Wow.   Good work Mal.  You spent a lot of time on this.

Now, explain how you can tell that nitrogen in the gulf is from Iowa.

Again; you lose.

This is easy. You have forgotten your claim and forgotten our challenge.

First; let’s return to your claim and-take-this-very-slowly!

Show me Iowa’s farm nitrogen in the Gulf as opposed to Montana’s or Illinois. You can’t, since you claimed to know which farm nitrogen IN THE GULF is Iowa’s.

The extracts below clearly show your science is based on estimates and simulations. That is not factual science. None of the documents here, and those you have posted here before, show me Iowa’s nitrogen in the Gulf.

“Daily fluxes estimated”…..estimated?

“Model parameters were estimated using the SAS system”...(Estimated?

“For six sites (4, 27, 35,36, 39, and 42, fig. 1), continuous measurement of streamflow was not available. For these sites, the annual flux was estimated.”  Estimated? If data is not available, the sum total estimates are not accurate because some scientist with an agenda estimated.

“Daily fluxes estimated from the models were summed over time to provide annual and long-term average flux estimates from the 42 basins and to the Gulf of Mexico.”  Estimated?

“However, ammonia is quickly transformed to Nitrate”..(Kind of ruins your estimate totals, eh?) (Your "science" does not account for ammonia).

1. 4. “What sources of nutrients are simulated in the model?”  Simulated?

“2. Does the study evaluate trends in stream nutrient loads? |Back to Top|
No. The study is not intended to evaluate trends in actual stream nutrient loads or determine whether nutrient conditions are getting worse or better.” (??????-not intended?)

Separating molecules in the Gulf is your silliness. You are the one that cannot do it; and no one else has either. Show me Iowa's nitrogen in the Gulf. Don't be wasting time on other posts! I can take any of the maps in your links and NOT see Iowa's nitrogen in the Gulf labelled or colored. Having said that, I can make a map and color it up for my agenda too. But I don't need to because you have not delivered on your claim yet.

Rural man's science: How many livestock and wildlife and domestic animals pee on Iowa's ground that is then washed into rivers? What does pee contain? Ammonia. The very info you supplied relates ammonia quickly transforms to nitrate. TA DA!  All of your junk scince is skewed by this alone.

Uh, OH. Where do waste water treatment plants discharge to after treatment? TA DA! Rivers. What are they allowed to discharge, once reduced? Ammonia, from you peeing in your toilet. TA DA! See how the rual man's science defeats you.

Now, go be a good girl, study hard, and come back when you can show me "Iowa's" farm nitrogen in the Gulf, as was your claim.

You beat me to it in short-hand....but, EXACTLY!

Malodery's continuing bullheaded efforts in regard to identifying and quantifying Iowa's nitrogen in the Gulf of Mexico is a very clear demonstration of liberal, and the current obumbler's administration, impractical and inexperienced  meddling with our system.  (and our culture)

Like the obumbler, all this is academic speculation.   Malodery never has had practical experience with the actual subject in question.

The obumbler has never had actual job experience with the economy (unless you count applying for handouts and socialist proselytizing as a job).

These people are all living in la la land.   And our country is suffering because of it.

Tell these fools and amateurs to get lost in November.