Reply With Quote
Yes.. I program robots. People still operate and repair automation equipment. It doesn't benefit our workers when we buy from china, Malaysia, etc, now, does it?
Wouldn't you rather have these jobs here?
Life sucks. Get a helmet.
Robots are replacing humans and no amount of un-exporting is goign to change that.
Deal with the world as it is, not as it was.
Yes.. I program robots. People still operate and repair automation equipment. It doesn't benefit our workers when we buy from china, Malaysia, etc, now, does it?
Wouldn't you rather have these jobs here?
Sure. Let's just get some government controls on imports, then have the government set wages to get everybody up to some decent pay.
Good to see we finally agree on the solution.
Wow, you still don't understand how caps work. It has nothing to do with car stereos as I pointed out then. It has everything to do with how caps behave and because of it it is possible to get obnoxiously high capacitance values. I know nothing more about car stereos in particular over most electronics. Extremely large cap values were possible as far back as the 19th century when farraday was still ing around with them. You call me stupid and do not back it up. I call you stupid and point out that you work with capacitors every day in your work yet do not understand the additive principles behind them.
The heat exchange was about the functions describing CO2 and heat between the oceans and more specifically about how YOUR rocket scientist guy made claims about climate model functions. You quoted nothing but a blog. I did bring up the PSU paper that had the model in it so we could discuss it though. How stupid of me!
And do not think I have no noticed that you didn't discuss the upper and lower bounds of the system we were discussing before. You have at this point granted that you are wrong and had not considered that in the context of the oceans current ph trajectory.
My God man.
I have several mentioned tariffs and never government controls as broad as that implies. I have never advocated wage control.
Are you Fuzzy's brother making up in your mind of what I mean?
Look at his idiotic post that follows your. He too, assumes and argues against things that I didn't say as well.
I wuz in' with you, holmes. IT was meant to be a bit of sarcasm, and irony. The things you seem to want to do are the result of the free market at work, and the only real solutions to the problems you identified are not going to come out of the same free market that created them.
I like a national free market. Not a global one. I believe our founding fathers had it right when they mention tariffs in the cons ution.
Coward. We have admitted that you had not considered the bounds of the pH system and how the current trajectory relates to them nor how that relates to the OP.
That is all I really care about. You can front like the rest all you like.
Kill all Asians.
I'm not coward. I just don't feel it necessary to defend myself against your delusions. You need also to elaborate better if you want a repose. I don't read minds. If you speak of what I think you do, outside those imaginary bounds is simply a statistical outlier.
Have a link for all you accused me of earlier, so we can have full context instead of your imagination?
Funny thing is, the reported lack of fish was on the first leg of the trip. The ocean currents would keep the effect away from the fish from from what happened in Japan, during that leg of the trip, until near Japan. It was the second and third leg of his trip that he found the debris.
And yet when I call you on said cowardice you respond. You can claim whatever you want. Your actions speak for themselves.
There is a minimum and maximum in that pH cycle from what you linked. That is not imaginary.
The fact that it is an outlier from the system makes it alarming. You're right it is not within the normal scope yet the trajectory is what it is.
Its pretty obvious at this point you are just throwing against the wall.
Link of what? You doubled down on the car stereo stupidity. I didn't need a link as you did it on your own.
Fuzzy, it is what it is. If you wish to hang your reputation on a statistical outlier, then have at it. Your reputation can't get any worse anyway.
i have to ask... Did you run out of Preparation H?
The article is about the trajectory relative to said limits. You can try and claim it is an 'outlier' so as to dismiss it just speaks to your ignorance to the concept. The trajectory of said change is what is important. Your graph indicates that the pH is lower by about .05 from any other point on the graph. There are no indications that the ocean is becoming more basic. Instead it shows the opposite. If you want to cross your fingers and just hope it's all going to be okay then you are a fool.
This goes back to what RG repeatedly comes back to in risk analysis. The comparison of outcomes and relative cost. We have already gone over what the actuarial community sees in that.
I don't care what their opinion is from what is still just one data point.
Don't you get it?
It's only one data point!
That was single data point from a graph that you were using to try and justify your nonsense. At the very least you have discredited your original position when you posted your graph. Nevermind your bull flailing since then which you have now abandoned.
The acidity of that particular reef is outside of any known bound. How about you pull up more studies and try and make arguments that you do not fully understand once more. This time resulted in your position being turned on you and you giving up the argument with a whine of, "I don't care."
And remember that Bertrand Russell quote?
This once again fits you like a glove. You posted that graph trying to make a case for the same ty cyclical argument similar to the one that BEST discredited with the frequency analysis in regards to surface temperatures. You did not use critical thinking to look at the graph and see what the most recent data point was nor did you read the study to see what they said on the matter.
Instead you translated it onto something else ie what you wanted it to say. Why? Because you are a stupid man.
No, I was showing that pH is shown to have a cyclical type pattern. I was using the graph as a whole. Not a single data point. This pattern has no indication of being swayed by CO2 levels. If you can derive a small drop in pH over average of the graph, it is well withing noise levels.
It is so ing funny watching you make yourself out to be a monumental fool, almost every time you post.
Are you really going to stand by that isolated statement? You are going to claim the pH cycle is not swayed by CO2 levels?
Noise levels? What do you think bounds of a cycle means? Read the paper. They do a spectrum analysis just like BEST did. They relate the cycle to externalities.
I don't know why I even bother. For anyone who is not a moron, the paper states that in 2035 the cycle is going to trend towards more acidity and that combined with what we know about what happens when CO2 dissolves in water will be even more of an issue than what we are currently experiencing.
It's a good paper and the spectrum analysis does e very obviously with little external noise at the frequency in question. You can see the spectrum analysis here http://www.sciencemag.org/content/su...lejero.SOM.pdf
Wild Dumbass seems to think that just showing that it is a cycle just makes it so that all variability is natural and nothing to worry about. People that actually know how to analyze periodicity know that to be simpleminded foolishness.
It is. It's okay you have already been judged for how willfully stupid you are so no more harm done.
So tell me how I should interpret the spectrum analysis?
Should it be something obviously unbiased and totally not centered around the conclusion I want based on my political allegiance such as:
We are getting back into harmonics again. If you really want to be shamed again, try and answer the question.The normal variations are far more than CO2 can. In fact, there is a normal cyclical pattern of pH changes most people are unaware of.
Fuzzy.
Why does their pH data end at 1988 but other data goes on to 2000 in the 2005 article?
Seems to me they didn't like the pH data so they didn't include it.
Now all this time frame, the pH included roughly stays withing the Pacific Oscillation pattern.
How can you be so blind as to trust anything an article says?
But now you are rejecting the dataset claiming that they must be willfully omitting contrary data. We have come full circle and you lack even a semblance of creativity. If you are going to throw against the wall to see if it sticks at least try and throw new . You have now discredited your initial graph. Bravo, dumbass.confirmation bias at its finest.
You have no idea how they compiled the data nor normalized the data. You dismiss their conclusion as biased but accept their dataset because you think a cyclical pH cycle dismisses the concern over ocean acidification?
It's sad enough that you weren't sure what your 'proxy' was in the first place.
I was hoping you would take a stab at the frequency analysis. At least you learned better than to do that again.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions