"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

.... accumulation of carbon dioxide, methane and other heat-trapping
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - byproducts of power plants,
automobiles and other fossil fuel burners.

Carbon dioxide and methane? I thought those were products of
oxygen-breathing mammals and flatuating cows.

NOYB wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

.... accumulation of carbon dioxide, methane and other heat-trapping
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - byproducts of power plants,
automobiles and other fossil fuel burners.

Carbon dioxide and methane? I thought those were products of
oxygen-breathing mammals and flatuating cows.

I already predicted what you'd say.

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

NOYB wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

.... accumulation of carbon dioxide, methane and other heat-trapping
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - byproducts of power plants,
automobiles and other fossil fuel burners.

Carbon dioxide and methane? I thought those were products of
oxygen-breathing mammals and flatuating cows.

I already predicted what you'd say.

yes, they had to find some other "threat" since global temps started
dropping after 2004. It's global acid, that's why those coral atolls are
sinking, they are dissolving.

yes, they had to find some other "threat"

I'm Curious. Who are "They" and what could "They" possibly have to gain
from making this stuff up?

--
Message posted via http://www.boatkb.com

I was in the laboratory measuring pH when I read the article published
on the increasing pH because of global warming.

If you read the original article you would see that the difference in pH
they are talking about is in the neighborhood of 0.03 pH units. This is
insignificant and does not indicative anything except the precision of
the pH measurement and the sampling. Since the difference is the
precision of the measurements there is nothing to do with global warming.

pH is a theoretical amount of Hydrogen molecules in the solutions. In
practice pH is a measure of the impurities in water, and is
significantly affected by the temperature of the solution. It is also
affected by the actual materials in the solutions as the the amount of
Hydrogen ions are affected by the interactions of the compounds in the
solutions.

pH is measured using the electrical properties of the solution. Because
of the quality of the electronics the precision of the measurements are
several powers more accurate than the precision of the chemical
properties that are being measured.

The electronics are standardized against two reference solutions. The
accuracy of these solutions is about +/- 0.01 based on the suppliers of
the standards. See a typical specification sheet for one of those
standards is at

http://www.coleparmer.com/catalog/pr...sp?sku=0594242

In practice the precision of laboratory measurements of pH is about +/-
0.03 one one sample. When you take dozens of samples there is
additional error. So you can see the differences they are trying to get
funding to study is nothing but the precision of the measurement of the
pH. (If you google you can find many papers on the laboratory precision
of pH measurements.)

Because of the inaccuracy in pH, the specifications for the drugs you
take are usually stated to 0.1 pH units.

Now, if someone can explain to me how they can say there is a 0.4 degree
change in the mean temperature of the earth when the daily temperature
difference across the surface of the earth is about 100 degrees. I don't
know much about temperature reading and statistics.


scbafreak via BoatKB.com wrote:
yes, they had to find some other "threat"


I'm Curious. Who are "They" and what could "They" possibly have to gain
from making this stuff up?

keith_nuttle wrote:
I was in the laboratory measuring pH when I read the article published
on the increasing pH because of global warming.

If you read the original article you would see that the difference in pH
they are talking about is in the neighborhood of 0.03 pH units. This is
insignificant and does not indicative anything except the precision of
the pH measurement and the sampling. Since the difference is the
precision of the measurements there is nothing to do with global warming.

pH is a theoretical amount of Hydrogen molecules in the solutions. In
practice pH is a measure of the impurities in water, and is
significantly affected by the temperature of the solution. It is also
affected by the actual materials in the solutions as the the amount of
Hydrogen ions are affected by the interactions of the compounds in the
solutions.

pH is measured using the electrical properties of the solution. Because
of the quality of the electronics the precision of the measurements are
several powers more accurate than the precision of the chemical
properties that are being measured.

The electronics are standardized against two reference solutions. The
accuracy of these solutions is about +/- 0.01 based on the suppliers of
the standards. See a typical specification sheet for one of those
standards is at

http://www.coleparmer.com/catalog/pr...sp?sku=0594242

In practice the precision of laboratory measurements of pH is about +/-
0.03 one one sample. When you take dozens of samples there is
additional error. So you can see the differences they are trying to get
funding to study is nothing but the precision of the measurement of the
pH. (If you google you can find many papers on the laboratory precision
of pH measurements.)

Because of the inaccuracy in pH, the specifications for the drugs you
take are usually stated to 0.1 pH units.

Now, if someone can explain to me how they can say there is a 0.4 degree
change in the mean temperature of the earth when the daily temperature
difference across the surface of the earth is about 100 degrees. I don't
know much about temperature reading and statistics.


It isn't insignificant when you think of it in global terms. The same
thing with temperature.

Insignificant in this case was used in a statistical sense. The
difference they are attributing to global warming is smaller than the
error in the instruments they are using for the measurement.

In other words they would see greater differences on multiple
measurements on the same solution in the lab, than the difference they
are attribute to global warming,

There are no instruments capable of detecting the difference attributed
to global warming being made today.

It is like measuring teaspoons size quantities with a gallon container.

Or setting up your table saw with a cloth sewing tape measure.


basskisser wrote:
keith_nuttle wrote:

I was in the laboratory measuring pH when I read the article published
on the increasing pH because of global warming.

If you read the original article you would see that the difference in pH
they are talking about is in the neighborhood of 0.03 pH units. This is
insignificant and does not indicative anything except the precision of
the pH measurement and the sampling. Since the difference is the
precision of the measurements there is nothing to do with global warming.

pH is a theoretical amount of Hydrogen molecules in the solutions. In
practice pH is a measure of the impurities in water, and is
significantly affected by the temperature of the solution. It is also
affected by the actual materials in the solutions as the the amount of
Hydrogen ions are affected by the interactions of the compounds in the
solutions.

pH is measured using the electrical properties of the solution. Because
of the quality of the electronics the precision of the measurements are
several powers more accurate than the precision of the chemical
properties that are being measured.

The electronics are standardized against two reference solutions. The
accuracy of these solutions is about +/- 0.01 based on the suppliers of
the standards. See a typical specification sheet for one of those
standards is at

http://www.coleparmer.com/catalog/pr...sp?sku=0594242

In practice the precision of laboratory measurements of pH is about +/-
0.03 one one sample. When you take dozens of samples there is
additional error. So you can see the differences they are trying to get
funding to study is nothing but the precision of the measurement of the
pH. (If you google you can find many papers on the laboratory precision
of pH measurements.)

Because of the inaccuracy in pH, the specifications for the drugs you
take are usually stated to 0.1 pH units.

Now, if someone can explain to me how they can say there is a 0.4 degree
change in the mean temperature of the earth when the daily temperature
difference across the surface of the earth is about 100 degrees. I don't
know much about temperature reading and statistics.



It isn't insignificant when you think of it in global terms. The same
thing with temperature.

keith_nuttle wrote:

If you read the original article you would see that the difference in pH
they are talking about is in the neighborhood of 0.03 pH units. This is
insignificant and does not indicative anything except the precision of
the pH measurement and the sampling. Since the difference is the
precision of the measurements there is nothing to do with global warming.

In a controlled laboratory environement you can measure with .001
precision. But that's not easy.

pH is a theoretical amount of Hydrogen molecules in the solutions. In
practice pH is a measure of the impurities in water, and is
significantly affected by the temperature of the solution. It is also
affected by the actual materials in the solutions as the the amount of
Hydrogen ions are affected by the interactions of the compounds in the
solutions.

You are mixing several things together. pH is a negative logarithm of
H+ ions activity in water. Period. Presence of other substances may
change this activity, but you are not measuring these substances, you
are measuring pH.

pH is measured using the electrical properties of the solution. Because
of the quality of the electronics the precision of the measurements are
several powers more accurate than the precision of the chemical
properties that are being measured.

No idea what you mean by "precision of chemical properties". No such
animal AFAIK.

The electronics are standardized against two reference solutions. The
accuracy of these solutions is about +/- 0.01 based on the suppliers of
the standards. See a typical specification sheet for one of those
standards is at

http://www.coleparmer.com/catalog/pr...sp?sku=0594242

http://www.ph-meter.info/pH-electrod...ration-buffers

Calibration buffers have pH measured with +/- 0.001 accuracy, and
that's the real limit of pH measurements. Hard to reach, but it can be
done.

In practice the precision of laboratory measurements of pH is about +/-
0.03 one one sample. When you take dozens of samples there is
additional error. So you can see the differences they are trying to get
funding to study is nothing but the precision of the measurement of the
pH. (If you google you can find many papers on the laboratory precision
of pH measurements.)

See above. Attainable limit is 30 times lower than you suggest. 0.03 is
a good accuracy in the standard lab environement.

Now, if someone can explain to me how they can say there is a 0.4 degree
change in the mean temperature of the earth when the daily temperature
difference across the surface of the earth is about 100 degrees. I don't
know much about temperature reading and statistics.

Simplest approach will be to average all measurement done by all
meterological services in the whole world during whole year. As they
stick to precise termometers and to precise procedures, data are
comparable on a year to year basis (or - more general - any period to
period basis). And I suppose the real thing is done in similar way,
probably with weighted averaging to account for non-uniform
distribution of measuring points.

Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com
http://www.ph-meter.info

"scbafreak via BoatKB.com" u25927@uwe wrote in message
news:690cec9d084bd@uwe...
yes, they had to find some other "threat"

I'm Curious. Who are "They" and what could "They" possibly have to gain
from making this stuff up?

Yes, lets list who they are and maybe we can find out why they are biased
against developing nations.
--
Message posted via http://www.boatkb.com

basskisser wrote:

NOYB wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
roups.com...


.... accumulation of carbon dioxide, methane and other heat-trapping
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - byproducts of power plants,
automobiles and other fossil fuel burners.

Carbon dioxide and methane? I thought those were products of
oxygen-breathing mammals and flatuating cows.


I already predicted what you'd say.


Cite?