Choosing to only show that time period is a form of manipulation.But they're manipulating the data!
I got this far FuzzNuts, and stopped:
Seasonal effects of temperature and salinity on the partial pressure of CO2 in seawater
"seasonal..." Trying to make me die laughing? Where is the long term change?
What about when there is more warming year round? What about when the annual averages increase?
Don't you get it FuzzNuts...
I'll try this simplification.
If I have a temperature in which the seasonal high and seasonal lows cancel each other out for a net effect of zero, then we are in balance for the year. If I raise my average annual global water temperature, then the seasonal high temperature causes more sourcing than before, and the seasonal low causes less sinking of CO2. Now we have a net source. The reverse is true is we cool the average annual waters. The sourcing effect is less, and the sinking effect is more, for an annual average sinking effect.
Is 200 years not relevant?
Thats the source of your solubility chart you dumbass. Look at it. Notice the name Weiss? You are now arguing that your chart that you have been using for the last two years is bad.
You are really ing dumb.
I didn't say it was irrelevant. I'm saying it is manipulative. It has been standard practice of the agw crowd to try and scare people into agreeing with them. Showing only 200 years is a great way to say look at the huge temp e, you're all going to die, be afraid. They could show this temp graph but the average person wouldn't find it quite as scary.
No, I'm not saying Weiss' chart is bad. You are too stupid to understand the nuances.
Why do you say it's bad?
I see; you can't answer the direct question. Thanks.
That's my complaint about these AGW lemmings.
They will link material all day long, but they cannot put it in their own words, showing that they understand what they are agreeing with.
I understand the nuance where you have been trying to use the chart using his formula to derive to demonstrate that the ocean has just been fizzinlg like a soda to explain the long term trends. So its okay for you to use the data with made up numbers over a long period of time but when scientists use it in their models with actual empirical data it's not?
I will ask the question again: does anyone on this board think that another semiregular poster is dumber than WC?
In the context of cycles that run eons? Probably not.
Idiot.
That study has nothing to do with long term, change. It says "seasonal."
Please... quote me the part you think matters, or put it I your own words.
Notice in your quoted formula where it show the net uptake, that it treats temperature and salinity as another variable... What happens when temperature changes?
This article acknowledges temperature has an effect. It however does not quantify that effect as a long term net change. It is a seasonal study.
Um what? Thats the time frame covered by the BEST study and thats their graphic. Why on earth would they show more?
I find it really scary that you said my chart with error bars was manipulative and yours with a thin line to a time before instrumentation as somehow honest.I didn't say it was irrelevant. I'm saying it is manipulative. It has been standard practice of the agw crowd to try and scare people into agreeing with them. Showing only 200 years is a great way to say look at the huge temp e, you're all going to die, be afraid. They could show this temp graph but the average person wouldn't find it quite as scary.
REALLY?
If thats what you want to take from this then go right ahead.
According to your scientific expertise in the matter, correct?
Its VERY significant. I actually study the climate. I don't just read blogs.
Since the beginning of time?
Nope. Its been ice free before.
I don't care in what is your expertise; 200 hundred years in the context of a planetary life of what is it, 4 billion years, is not significant. I doesn't mean squat.According to your scientific expertise in the matter, correct?
Its VERY significant. I actually study the climate. I don't just read blogs.
So, Manny, why did they quit factoring out the heat sink effect when normalizing temperatures?
1 minute in the existence of a planet can be relevant. Just because something has existed for a long period of time doesn't mean it can't be changed very quickly. Thats a pretty stupid argument to make.
Go read the BEST study if you want information about temperature calculations. I've told you several times.
PS I know you don't car what people with actual expertise in the field have to say. You've made that quite obvious. You listen to bloggers.
I thought we were talking about a 200 year trend being significant -- not an event.
Yes, you've told me several times to go read another study. Probably because you're unable to answer the question.
Actually, the blogger I posted was just repeating the assertion of a scientist.
Have the people responsible for analyzing the global temperature changed the manner by which they normalize the raw data? Why? And, to what effect?
Seems like fairly straightforward questions for a person claiming expertise in the field.
I gave you the answer. Its not my fault you can't read.
A 200 year trend has a cause. Aka an event.
Why on earth would they not show more? Clearly they were not opposed to using estimated temps.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
