A question regarding the Sun

[Oddball]

Yes, yes, yes....Fudge the statistics whichever way you need to prove that you're right.

What's indisputable from the posted graph is that the overall ambient temps have trended lower over the last decade.

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan could be buried under 20 feet of snow, and the enviro-Malthusians would still blame industrial man.

 

[edthecynic]

Yes, yes, yes....Fudge the statistics whichever way you need to prove that you're right.

What's indisputable from the posted graph is that the overall ambient temps have trended lower over the last decade.

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan could be buried under 20 feet of snow, and the enviro-Malthusians would still blame industrial man.

This is what I love about CON$ervative Kool-Aid drinkers, even after you show then exactly how they were deceived, they STILL are completely clueless.

 

[Oddball]

First of all, I'm not a conservative, turd surfer.

Secondly, explanations from people who are deceiving themselves about how others are supposedly being deceived cut no ice with me.

I'll let you in on a little secret....I used to believe the same Malthusian declinist bullshit that you and the rest of the AGW cargo cultist do, until I decided to let a few analytical and Socratic thoughts wander into my head.

 

[Liability]

The Troposphere averages about 8 mi in thickness, I live on the surface of the Earth, not 8 mi high.

YouTube - Eight Miles High - The Byrds

The troposphere goes all the way down to the SURFACE. That IS where you live. Thus, as I Correctly Pointed Out to you, you (like everyone else with the exceptions of some astronauts and submariners) DO live in the troposphere.

This little gem of a FACT makes taking temperature measurements in the troposphere quite logical and useful.

Your effort to dismiss it is beyond absurd.

Science could be your friend. Get to know it.

The Troposphere extends as high as 12 miles and the surface is the Planetary Boundary Layer, which is where I live. So the readings you CON$ dishonestly use average the 12 miles of Troposphere, they are not readings of the Planetary Boundary Layer only, so they are completely worthless to anyone who wants to HONESTLY measure Global Warming. The Troposphere is only useful for deliberate deceivers to CON the gullible Kool-Aid drinkers.

You may well be as stupid as you are ignorant.

The fact (which you flail about trying to evade) is that you and essentially all other humans and all the animals (other than the fish) and the bugs and the non-sea-life plants live on the surface. That the surface is at the lower end of the troposphere doesn't change the FACT that because we all live on the surface we all live in the troposphere.

What utter driveling schmucks like you try to prattle on about is rather irrelevant. IF the tippy top of the troposphere has had some average global temperature change or not doesn't necessarily alter the range of temperatures (nor the change in such ranges) over time here where WE are.

Now, if there's anything more to your glaringly obvious and insipid litttle deflection, the most that can be said in your favor is that you haven't found the ability to put it to words.

By the way, dipstick, since the ability of humans to directly measure temperatures is a fairly recent thing (the thermometer having been invented less than 300 years ago), here at the bottom of the troposphere, where we all live, we have used proxy data to measure temperatures going back to before the invention of the thermometer.

Are you aware of any tools -- any proxy data -- by which we can measure past temperatures in the troposphere before roughly three hundred years ago?

 

[Old Rocks]

– 41 –

Oxygen Isotope Paleotemperatures from the Tertiary of New Zealand
by I. Devereux,
Victoria University, Wellington, and Institute of Nuclear Sciences,
Lower Hutt.

Introduction
The Study of past climates by the oxygen isotope method has been increasingly used over the past fifteen years. Most work has been carried out in the U.S.A., where the method was first discovered and developed by a team headed by Professor Urey at the University of Chicago. Up till now most effort has been concentrated on the Mesozoic Period and the Pleistocene with the Tertiary period, rather surprisingly, being largely ignored. A notable exception however is the work of Dorman and Gill, who have spent many years using this isotope technique on Tertiary fossil material from Victoria, Australia.

The isotope method has at various times come in for a fair share of criticism and some of this has been quite legitimate. This is especially so, when inadequate attention has been paid to the selection of suitable samples and to good geological correlation. The method has some fundamental weaknesses, but if sufficient care is taken, these may be avoided. To appreciate these difficulties, and to be in a position to critically examine isotope results, it is essential to understand the fundamentals on which the method is based.

The oxygen isotopes which are of interest are oxygen-16 and oxygen-18, usually written O16 and O18. Both are stable isotopes and they react in a similar fashion, e.g. they both combine with hydrogen to form water. The water made from O16 would appear the same as that made from O18, but the latter is more dense because the O18 atoms are heavier than the O16 atoms. All naturally occuring compounds that contain oxygen, contain both isotopes but the O16 predominates. There is approximately one O18 for every 500 O16 atoms. In different compounds there are slightly different ratios of the O18 to the O16 atoms. For instance if calcite is precipitated in equilibrium with water, the ratio O18/O16 in the calcite is slightly more than the O18/O16 in the water i.e. the O18 tends to concentrate in the calcite.
Oxygen Isotope Paleotemperatures from the Tertiary of New Zealand | NZETC

 

[Old Rocks]

Copyright © 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved

Paleotemperatures from fluid inclusions in halite: method verification and a 100,000 year paleotemperature record, Death Valley, CA




References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.


Tim K. Lowenstein*, Jianren Li and Christopher B. Brown

Department of Geological Sciences and Environmental Studies, State University of New York at Binghamton, Binghamton, NY 13902, USA


Received 1 April 1997; revised 19 May 1998; accepted 19 May 1998. Available online 1 December 1998.

Abstract
Maximum homogenization temperatures of fluid inclusions (Thmax) in halite (laboratory-grown crystals and modern samples, Death Valley, CA) match maximum brine temperatures during halite precipitation. Maximum brine temperatures during halite precipitation in Death Valley, late April, 1993 (34.4°C) agree with Thmax (34°C) and correlate well with average maximum air temperatures in April (31.3°C) and May (37.6°C). Thmax may be used for paleoclimate interpretations based on the close relationship between saline lake temperatures and average air temperatures from modern settings. Lower homogenization temperatures, demonstrably below the temperatures at which halite grew, are interpreted to reflect collapse of some fluid inclusion walls due to the pressure difference between the inside and outside of inclusions. By only using Thmax, the problems of anomalously low homogenization temperatures due to possible collapse of fluid inclusions are avoided. Halite samples from 30 stratigraphic intervals, 90 to 0 m (100 to 0 ka), Core DV93-1, Death Valley, CA, were used to measure homogenization temperatures of fluid inclusions. Virtually all homogenization temperatures from Core DV93-1 are below the modern Thmax of 34°C (halite precipitation late April, 1993). Lacustrine halites, deposited in a perennial saline lake 35 to 10 ka, have Thmax between 19°C and 30°C, which suggests brine temperatures approximately 4°C to 15°C below modern late April values. Ephemeral saline lake halites precipitated 60 to 35 ka have Thmax between 23°C and 28°C, 6 to 11°C below modern values. The highest Thmax value in the 100 ka record (up to 35°C) is from a halite sample formed approximately 100 ka in a climate regime somewhat colder than the modern.

Author Keywords: Quaternary paleoclimates; Fluid inclusion paleotemperatures; Death Valley

ScienceDirect - Chemical Geology : Paleotemperatures from fluid inclusions in halite: method verification and a 100,000 year paleotemperature record, Death Valley, CA

 

[Old Rocks]

There are a number of methods by which paleo temperatures can be determined. There are methods by which the climate of the whole planet at a given time can be deduced within a reasonable degree of accuracy. That one is ignorant of such methods is reasonable, that one would state that such methods do not exist, with a direct connection to the internet setting in front of him, is an indication of mental retardation.

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/courses/OCN622/Fall2008/paleoceanography1.pdf

 

[edthecynic]

The troposphere goes all the way down to the SURFACE. That IS where you live. Thus, as I Correctly Pointed Out to you, you (like everyone else with the exceptions of some astronauts and submariners) DO live in the troposphere.

This little gem of a FACT makes taking temperature measurements in the troposphere quite logical and useful.

Your effort to dismiss it is beyond absurd.

Science could be your friend. Get to know it.

The Troposphere extends as high as 12 miles and the surface is the Planetary Boundary Layer, which is where I live. So the readings you CON$ dishonestly use average the 12 miles of Troposphere, they are not readings of the Planetary Boundary Layer only, so they are completely worthless to anyone who wants to HONESTLY measure Global Warming. The Troposphere is only useful for deliberate deceivers to CON the gullible Kool-Aid drinkers.

You may well be as stupid as you are ignorant.

The fact (which you flail about trying to evade) is that you and essentially all other humans and all the animals (other than the fish) and the bugs and the non-sea-life plants live on the surface. That the surface is at the lower end of the troposphere doesn't change the FACT that because we all live on the surface we all live in the troposphere.

What utter driveling schmucks like you try to prattle on about is rather irrelevant. IF the tippy top of the troposphere has had some average global temperature change or not doesn't necessarily alter the range of temperatures (nor the change in such ranges) over time here where WE are.

Now, if there's anything more to your glaringly obvious and insipid litttle deflection, the most that can be said in your favor is that you haven't found the ability to put it to words.

By the way, dipstick, since the ability of humans to directly measure temperatures is a fairly recent thing (the thermometer having been invented less than 300 years ago), here at the bottom of the troposphere, where we all live, we have used proxy data to measure temperatures going back to before the invention of the thermometer.

Are you aware of any tools -- any proxy data -- by which we can measure past temperatures in the troposphere before roughly three hundred years ago?

Well, there is a little progress, you finally admit we live on the surface, so the surface temp is obviously the important data and not an average of the surface temp with the much colder temp up to 12 miles high.
But I'm sure you still cling to using short term data with cherry-picked end points because you deniers have nothing else, because even the Troposphere shows a long term warming trend when you compare lows to lows and highs to highs and not dishonestly comparing a cherry-picked high to a cherry-picked low.

 

[edthecynic]

First of all, I'm not a conservative, turd surfer.

Secondly, explanations from people who are deceiving themselves about how others are supposedly being deceived cut no ice with me.

I'll let you in on a little secret....I used to believe the same Malthusian declinist bullshit that you and the rest of the AGW cargo cultist do, until I decided to let a few analytical and Socratic thoughts wander into my head.

Pure BALONEY!

 

[Liability]

The Troposphere extends as high as 12 miles and the surface is the Planetary Boundary Layer, which is where I live. So the readings you CON$ dishonestly use average the 12 miles of Troposphere, they are not readings of the Planetary Boundary Layer only, so they are completely worthless to anyone who wants to HONESTLY measure Global Warming. The Troposphere is only useful for deliberate deceivers to CON the gullible Kool-Aid drinkers.

You may well be as stupid as you are ignorant.

The fact (which you flail about trying to evade) is that you and essentially all other humans and all the animals (other than the fish) and the bugs and the non-sea-life plants live on the surface. That the surface is at the lower end of the troposphere doesn't change the FACT that because we all live on the surface we all live in the troposphere.

What utter driveling schmucks like you try to prattle on about is rather irrelevant. IF the tippy top of the troposphere has had some average global temperature change or not doesn't necessarily alter the range of temperatures (nor the change in such ranges) over time here where WE are.

Now, if there's anything more to your glaringly obvious and insipid litttle deflection, the most that can be said in your favor is that you haven't found the ability to put it to words.

By the way, dipstick, since the ability of humans to directly measure temperatures is a fairly recent thing (the thermometer having been invented less than 300 years ago), here at the bottom of the troposphere, where we all live, we have used proxy data to measure temperatures going back to before the invention of the thermometer.

Are you aware of any tools -- any proxy data -- by which we can measure past temperatures in the troposphere before roughly three hundred years ago?

Well, there is a little progress, you finally admit we live on the surface, so the surface temp is obviously the important data and not an average of the surface temp with the much colder temp up to 12 miles high.
But I'm sure you still cling to using short term data with cherry-picked end points because you deniers have nothing else, because even the Troposphere shows a long term warming trend when you compare lows to lows and highs to highs and not dishonestly comparing a cherry-picked high to a cherry-picked low.

The only progress is that you finally realized that I have not been disputing that we live on the surface. It's so obvious even YOU have grasped as much. The point remains: that as long as we live on the surface we ARE IN THE TROPOSPHERE. Come on. You can say it. Temperature measurements in the TROPOSPHERE are thus the only rational measurements we are concerned with.

Whatsamatta, bubalah? Can't find ANY source by which upper troposphere (or even middle range) troposphere temperatures and changes can be derived prior to our present day and age?

Guys like you still can't handle even the most basic question. Since climate changes ebb and flow and have since LONG BEFORE any human activity could possibly have accounted for it, what makes you think that anybody is going to rely on YOUR cherry picked data to answer any questions?

By the way: just because you are one of the simpletons who endlessly loops and repeats a talking pointless, (like: "you cons cherry pick data") does not give your talking pointless ANY validity.

We all see right through your cheesey dishonest transparent efforts.

Thought you should know. You're welcome.

 

[Liability]

There are a number of methods by which paleo temperatures can be determined. There are methods by which the climate of the whole planet at a given time can be deduced within a reasonable degree of accuracy. That one is ignorant of such methods is reasonable, that one would state that such methods do not exist, with a direct connection to the internet setting in front of him, is an indication of mental retardation.

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/courses/OCN622/Fall2008/paleoceanography1.pdf

That you seem to be suggesting that we (any of us) have said there is no proxy metehods available is rather silly.

What the proxy data can be used to derive is the actual question.

Now, then, let's get back to it. Are you aware of any proxy data by which one can measure ancient temperatures at the tippy top of the troposphere? If so, please alert edthecynic.

He is urgently trying to find anything along those lines. He seems to believe that tropospheric temperatures for the "surface" is just "cherry picking" data. He insists (without evidence) that the full data (which must include high troposphere temepratures) would have some meaningful bearing on the questions surrounding the alleged AGW.

 

[edthecynic]

tropospheric temperatures for the "surface" is just "cherry picking" data. He insists (without evidence) that the full data (which must include high troposphere temepratures) would have some meaningful bearing on the questions surrounding the alleged AGW.

You are projecting YOUR deception onto me.

You do NOT have Tropospheric temps for the SURFACE!!! You have an average of the 12 miles of Tropospheric data that YOU are dishonestly claiming represents the Planetary Boundary Layer only and trumps direct instrument measurements taken on the surface of the Earth.

 

[Liability]

tropospheric temperatures for the "surface" is just "cherry picking" data. He insists (without evidence) that the full data (which must include high troposphere temepratures) would have some meaningful bearing on the questions surrounding the alleged AGW.

You are projecting YOUR deception onto me.

You do NOT have Tropospheric temps for the SURFACE!!! You have an average of the 12 miles of Tropospheric data that YOU are dishonestly claiming represents the Planetary Boundary Layer only and trumps direct instrument measurements taken on the surface of the Earth.

Your disingenuity knows no bouds.

The meausrements appear to have been taken on land (surface) and at sea (surface). In your linked gif image, which you offer without citation, you have NOTHING to support your claim that the measurements were taken at various higher altitudes above the surface.

If you have some compelling reason to believe that we are in need of taking temepratures from higher altitudes in the troposphere, you have failed totally in articulating how or why that has any particular meaning or relevance.

Furthermore, direct meaurements via instrumentation on land can be skewed depending on method used and proximity to other heat sources. I do believe that Dude already tried to explain as much to you. But your head is way to high up your colon to hear much, it seems.

 

[Liability]

In further support of the proposition that data collection errors might just be responsible for skewing the reported results -- and thus the conclusions that might be derived from such "data" -- give this one a little thought.

* * * *
As everyone knows, urban surfaces - asphalt, cement/concrete, etc. - are hotter to be around than natural areas (e.g. grassy parks). Additionally, if you've ever been around an air conditioner or central air exhaust, you know the kind of heat they kick out. So why in the world would scientists think it's okay to have temperature-monitoring stations in urban areas?

So Watts decided to take up the challenge himself. After surveying a few randomly chosen temperature stations and being shocked at the shortcomings, he set forth on a plan to survey all 1,221 stations, taking photographs along the way. With the help of volunteers, Watts has systematically surveyed one-third of the official weather stations.

The vast majority of the stations surveyed to date fail to meet the prescribed standards. Using a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 reflecting proper maintenance and standards and 5 representing facilities that are severely compromised, Watts says 70 percent of those stations surveyed received a 4 or 5 rating, while only 4 percent received a grade of 1.

All of the most egregious violations he has observed in the study would result in artificially higher temperatures being recorded.

Only four percent of 400+ stations meet the standards for placement and yet they are trusted to provide data on supposed "global warming?" Are these people insane or stupid? Either way, they certainly aren't practicing good science. Incredible!

Shock & Blog: Bad data fueling "global warming" hype?

Also, take a look at SOME of the placement spots.

Odd sites

 

[edthecynic]

tropospheric temperatures for the "surface" is just "cherry picking" data. He insists (without evidence) that the full data (which must include high troposphere temepratures) would have some meaningful bearing on the questions surrounding the alleged AGW.

You are projecting YOUR deception onto me.

You do NOT have Tropospheric temps for the SURFACE!!! You have an average of the 12 miles of Tropospheric data that YOU are dishonestly claiming represents the Planetary Boundary Layer only and trumps direct instrument measurements taken on the surface of the Earth.

Your disingenuity knows no bouds.

The meausrements appear to have been taken on land (surface) and at sea (surface). In your linked gif image, which you offer without citation, you have NOTHING to support your claim that the measurements were taken at various higher altitudes above the surface.

If you have some compelling reason to believe that we are in need of taking temepratures from higher altitudes in the troposphere, you have failed totally in articulating how or why that has any particular meaning or relevance.

Furthermore, direct meaurements via instrumentation on land can be skewed depending on method used and proximity to other heat sources. I do believe that Dude already tried to explain as much to you. But your head is way to high up your colon to hear much, it seems.

Talk about "disingenuity" the source of the data is listed right on the chart!!!!
Also, when you quoted my post, the link for the chart is shown, rather than the chart, in the quote. CON$ habitually display their complete lack of any reasoning power.

And as far as Dude's phony heat island post, I thoroughly debunked it by pointing out the oceans show 100 years of warming and there are no urban heat islands in the oceans!!! Furthermore, using ANOMALIES also debunks the heat island argument because anomalies compare the DEVIATIONS from the average for that thermometer, so if it is near a heat source the average reading might be higher but the deviation from that higher reading tells us whether it is getting warmer or cooler relative to that higher average. Get it?

 

[edthecynic]

In further support of the proposition that data collection errors might just be responsible for skewing the reported results -- and thus the conclusions that might be derived from such "data" -- give this one a little thought.

* * * *
As everyone knows, urban surfaces - asphalt, cement/concrete, etc. - are hotter to be around than natural areas (e.g. grassy parks). Additionally, if you've ever been around an air conditioner or central air exhaust, you know the kind of heat they kick out. So why in the world would scientists think it's okay to have temperature-monitoring stations in urban areas?

So Watts decided to take up the challenge himself. After surveying a few randomly chosen temperature stations and being shocked at the shortcomings, he set forth on a plan to survey all 1,221 stations, taking photographs along the way. With the help of volunteers, Watts has systematically surveyed one-third of the official weather stations.

The vast majority of the stations surveyed to date fail to meet the prescribed standards. Using a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 reflecting proper maintenance and standards and 5 representing facilities that are severely compromised, Watts says 70 percent of those stations surveyed received a 4 or 5 rating, while only 4 percent received a grade of 1.

All of the most egregious violations he has observed in the study would result in artificially higher temperatures being recorded.

Only four percent of 400+ stations meet the standards for placement and yet they are trusted to provide data on supposed "global warming?" Are these people insane or stupid? Either way, they certainly aren't practicing good science. Incredible!

Shock & Blog: Bad data fueling "global warming" hype?

Also, take a look at SOME of the placement spots.

Odd sites

A perfect example of how CON$ervative ignorance of how ANOMALIES work makes then vulnerable to the webs of deceit spun by professional liars.

 

[Liability]

You are projecting YOUR deception onto me.

You do NOT have Tropospheric temps for the SURFACE!!! You have an average of the 12 miles of Tropospheric data that YOU are dishonestly claiming represents the Planetary Boundary Layer only and trumps direct instrument measurements taken on the surface of the Earth.

Your disingenuity knows no bouds.

The meausrements appear to have been taken on land (surface) and at sea (surface). In your linked gif image, which you offer without citation, you have NOTHING to support your claim that the measurements were taken at various higher altitudes above the surface.

If you have some compelling reason to believe that we are in need of taking temepratures from higher altitudes in the troposphere, you have failed totally in articulating how or why that has any particular meaning or relevance.

Furthermore, direct meaurements via instrumentation on land can be skewed depending on method used and proximity to other heat sources. I do believe that Dude already tried to explain as much to you. But your head is way to high up your colon to hear much, it seems.

Talk about "disingenuity" the source of the data is listed right on the chart!!!!
Also, when you quoted my post, the link for the chart is shown, rather than the chart, in the quote. CON$ habitually display their complete lack of any reasoning power.

And as far as Dude's phony heat island post, I thoroughly debunked it by pointing out the oceans show 100 years of warming and there are no urban heat islands in the oceans!!! Furthermore, using ANOMALIES also debunks the heat island argument because anomalies compare the DEVIATIONS from the average for that thermometer, so if it is near a heat source the average reading might be higher but the deviation from that higher reading tells us whether it is getting warmer or cooler relative to that higher average. Get it?

Try not to be so obvious when playing obtuse. Everyone can see NOAA. What is NOT listed is the web-site link nor the SOURCE of the "data" depicted in that graph.

You are either truly that ignorant or are just a very clumsy liar.

Either way, you are quite laughable.

We also all "get" that you have favorite pet word. "Anomolies". There. I even used it again for you. Sit! Role over. Good boy. Those "anomolies" debunk NOTHING if all the monitoring stations -- or even a significantly large percentage of them -- suffer from the same defects.

Get it yet?

 

[Liability]

In further support of the proposition that data collection errors might just be responsible for skewing the reported results -- and thus the conclusions that might be derived from such "data" -- give this one a little thought.

* * * *
As everyone knows, urban surfaces - asphalt, cement/concrete, etc. - are hotter to be around than natural areas (e.g. grassy parks). Additionally, if you've ever been around an air conditioner or central air exhaust, you know the kind of heat they kick out. So why in the world would scientists think it's okay to have temperature-monitoring stations in urban areas?

So Watts decided to take up the challenge himself. After surveying a few randomly chosen temperature stations and being shocked at the shortcomings, he set forth on a plan to survey all 1,221 stations, taking photographs along the way. With the help of volunteers, Watts has systematically surveyed one-third of the official weather stations.

The vast majority of the stations surveyed to date fail to meet the prescribed standards. Using a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 reflecting proper maintenance and standards and 5 representing facilities that are severely compromised, Watts says 70 percent of those stations surveyed received a 4 or 5 rating, while only 4 percent received a grade of 1.

All of the most egregious violations he has observed in the study would result in artificially higher temperatures being recorded.

Only four percent of 400+ stations meet the standards for placement and yet they are trusted to provide data on supposed "global warming?" Are these people insane or stupid? Either way, they certainly aren't practicing good science. Incredible!

Shock & Blog: Bad data fueling "global warming" hype?

Also, take a look at SOME of the placement spots.

Odd sites

A perfect example of how CON$ervative ignorance of how ANOMALIES work makes then vulnerable to the webs of deceit spun by professional liars.

That's just precious how you spell 'conservative,' you libtard.

Anyway, what I posted is not an example AT ALL of ignorance. Your "response" however sure as hell IS.

Let me give you an example so easy to follow that even one as dense as you SHOULD be able to follow along:

If 100 monitoring stations across some large region of the USA reflect that the temperature is rising on some summer day, but all of them are near air conditioners and planted on asphalt, for example, they will ALL report that the temperature is getting higher. But to what extent it is ACTUALLY getting hotter will remain unknowable BECAUSE of the lousy methodology.

That YOU are far too dense to comprehend the notion of "garbage in, garbage out" comes as no surprise. It is pretty basic science, afterall. Far beyond your limited grasp of reality.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

tropospheric temperatures for the "surface" is just "cherry picking" data. He insists (without evidence) that the full data (which must include high troposphere temepratures) would have some meaningful bearing on the questions surrounding the alleged AGW.

You are projecting YOUR deception onto me.

You do NOT have Tropospheric temps for the SURFACE!!! You have an average of the 12 miles of Tropospheric data that YOU are dishonestly claiming represents the Planetary Boundary Layer only and trumps direct instrument measurements taken on the surface of the Earth.

Anyone else notice that the chart has entirely different number schemes on each end?

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, yes. F and C represent fahrenheit and celsius temperature scales. Since the scales have a differant base, the numbers will be differant. Simple enough for you, Sarge?