"Independent Thinking" vs Appeal To Authority In Science
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Calculating the spectra and intensity of Helium, Lithium and Beryllium using only Rydberg-like formulas
Next: 'Plutonium' as a surname
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 18 Jul 2010 12:01 On Jul 13, 10:15 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Only fruitcakes believe in global warming. There is no credible > evidence of global warming. It's adherents are just a bunch of > dimwitted nose pickers. There is photographic evidence of the glaciers disappearing and icesheets melting. This evidence is beyond credible. I suppose you will come back with criticism of theory, but I am merely falsifying your statement above. I do occassionally pick my nose, but only when it has boogers in it, and preferably not in public. - Tim
From: Bruce Richmond on 18 Jul 2010 13:07 On Jul 18, 1:18 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Jul 17, 7:19 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > This graph shows that the level of atmospheric co2 in a large part is > > controlled by the global temperature, most likely due to the > > absorption and expelling of co2 from the surface layer of the ocean. > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.... > > Interesting graph, I hadn't realized there was such a close > correlation between global temperature and atmospheric co2 and it does > show a lag time of a year or so in the fluctuations but that may be > accounted for by melting ice which provides cooler water temperatures > and increased solubility. Even if your idea is correct, which it may be in part, it doesn't alter the fact that changes in co2 lag changes in temp, or anthing I have written below. > > As you say, the ocean must be absorbing the "missing" anthropogenic > > co2, but it also must be passing it on to some other sink. The > > atmospheric co2 and co2 in solution stay in equilibrium at a constant > > temperature. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid > > Anthropogenic co2 provides a net increase reguardless of fluctuations. An increased input but not necessarily an increased accumulation as explained below. > > "At a given temperature, the composition of a pure carbonic acid > > solution (or of a pure CO2 solution) is completely determined by the > > partial pressure of carbon dioxide above the solution." > > > As the ocean warms it cannot hold as much co2 so it starts expelling > > co2 into the atmosphere, causing the atmospheric co2 to go up. The > > old equilibrium between the air and water doesn't apply any more > > because the temperature changed. As the ocean cools it can absorb > > more co2 out of the air, causing atmospheric co2 to decline. In both > > cases the change in atmospheric co2 lags behind the temperature change > > because it takes time for the temp change to work its way down from > > the surface. This is all in complete agreement with the empirical > > data used to construct the graph. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co2 > > And there is still the net increase in global temperature while > atmospheric co2 is know to absorb and radiate heat. And heat evaporates water, forming clouds which reflect sunlight back into space. Now back to whether the increased temp might be in part responsible for the increase in atmospheric co2. > > "In the oceans > > There is about fifty times as much carbon dissolved in the sea water > > of the oceans in the form of CO2 and carbonic acid, bicarbonate and > > carbonate ions as exists in the atmosphere." > > > With the ocean holding fifty times as much carbon as the atmosphere, > > its temperture driven ability to hold co2 overwhelms the atmosphere. > > Very small fluctuations in ocean temp can cause significant changes in > > atmospheric co2, both up and down. So it is not acting as a sink so > > much as a buffer based on its thermal mass. > > > Where did the "missing" anthropogenic co2 go? When co2 is disolved in > > water it makes carbonic acid. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid > > The ice and atmospheric co2 are acting as a buffers. Care to explain what you mean by that? I agree that the ice is a buffer working against sudden changes. > > "Carbonic acid is the organic compound with the formula H2CO3 > > (equivalently OC(OH)2). It is also a name sometimes given to solutions > > of carbon dioxide in water, which contain small amounts of H2CO3. The > > salts of carbonic acids are called bicarbonates (or hydrogen > > carbonates) and carbonates. It is a weak acid. When dissolved in > > water, carbon dioxide exists in equilibrium with carbonic acid:" > > > I'm not going to go into great detail here but it is obvious there are > > many carbonates that can be formed when the carbonic acid reacts with > > various chemicals. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate > > Carbonates can also be dissolved by acid rain. > Yes, some can be. If you think that has much affect on what I wrote below feel free to explain how. > > > > > "In geology and mineralogy, the term "carbonate" can refer both to > > carbonate minerals and carbonate rock (which is made of chiefly > > carbonate minerals), and both are dominated by the carbonate ion, > > CO2-3. Carbonate minerals are extremely varied and ubiquitous in > > chemically-precipitated sedimentary rock. The most common are calcite > > or calcium carbonate, CaCO3, the chief constituent of limestone (as > > well as the main component of mollusc shells and coral skeletons); > > dolomite, a calcium-magnesium carbonate CaMg(CO3)2; and siderite, or > > iron (II) carbonate, FeCO3, an important iron ore. Sodium carbonate > > ("soda" or "natron") and potassium carbonate ("potash") have been used > > since antiquity for cleaning and preservation, as well as for the > > manufacture of glass. Carbonates are widely used in industry, e.g. in > > iron smelting, as a raw material for Portland cement and lime > > manufacture, in the composition of ceramic glazes, and more." > > > "Most carbonate salts are insoluble in water at standard temperature > > and pressure, with solubility constants of less than 1×10-8. > > Exceptions include sodium, potassium and ammonium carbonates, as well > > as many uranium carbonates." > > > Whenever a carbonate is formed it changes the equilibrium between co2 > > and carbonic acid, so a co2 molecule must convert to cabonic acid to > > restore the equilibrium. For a given temp, when enough co2 molecules > > have converted to carbonic acid it upsets the equilibrium between co2 > > in the air and water, so a co2 molocule must be absorbed into the > > water to restore the balance. > > > So the true carbon sink isn't the ocean water as is often claimed, but > > the carbonates that are formed, often to precipitate out. > > Any increase in precipiation would result from evaporization, not by > some kind of increasing absorbtion of a solution in equilibrium.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Precipitate as used above has nothing to do with evaporization. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/precipitate "Chemistry . to separate (a substance) in solid form from a solution, as by means of a reagent." And since we are talking about solids separating out of sea water there is little chance they are going to be dissolved by rain above.
From: Marvin the Martian on 18 Jul 2010 13:13 On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 09:01:26 -0700, Tim Golden BandTech.com wrote: > On Jul 13, 10:15 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> Only fruitcakes believe in global warming. There is no credible >> evidence of global warming. It's adherents are just a bunch of >> dimwitted nose pickers. > > There is photographic evidence of the glaciers disappearing and > icesheets melting. The ice age ended about 20,000 years ago, and the glaciers have been retreating ever since. In no way is glacier retreat and the end of the last ice age man made. You have made a post hoc, ergo proctor hoc fallacy. Note that ice melts at any temperature above 0 C. So, there can be warming and cooling periods and there will still be glacier retreat. > This evidence is beyond credible. I suppose you will come back with > criticism of theory, That is not "theory". Theories are hypothesis that have been demonstrated to make useful predictions. Your glacier observation is not theory, not hypothesis, it is a logical fallacy. > but I am merely falsifying your statement above. I > do occassionally pick my nose, but only when it has boogers in it, and > preferably not in public. Too much information.
From: Marvin the Martian on 18 Jul 2010 13:23 On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 06:38:50 -0700, M Purcell wrote: > On Jul 17, 10:50 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: >> On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 09:22:37 -0700, hersheyh wrote: >> > On Jul 17, 11:26 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:24:55 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote: >> >> >> < snip far left anti-American political rant > >> >> >> > This is what was snipped by the winger dinger: >> >> >> Wow. A childish, immature and irrelevant argumentum ad hominem that >> >> shows that you're politically motivated (you desire a nanny state >> >> and want to suckle off Uncle Sam's hairy teats), immature, and have >> >> a low level of intelligence. >> >> >> < snip the bad analogy fallacy comparing prisons to science in >> >> arguing why everyone should stop thinking and listen to (socialist) >> >> authorities.> >> >> >> First of all, your silly analogy fails. Prisons are not science. >> >> Science is observation, hypothesis, test the hypothesis, and accept >> >> or reject the hypothesis based on the results of the test. It is a >> >> continuous process. A well known example is classical mechanics; it >> >> was tested and proven to be a useful theory up until the beginning >> >> of the 20th century, when it began to fail. Then new theories, like >> >> QM and SR, were developed to predict where CM failed. >> >> >> AS science goes, AGW is a fail. The predictions of the late 1990s >> >> failed to predict the non-warming of the next decade. In science, >> >> that is called "the rejected hypothesis". Further, Svensmark keyed >> >> on the stronger correlation between solar cycle and climate change >> >> and found the physical mechanism and verified his theory at CERN. >> >> His theory not only explains climate change for the last 4 billion >> >> years, but the hemispherical effects of climate change, the solar >> >> correlation, and the observed climate change on other planets that >> >> AGW fails to predict. The increase in CO2 is then explained by >> >> simple chemistry: a warmer ocean holds less CO2 and dissolves more >> >> carbonate into CO2. CO2 is an EFFECT, not a cause, of warming. At >> >> this point, one applies Occam's Razor. >> >> > What exactly, then, if the observed increase in CO2 in the atmosphere >> > is due to the release of carbon from the ocean, makes *all* the >> > gigatons of anthropogenically-generated CO2 disappear from the >> > atmosphere? The usual estimates of the amount of CO2 produced >> > anthropogenically comes up with numbers that are *larger* than (about >> > double) the observed amount from anthropogenic sources (leading to >> > the idea that the "missing" anthropogenic CO2 is being absorbed by >> > the oceans, which are the only sink with sufficiently fast rate of >> > uptake and capacity). Now you are saying that the oceans are not the >> > sink for the missing part of the amount of anthropogenically produced >> > CO2, but actually is the *source* of the observed increase in >> > atmospheric CO2. If that is so, where did *all* the anthropogenic >> > CO2 produced during the industrial age go? It's missing! It had to >> > go somewhere. Should we put out a missing gas announcement? Where is >> > it? >> >> Equilibrium exists because the chemical reaction goes both ways, and >> when the two reaction rates are equal, the equilibrium is reached. >> >> If you add 5.5 GtC to the atmosphere/ocean/Carbonate rock/vegetation >> system, most of it will end up in the oceans or vegetation, and very >> little will remain in the atmosphere. >> >> But the only thing that can change the ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere >> to CO2 in the ocean, or CO2 in the ocean to CO2 in carbonate rocks, is >> a temperature increase. If there is no temperature increase, then the >> rations will remain the same. This is simple freshmen chemistry. >> >> So adding 5.5 GtC to the entire SYSTEM will have a very small effect on >> the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Raising the temperature of the >> earth will shift the equilibrium constants so that more CO2 enters the >> water, and more CO2 enters the atmosphere. > > Have you already forgotten a temperature increase decreases solubility? Your question is based on a false premise. I prefer people state their meaning rather than avoid making a direct statement by asking a question. A temperature increase TENDS to decrease solubility of gases, and increase the solubility of solids. Check it out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solubility#Temperature Begin quote "Temperature The solubility of a given solute in a given solvent typically depends on temperature. *For many solids dissolved in liquid water, the solubility increases with temperature up to 100 °C.[5]* In liquid water at high temperatures, (e.g., that approaching the critical temperature), the solubility of ionic solutes tends to decrease due to the change of properties and structure of liquid water; the lower dielectric constant results in a less polar solvent. Gaseous solutes exhibit more complex behavior with temperature. *As the temperature is raised, gases usually become less soluble in water* (to minimum which is below 120 °C for most permanent gases[6]), but more soluble in organic solvents.[5]" Perhaps from 5th grade chemistry you might recall dissolving sugar or salt in hot water, and observing how crystals formed on a suspended seed crystal in the solution as the liquid cooled. The warm water had increased solubility over cool water. So, as water warms, more solid carbonates dissolve, and the ratio of CO2 in the air to CO2 in the water increases. >> Yes, studies have been done that prove that the C13:C12 isotope ratios >> indicate that the added carbon is from a sequestered source. The false >> conclusion is that the only source of sequestered carbon is man made >> fossil fuels. The system includes a vast source of carbonate rocks that >> is entering the system; dissolved corals and dissolved carbonate rocks. >> >> Chemistry teaches us that we couldn't have possibly have made that >> big >> of an impact to the WHOLE SYSTEM as claimed by the AGW advocates, and >> the isotope preference in the various equilibriums is slight, so their >> conclusion that man made C12 stays in the atmosphere is clearly wrong >> and the assumption debunked by simple chemistry. - Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text -
From: Marvin the Martian on 18 Jul 2010 13:30
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 06:35:26 -0700, M Purcell wrote: > On Jul 17, 10:41 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: >> On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 09:12:47 -0700, M Purcell wrote: >> > On Jul 17, 8:26 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: >> >> >> AS science goes, AGW is a fail. The predictions of the late 1990s >> >> failed to predict the non-warming of the next decade. In science, >> >> that is called "the rejected hypothesis". Further, Svensmark keyed >> >> on the stronger correlation between solar cycle and climate change >> >> and found the physical mechanism and verified his theory at CERN. >> >> His theory not only explains climate change for the last 4 billion >> >> years, but the hemispherical effects of climate change, the solar >> >> correlation, and the observed climate change on other planets that >> >> AGW fails to predict. The increase in CO2 is then explained by >> >> simple chemistry: a warmer ocean holds less CO2 and dissolves more >> >> carbonate into CO2. CO2 is an EFFECT, not a cause, of warming. At >> >> this point, one applies Occam's Razor. >> >> > I agree with your views of science and appeal to authority and I hate >> > to just post an agreement. What other planets are you refering to? >> > CO2 does absorb heat and we are releasing tremendous amounts of it >> > into the atmoshpere which correlates with the current increasing >> > average global temperatures. The decreasing solubility of CO2 seems >> > to be reinforcing. >> >> My home planet Mars is warming, for one. Even this poorly written, >> totally pro-AGW biased article admits that Mars is >> warming.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars- warming.html >> >> Also Pluto is warming.http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html >> >> Jupiter is experiencing "Climate >> chagne"http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html >> >> And Neptune's largest moon, >> Tritonhttp://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html > > None of which have oceans and an atmosphere remotely simular to the > earth's (a fallacy of equivocation) but I noticed the warming isn't > attributable to increased solar output. The existence of earth like oceans and atmosphere is irrelevant. Planetary matter, in whatever form, will warm when exposed to more solar energy. Nice straw dog fallacy, however. The existence of warming on other planets suggests a common cause. Not logical proof it could be a statistical fluke, but Occume's razor applies. >> Humans, as a species, puts about 5.5 GtCarbon into the Earth's >> atmosphere every year, which is a drop in the bucket of the carbon >> cycle, You can see >> here:http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/ earth_system/ >> carbon_cycle_NASA.jpg >> That even NASA, which has a pro-AGW bias, admits that there's some 90 >> GtC being exchanged with the ocean and 120 GtC being exchanged with >> vegetation. So, it is more like a 2% perturbation than a "tremendous >> amount". > > 5.5 Gt of carbon is a tremendous amount and it's increasing just as a > global temperature increase of one degree is a tremendous amount. I just explained why 5.5 GtC was in the noise level for the entire carbon cycle when the correctly defined system is considered. Why do you repeat a point already refuted? >> Note that there exist an equilibrium point between atmospheric CO2 and >> ocean CO2, and between ocean CO2 and carbonate rocks. Yes, the >> solubility of CO2 in the ocean is decreasing, which indicates nothing >> more than a warming ocean, not that our 5.5 GtC year is causing the >> ocean, which has 38,000 GtC, to reach saturation. Recall from freshman >> chemistry that the only way to change an equilibrium constant is to >> change the temperature of the system. The correlation of CO2 to mean >> global temperature is an effect of warming, not a cause of warming. One >> must be on guard against the "correlation proves causation" fallacy. > > Not just a correlation but a mechanism for the increasing temperature, > do you recall from freshman chemistry "greenhouse gases"? Well, then write your paper, because even the IPCC admits they can't prove that the addition of CO2 alone can explain the warming of the 1990s. The best they can come up with is to employ the obvious error of positive feedback, that CO2 is a "leverage gas" that increases water vapor. |