Not really. A decade is fairly meaningless in context.
Like I said, you can debate about whether a decade is meaningful.
Not really. A decade is fairly meaningless in context.
Even I can grok that.
So much said -- so little comprehension.
:facepalm.
You can debate whether a stove is hot too. Or if water is wet. Or whether or not you're a good poster.
See the trend?
When all else fails, take the low road paved by boutons and FuzzyLumpturd.
Im sorry youre angry the low standard you maintain upsets you darrin. Ive practically begged you for a bit of introspection. You shouldnt expect more out of others than you expect out of yourself.
You're hurling insults and I'M the one who's angry? Mmmkay.
Historical Station Distribution
See any potential issues?
Darrin, are you crazy?
These people can't see outside their own little box. How do you expect them to comprehend that?
lol?
Do you even realize what you post?
Satellites.
LOL...
Not comparable to actual physical reading. You do understand that, right?
Yeah because talking about how the statistics are normalized compared to what is presented by the mining lobby says nothing. Talking about how taking random noise from a small sample is meaningless when looking for trends.
In your world blanket dismissals is more compelling than actually looking at what is being done. You behave like a shill.
So one side of your brain makes this argument and the other side of your brain claims to appreciate what BEST has done.
I present:
http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkele...on-quality.pdf
I will just cut to the chase:
You really do not appreciate what they are doing. You just give it lip service and then try in action to discredit their findings. As I say, you behave like a shill.Based on both slope analysis and on temperature record reconstruction for the
contiguous United States, using the temperature evaluations of Fall et al. [2009], we
conclude that poor station quality in the United States does not unduly bias estimates
of land surface average monthly temperature trends. No similar study is possible for
the rest of the world because we do not have indicators of good/bad station quality;
however, the lack of a significant difference in US stations suggests that such effects
may be minimal.
Obviously, the oceans are the source of the CO2 because they are like a soda.
/WC
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...may-be-fastest
How can you expect anyone to take you serious with such nonsense?
You did equate the ocean to a fizzing soda or are you really trying to denigrate SciAm?
Not the way you guys are making it sound asshole. Temperature and solubility apply the same way, just to a lesser degree in the oceans than in a soda, beer, champagne, etc. I only used an example that those unfamiliar with the sciences can relate to. Your wanting to use it as a tool against me is a joke. It proves you cannot discuss this by merit when you resort to such tactics.
Go ahead. Keep digging yourself a deeper whole by purposely misunderstanding. And if you Aren't purposely misunderstanding, then I pity you.
Ocean Ph going up because its a soda and is releasing CO2
You are just too stupid to argue on the facts, aren't you?
Oh I understand the science, chachi. I just asked you a question which you were claiming. You did say the ocean was a big soda. i never asked anything like, 'So is the surf like the fizz?' or similar.
The only problem with your theory is the oceans ph is going down and not up and you do not even attempt to quantify it. CO2 dissociates carbonates and leaves a net ph decrease. You need more CO2 dissolved to lower the ph. The oceans ph is going down. Your theory falls apart really easily.
It did when you were arguing it years ago too. Its things like this that make people say you are dumb. We have talked about these various things over the years and you bring up the introductory arguments again like thos e preceding discussions never happened. People just ridicule you because either you are intentionally ignoring what was said which is not very nice or you are unable to recall with your mental faculties what was said so you just start over.
You could change your tactics or you can continue to be made fun of.
There are more factors involved, including time and the oceans circulation. The equilibrium of the carbon and calcium combinations change with temperature and pH independently as well. You cannot show cause an effect without accounting for all variables.
Oh but you can make the claim that the ocean is a soda and releasing net CO2 but its becoming more acidic anyway because of calcium? Calcium is an antacid which is not the same as a base. You just parrot the same that you have read elsewhere without fully understanding it once again.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions