"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: Immortalist on 19 Jul 2010 00:11 On Jul 18, 12:02 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > 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? So what your saying is that however it is defined you can fnd fault with any evidence presented to back it up? Is this like the atheist debate where the religious propose God and the atheist asks for evidence and then denies that the evidence is sufficient for the case of God? Here is a basic definition, go at it man and let me see how you destroy it. Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 20th century. Most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, which results from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. Global dimming, a result of increasing concentrations of atmospheric aerosols that block sunlight from reaching the surface, has partially countered the effects of greenhouse gas induced warming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
From: Claudius Denk on 19 Jul 2010 00:43 On Jul 18, 9:11 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 18, 12:02 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > 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? > > So what your saying is that however it is defined you can fnd fault > with any evidence presented to back it up? Is this like the atheist > debate where the religious propose God and the atheist asks for > evidence and then denies that the evidence is sufficient for the case > of God? Here is a basic definition, go at it man and let me see how > you destroy it. So, if I was to tell you I do believe that space aliens have landed and now secretly live amongst us you would have no dispute with this assertion, would you? Now you know how we (us skeptics) feel when make the logical error of asking us to disprove a negative. > > Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's > near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its > projected continuation. According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report > by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global > surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during > the 20th century. Hey, dumbass. IPCC is the mafioso, of sorts, of the Global Warming Industrial Complex. IOW, you are quoting as your source an organization thats repeatedly been caught in lies. Did you not know this? > Most of the observed temperature increase since the > middle of the 20th century was caused by increasing concentrations of > greenhouse gases, Absurd. Answer this question dumbass: did you know that there is no peer-reviewed and/or experimental evidence that CO2 has any kind of thermal effect on the atmosphere? Answer the question. > which results from human activity such as fossil > fuel burning and deforestation. Global dimming, a result of > increasing concentrations of atmospheric aerosols that block sunlight > from reaching the surface, has partially countered the effects of > greenhouse gas induced warming. Bubblegum science.
From: Tater Gumfries on 19 Jul 2010 00:49 On Jul 11, 11:51 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > A real scientists, like myself, Sorry, but you have proved again and again that you ain't no scientist. > 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. Sorry, but you're wrong. Real scientists will frequently believe something is true based on the consensus of other trusted experts. For instance, very few non-mathematicians understand or intuitively believe the Banach-Tarski construction, but most of them believe it is a valid based on the consensus of mathematicians. Certainly very few of them have the mathematical abilities to understand it. Tater
From: Bret Cahill on 19 Jul 2010 00:53 On Jul 18, 8:29 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Jul 18, 1:47 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 18, 1:54 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 17, 10:19 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 17, 12:22 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> 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? > > > > > 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..... > > > > There is an annual cycle to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Not > > > surprisingly, the CO2 low is in late summer and the high is in late > > > winter in the Northern hemisphere and is due to the different rates of > > > uptake and outgo due to the growing season. Fossil fuel CO2 is an > > > addition to this cycle. > > > First let me thank you for your response. It shows a lot more thought > > than the slurs and insults that are being posted here almost to the > > exclusion of all else. > > > I'm not sure how your description of an annual cycle applies to the > > graph I posted. > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.... > > > Those are multi year cycles. > > > > > As you say, the ocean must be absorbing the "missing" anthropogenic > > > > co2, but it also must be passing it on to some other sink. > > > > What possible sink does the anthropogenic CO2 have access to that > > > other CO2 in the atmosphere and ocean does not? You still have not > > > explained how one can keep on adding CO2 from a source that takes a > > > very long time to accumulate (fossil fuels) without that having any > > > effect nor how the ocean can get more acidic (or less basic, if you > > > prefer) at the same time it is acting as the CO2 source for the > > > *increased* CO2 since the industrial revolution. Your argument simply > > > does not add up. > > > There are a lot of minerals disolved in the ocean. It is salty > > because salts are formed when acids and bases get together. I would > > not go so far as to say the added co2 does nothing, but it does not > > just keep collecting in the ocean either. > > > > > The > > > > atmospheric co2 and co2 in solution stay in equilibrium at a constant > > > > temperature. > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid > > > > Yes. And more atmospheric CO2 means more oceanic CO2, just as higher > > > temperature in the water means less CO2. However, the concentration > > > of CO2 in the atmosphere clearly is the more important driver of the > > > equilibrium change because we can see that the pH change (and change > > > in the saturation boundaries) is in the direction expected if oceanic > > > CO2 levels were *increasing* and not in the direction expected if > > > oceanic CO2 levels were dropping. That is, the level of CO2 is > > > increasing in *both* the atmosphere and ocean. It is not decreasing > > > in the ocean and increasing in the atmosphere. > > > I never said the ocean levels were dropping. My claim was that they > > aren't increasing at any where near the rate they would if all the > > added carbon was staying in the form of co2. As for the atmosphere > > being the more important driver, that is ridiculous. It is obvious > > from the graph that atmospheric co2 is being driven up and down by the > > much larger mass in the ocean. The more important driver here is > > whatever is causing the multi year cycle in global temp. I don't know > > what that is, but it is not co2 since the co2 change lags the temp > > change. I am not going to speculate on the cause of that change and > > don't need to. What I wrote is based on the observed data. I don't > > need a working theory of how the sun was formed to observe that it > > shines. > > > > > "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. > > > > Like I said. That can certainly be true. However, we are not seeing > > > that. Instead we are seeing an increase in *both* atmospheric and > > > ocean CO2 levels. That is what would be expected if the atmospheric > > > CO2 levels were increasing because of input CO2 from some non-oceanic > > > source, like, say, fossil fuel use. > > > Again, I have not said that the ocean levels haven't changed at all. > > I have only claimed that they have not changed to the extent that tey > > would if they were acting as a simple co2 sink as is often claimed by > > the AGW crowd. > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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. > > > > Again, the evidence points to the oceans currently acting as a CO2 > > > sink for the anthropogenic CO2, not as a net source of atmospheric > > > CO2. That is because the amount of CO2 is *increasing* in both > > > atmosphere and ocean (as indicated by measurement of the atmosphere > > > and the pH change in the oceans). Maybe at some point the ocean will > > > be unable to absorb any more atmospheric CO2. But that time is not > > > now. > > > The graph clearly shows that right now the slightest increase in temp > > forces co2 out of the ocean. You may not like that, but it is what is > > observed. > > > > > Where did the "missing" anthropogenic co2 go? When co2 is disolved in > > > > water it makes carbonic acid. > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid > > > > Yes. Why do you think that the oceans are becoming more acidic (less > > > basic)? Because the oceans are absorbing more CO2 because there is > > > more CO2 in the atmosphere. > > > When the ocean is pumping co2 back into the atmosphere, which the > > graph shows it is doing about half the time, it is not absorbing more > > co2 from the atmosphere. Yes, in the long run it is absorbing more, > > but it is very close to equilibrium and can go without a net gain for > > over two years at a time. Hardly the picture that some here have > > painted. > > Using the oceans as a co2 sink is usually a favorite of the anti-AGW > crowd and you seemed to be suggesting the excess co2 would precipiate > in the form of carbonates from ocean water. From the very close > correlation of the graph I would agree the oceans are close to > equilibrium and as I suggested, the melting ice (and snow) may produce > the delay in co2 responce to temperature. As sea ice melts (and > freezes) it increases (and decreases) the solubility of the water > while absorbing (and releasing) latent heat and cooling the ocean with > no increase of sea level. However on land there is a delay between > snow accumulation and return to the oceans, which does increase sea > level. An increasing albedo from cloud cover may offeset the warming > but clouds also act as "greenhouse gases" and wouldn't increase until > the oceans warmed. BR has an IQ below double digits. He's completely uneducable. Bret Cahill
From: Claudius Denk on 19 Jul 2010 02:03
On Jul 18, 9:49 pm, Tater Gumfries <ta...(a)kernsholler.net> wrote: > On Jul 11, 11:51 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > A real scientists, like myself, > > Sorry, but you have proved again and again that you ain't no > scientist. > > > 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. > > Sorry, but you're wrong. Real scientists will frequently believe > something is true based on the consensus of other trusted experts. No chance. Not in their own field of expertise. And that's what we're talking about here. A real scientists bases their belief in what the evidence fails to refute/dispute despite all one's efforts to refute/dispute it. > For > instance, very few non-mathematicians understand or intuitively > believe the Banach-Tarski construction, but most of them believe it is > a valid based on the consensus of mathematicians. Certainly very few > of them have the mathematical abilities to understand it. You are trying to argue that its alright for science to not always be empirical. Right? Has it never occurred to you that if you had a sound, fully tested, hypothesis (of AGW) you wouldn't have to be finding excuses for it not meeting the minimum standards of science? |