to be clear than make assumptions about the audience, and you know that bad charts are a big contributor to the spread of misinformation and confusion.
dontcare007 5y ago
Wow, knowingly releasing data that could negatively affect National Security.... - "We didn't tell the Navy that if you published the signal, which we did, then you could figure out where the receivers were,"
- dontcare007 5y ago
  Negative points and no discussion of why? The quote was in the first of the linked articles.
jiveturkey 5y ago
> regardless of how hard deniers keep denying. sorry, but lol. We've had very good evidence for some time. This is "just" something additional. The deniers aren't operating on evidence.
- jkubicek 5y ago
  You can't reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place
ErikVandeWater 5y ago
It's funny how this thread is making fun of people for not taking climate change seriously when the thing that "can't be unseen" is a chart with no title and no error bars that cuts off ~9 years before the video was published.

zmgsabst 5y ago

That chart claims there’s 0 ZJ in 1970… which seems unlikely, since the planet wasn’t at absolute zero then. I think you’d come across as more credible if the chart showed the contextualized change — rather than clearly being edited for dramatic effect.

throwaway5752 5y ago
It's assumed the viewer will be able to understand that it is the starting frame of reference, not absolute zero.
- zmgsabst 5y ago
  Duh — but a reference/baseline you don’t share and showing only de-contextualized change scaled to “look scary” is classic lying with statistics. How much change does 200 ZJ represent? We’re purposefully not told that information because that chart is propaganda meant to make an emotional argument and not informational argument — and I think it speaks to the person I was replying to that they’re using emotive arguments rather than fact based arguments. Particularly when lobbing ad hominems at others.
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago
  There's this saying about assumptions, I forgot what it was... Anyway, it's better to be clear than make assumptions about the audience, and you know that bad charts are a big contributor to the spread of misinformation and confusion.

dontcare007 5y ago

Wow, knowingly releasing data that could negatively affect National Security.... - "We didn't tell the Navy that if you published the signal, which we did, then you could figure out where the receivers were,"

dontcare007 5y ago
Negative points and no discussion of why? The quote was in the first of the linked articles.

jiveturkey 5y ago

> regardless of how hard deniers keep denying. sorry, but lol. We've had very good evidence for some time. This is "just" something additional. The deniers aren't operating on evidence.

jkubicek 5y ago
You can't reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place

ErikVandeWater 5y ago

It's funny how this thread is making fun of people for not taking climate change seriously when the thing that "can't be unseen" is a chart with no title and no error bars that cuts off ~9 years before the video was published.