"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: M Purcell on 18 Jul 2010 14:34 On Jul 18, 10:07 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > 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. Melted ice and rain dilute the oceans increasing thier solubility but increasing temperatures would reduce condensation. Please explain how there can be increased carbonate precipitation when the solution is at equilibrium.
From: M Purcell on 18 Jul 2010 14:39 On Jul 18, 10:23 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > 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. As a reminder, you said "Raising the temperature of the earth will shift the equilibrium constants so that more CO2 enters the water..". CO2 is not a solid and more will not enter the water with increasing temperatures.
From: Claudius Denk on 18 Jul 2010 15:02 On Jul 13, 6:42 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Can you define Global Warming as your using the phrase and what would > be necessary for it to happen and then show how this has not happened? No I cannot. Nor can I do the same if you were to assert that space aliens had landed and now secretly live amongst us. Do you believe that space aliens have landed and now secretly live amongst us? Why not?
From: Brad Guth on 18 Jul 2010 15:02 On Jul 11, 9:37 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > When the general public hears about a nearby prison break they don't > have or need the time to research all the court documents to verify > for themselves that the escapees are in fact actually violent > murderers and not just some wrongfully convicted innocents. > > The public is aware of itself, the judicial process, the established > institutions and the media and various authorities to be sure enough > to lock the doors, etc. > > In fact, most of the general public will generally go to the ER and > hope that they won't get the wrong limbs amputated. > > Something similar goes on in science. Scientists are familiar with > the peer review process and established institutions and personalities > and can draw conclusions and take action on work that is completely > outside of their field. > > So appeal to authority is something every astute person does at some > time or another. The ones who appear ignorant of vetting processes > and institutions are called "wingers." > > Independent thinking in science means coming up with a new > relationship, something _no one_ has stated before. While this is a > lofty goal doesn't mean that all scientists spend all their time doing > it. > > Most non atmospheric scientists listen to the atmospheric scientists > and maybe wonder about some of their methods but generally believe > what the atmospheric scientists are basically correct. > > But under no circumstances can anyone suggest independent thinking is > a mob of high school drops out sitting around listening to a high > school drop out talk radio host tell the largest lowest common > denominator mob audience what they already wanted to hear because he > gets the most money pandering to the biggest mob of doggy poopy > stoopid rightards. > > Bret Cahill The world needs to know: Glaciers and other well established volumes of slow-ice have been thawing from the ground up, as much or more so than from the top down since 12,900 BP, and especially accelerated as of 11,712 BP as though direct sunlight finally broke through them clouds that shouldnt have existed if this last ice-age were merely another natural fluke of terrestrial and solar cycles. However, does anyone really care outside of protecting their purely for-profit investments (including their job and/or retirement security)? Perhaps its only getting hotter, stormier and suckier because Earth has been losing mass, no thanks to the diligent likes of dysfunctionals like BP and so many others spilling, venting, toxic saturating and converting so much of their raw hydrocarbons into CO2, NOx plus any number of toxic and acidic secondary elements to boot. I mean, what Eden like planet isnt complete without massive and expanding dead-zones of oxygen depleted ocean, and having its agricultural infrastructure made so toxic that even robust exoskeleton life cant coexist. We're sucking Earth dry in more ways than ever before, as well as having been polluting the living hell out of mother Earths land, sea and atmosphere, plus we're losing roughly a tonne per second to boot (mostly helium and hydrogen). Gee whiz, what could possibly go wrong? Scientists baffled by unusual upper atmosphere shrinkage >http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/16/nasa.upper.atmosphere.shrinking/index.html?hpt=C1> (CNN) -- An upper layer of Earth's atmosphere recently shrank so much that researchers are at a loss to adequately explain it, NASA said on Thursday. "This is the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years," John Emmert of the Naval Research Lab was quoted as saying in NASA news report. There's lots more critical info if you'd care to research into any of this, as well as objective science as to how much is getting artificially spilled and vented into our environment. http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/16/nasa.upper.atmosphere.shrinking/index.html?hpt=C1 Don't expect any of our resident Usenet/newsgroup Semites to give a tinker's damn, other than expect their usual tactical swarm gauntlet of topic/author stalking and bashing for all its worth. Even pretend- Atheists that act/react exactly like devout Zionist/Jews are so dysfunctional when it comes down to helping anyone except themselves. Check out the July/August Discover published topic of "The Streetlight Effect" by David H. Freedman. It points out how dead wrong mainstream can actually be most of the time, and why it's likely to stay that way. http://www.freedman.com/ http://www.freedman.com/articles/DiscStreetlight.pdf ~ BG
From: Brad Guth on 18 Jul 2010 15:03
On Jul 11, 10:51 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On Jul 11, 9:37 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > When the general public hears about a nearby prison break they don't > > have or need the time to research all the court documents to verify > > for themselves that the escapees are in fact actually violent > > murderers and not just some wrongfully convicted innocents. > > > The public is aware of itself, the judicial process, the established > > institutions and the media and various authorities to be sure enough > > to lock the doors, etc. > > > In fact, most of the general public will generally go to the ER and > > hope that they won't get the wrong limbs amputated. > > > Something similar goes on in science. Scientists are familiar with > > the peer review process and established institutions and personalities > > and can draw conclusions and take action on work that is completely > > outside of their field. > > > So appeal to authority is something every astute person does at some > > time or another. The ones who appear ignorant of vetting processes > > and institutions are called "wingers." > > > Independent thinking in science means coming up with a new > > relationship, something _no one_ has stated before. While this is a > > lofty goal doesn't mean that all scientists spend all their time doing > > it. > > > Most non atmospheric scientists listen to the atmospheric scientists > > and maybe wonder about some of their methods but generally believe > > what the atmospheric scientists are basically correct. > > A real scientists, like myself, may, at time, suspend their disbelief > temporarily until they've had a chance to further investigate. But > you are wrong to suggest that any real scientists would choose to > believe something just because some other "expert" said it to be > true. Believing without evidence is the realm of science-based > whackos, like AGW advocates. It's not the realm of any intellectually > honest real scientist. > > > > > But under no circumstances can anyone suggest independent thinking is > > a mob of high school drops out sitting around listening to a high > > school drop out talk radio host tell the largest lowest common > > denominator mob audience what they already wanted to hear because he > > gets the most money pandering to the biggest mob of doggy poopy > > stoopid rightards. > > My advice is to stop looking for scientific truth on the radio. "Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me." / George Orwell If we knew what we were doing, it wouldnt be called research, would it? / Einstein Check out the July/August Discover published topic of "The Streetlight Effect" by David H. Freedman. It points out how dead wrong mainstream can actually be most of the time, and why it's likely to stay that way. http://www.freedman.com/ http://www.freedman.com/articles/DiscStreetlight.pdf ~ BG |