Unlike you I can actually speak to the science. See below:
Nope. Far from it. You do nothing but confirm that you are a scientifically illiterate moron and that you have been successfully duped into believing that your WACKY religious faith is somehow
thettled thienth. All we will need to cap this off is for you to simply not learn anything that I teach you. Then you will have given JPP a fully
bona fide warmizombie encounter.
If you ever actually bother to read the IPCC
I have. It's church material. The IPCC differs not from the Vatican except in the religion it oversees.
you'll note that extensive studies are done on earth-sun dynamics.
Studies are not science. Studies are nothing more than someone's opinion put into print, usually the opinion of whoever is funding the "study." Warmizombies, such as yourself, are scientifically illiterate and very undereducated. They have no idea what science even is. I'm guessing that I will be spending my time pointing out all the things that are not science that you believe are science.
The sun does have phases it goes through and those are modeled and understood.
Is this part of your explanation or is it not? Once again you have made a totally ambiguous, trivial statement, i.e. that we understand some aspects of the sun and that this understanding is documented. Big deal. Here you need someone to come in and finish your sentence for you because you haven't said anything at all.
Right now we can't correlate the solar cycles and the warming we've seen over the last 50 years sufficient to utilize that as a primary explanatory variable.
This will require much unpacking. First, who is "we"? Did you mean to write "I" (yourself)? i.e. ",,, the warming that
I've seen over the last 50 years"? I know that I haven't seen any warming over the last 50 years. There are others on JPP who similarly haven't deluded themselves into having seen "warming" that either hasn't occurred or is negligible to the point of not being discernible.
Second, how are you claiming this "warming" was measured? Are you any good at statistical math (just answer "no")? I'm going to need to scrutinize the entire dataset, so find the one that was used to compute the warming and let me know what the target margin of error was.
Third, you absolutely must define these "solar cycles" of which you speak. There are
many cycles. Nobody is a mind-reader and you can't expect everyone to simply know your particular religious dogma.
Fourth, you referred to the solar cycles as possibly being a future
primary explanatory variable. Will it be a
dependent or
independent variable? Please write the specific function of which this variable will be a part.
It will definitely have some impact.
What is "It"? The solar cycles, the warming, or the primary explanatory variable? Why do you claim there will definitely be an impact? Anyway, you have once again failed to say anything meaningful. Your statement reworded reads "It will definitely have a cause that will result in an effect." All causes have effects, otherwise they are not causes. You are using the "impact" to mean "a resulting effect" which is the only possible result for a cause. Please get someone to help you write your sentences.
When land ice melts (ie the Greenland ice sheet) the water that runs off the surface of the land raises the water level.
When ocean water evaporates and becomes precipitation over land (e.g. the Greenland ice sheet), the water level lowers.
How much do you want to bet that we could go on all day.
In addition warming oceans = higher volume of water (water expands when heated). This also raises sea level.
In addition, oceans that aren't warming overall = constant volume of water (water remains the same volume when the temperature remains the same). This also keeps the ocean level the same.
Are we really going to do this all day?
CO2 is absorbed by water where it undergoes a series of reactions:
When ocean water evaporates, any absorbed CO2 is released back into the atmosphere to be consumed by plants. The releasing of the CO2 into the atmosphere lowers the ocean's pH.
... which cause the pH to decrease (ie acidify).
You just made a common gullible layman's mistake. You fell for the physics violation being proselytized as
thettled thienth. In chemistry, whenever the pH shifts towards 7.0, the solution is said to be neutralizing. A solution would have to cross over from pH>7.0 to pH<7.0 in order to have acidified. The ocean has never crossed over the 7.0 pH threshold, i.e. the ocean has never acidified.
