The Ocean is broken

[Wild Cobra]

Believe as you wish. You suggest the trend continues from only the last 20 to 30 years of data shown, yet they didn't include the 1989 to 2000 pH data. I suggest the the trend continues as it has since 1850.

I think you should consider the statistical odds of which of us is correct.

Let me also remind you that there is more than CO2 as a factor for pH in the oceans. Carbonic acid is not the only form of CO2 and is not the only acidic factor. CO2 forms also produce their own buffering actions in equilibrium which is temperature dependent.

Did you know that pH decreases as temperature increases?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Believe as you wish. You suggest the trend continues from only the last 20 to 30 years of data shown, yet they didn't include the 12 years of data. I suggest the the trend continues as it has since 1850.

I think you should consider the statistical odds of which of us is correct.

Let me also remind you that there is more than CO2 as a factor for pH in the oceans. Carbonic acid is not the only form of CO2 and is not the only acidic factor. CO2 forms also produce their own buffering actions in equilibrium which is temperature dependent.

Did you know that pH decreases as temperature increases?

If you are unwilling to discuss the frequency considerations then I cannot help you. I linked the spectrum analysis and it does indeed e at said frequencies. That is why they give that time frame. That is the trend since 1850, dimwit. That is the whole point. this isn't probabilities, it's harmonics.

and no there are other factors. That is besides the point before you start regaling us with tales of calcium carbonate. buffers act like friction in that they only oppose a change but do not reverse it. If you add CO2 to the ocean the pH is going to go up.

you always do this. when you get exposed as being ignorant on a particular point you start listing all the things you do know about the subject. it's irrelevant and only underscores what you don't know so just stop.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

Are you too ignorant to see what you "always do?"

You repeatedly try to discredit people like me with nonsense.

Tell us again why I'm wrong and you are right and I am wrong about why 3 phase is used?

There are repeated examples I could dig up if I thought you were worth taking the time.

You simply aren't worth any more effort than a few words here and there to give me more laughs.

[The Reckoning]

it's probably tons of china pollutes the pacific with too

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

Are you too ignorant to see what you "always do?"

You repeatedly try to discredit people like me with nonsense.

Tell us again why I'm wrong and you are right and I am wrong about why 3 phase is used?

There are repeated examples I could dig up if I thought you were worth taking the time.

You simply aren't worth any more effort than a few words here and there to give me more laughs.

If I remember correctly I said it has to do with the peaks and troughs at 180 degree phase staggering the supply but by all means go ahead and dig them up. That thread was hilarious. I would love to revisit it, partschanger.

In the meantime lets reiterate that you discredited your original position and have demonstrated on this subject that you are talking out of your ass. You are now claiming that the dataset that was used to create your original graph was corrupt. Try and keep up with your sophistry better next time.

[Wild Cobra]

What was my original position that I discredited, and how?

I suggest it's all in your demented mind.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He should stop listening to the Climastrologists. CO2 can only change the pH a very small amount in its value changes. 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.



Of course, climastrologists like Manny lie to us, and tell us this drop since about 1960 is because of CO2.

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?

Do I need to connect the dots for you?

[Wild Cobra]

Do I need to connect the dots for you?

Yes.

It appears you are putting your bias into what I said, so please do.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes.

It appears you are putting your bias into what I said, so please do.

What article did that graph you posted come from?

What article am I being so blind to trust?

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

That's it?

You keep showing us how much of a joke you are.

What's wrong, don't have the balls to "spell it out?"

[Wild Cobra]

You are a ing idiot if you think linking an article means agreeing with all of it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

ffs you're surprising in how dumb you are. I go from thinking that you are trolling to you having some degree of MR or autism.

You just sat there and started talking about how they omitted data from their dataset. Now how do you think they put the graph together? Fine I will spell it out explicitly. The graph was put together using the data from what you are claiming is a bad dataset by people that you think intentionally falsified data.

It's like this that makes people not take you seriously and just laugh at you. I keep thinking to myself that he has to be trolling me, he cannot be that ing stupid and sure enough it does appear that you can be that stupid.

It's just sad.

[Wild Cobra]

I see...

You still fail to understand what I said... Or... like always... you are making up...

I never said the data was bad. I said it was incomplete.

Where is the pH for 1989 to 2000?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Seems to me they didn't like the pH data so they didn't include it.

How can you be so blind as to trust anything an article says?

Seems to me you are full of and you are just changing your story.

How can I trust anything an article says........ except for this graph that says what I think I want.

Seems to me they didn't like the pH data so they didn't include it...... except for everything in this graph that says what I think I want it to say.

It's sucha pathetic display of confirmation bias that it's sad. I pity you.

[Wild Cobra]

Why did they run some data to the year 2000, but not the pH? It stops in 1988...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why did they run some data to the year 2000, but not the pH? It stops in 1988...

Well why bother reading the article where they talk about the data collection and just make up bull that undermines your graph.

[Wild Cobra]

Well why bother reading the article where they talk about the data collection and just make up bull that undermines your graph.

I'm not making anything up. They ran the paper to 2000, but don't use and pH data after 1988. Instead, they suggest it follows the same downward trend.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not making anything up. They ran the paper to 2000, but don't use and pH data after 1988. Instead, they suggest it follows the same downward trend.

Actually no, they don't. And you made up the part about what they didn't 'like' so they omitted it. If you were to actually read the paper and look at the frequencies in question and the amplitude of said frequencies you would realize the said that the trend would be more basic counteracting the effects of increased CO2 until 2035 when the trend would reverse.

That is the thing about you, you have no interest in anything other than your preconceived narrative. You just fill the gaps in everything with it. It's why I have said that people such as yourself enable some real evil to go on. youre the perfect minion for a despot.

[Wild Cobra]

That's right.

Blindly believe their conclusions.

You sure are a good little lemming...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's right.

Blindly believe their conclusions.

You sure are a good little lemming...

I didn't go so far as to do the DFT myself, but I know the methodology and I know that other scientists reviewed it. I know how to read a spectral analysis and compare to their conclusions. that is hardly blind.

I do find it hilarious that you do not trust them to tell the truth in their findings but you do trust their graph. You're just a fool. I don't know how you could think that any objective individual reading this would think that you are anything but a dumbass.

[Wild Cobra]

So, after this rather constant cyclical pattern, and no pH data at these two reef locations since 1988, you believe the pattern breaks where the data ends?

When's the last time you had your head checked?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So, after this rather constant cyclical pattern, and no pH data at these two reef locations since 1988, you believe the pattern breaks where the data ends?

When's the last time you had your head checked?

So you think they were intentionally trying to mislead us?

[Wild Cobra]

So you think they were intentionally trying to mislead us?

Intention or not, the data conveniently stops at the low point of the cycle, and you "suggest" it continues that trend of getting lower.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Intention or not, the data conveniently stops at the low point of the cycle, and you "suggest" it continues that trend of getting lower.

I just told you what the spectral analysis and subsequent frequencies said. It's not my fault if you still cannot understand it and you clearly do not.

It's obvious you have your mind made up and I am sure that any objective individual who reads this see what is what so I am done wasting my time watching you fumble about.

[Wild Cobra]

You really should go back to my first post in this thread and realize what I was saying. I was pointing out that the natural pH variations are far larger than the small changes CO2 makes.

Do you deny that?