"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: Dawlish on 19 Jul 2010 02:09 On Jul 19, 7:03 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > 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? Why bother posting if you are going to be that stupid. It's time you woke up in the stupid seats to what actually happens in science and stopped thinking that there's a denk with all the answers and no-one else even knows the questions. Your arrogance in thinking that way far outweighs your intelligence and your ability to think that way. That's why you occupy one of the stupid seats reserved for the crazies and even your own side shun you. Don't be so stupid and think before you post.
From: Claudius Denk on 19 Jul 2010 02:20 On Jul 18, 11:09 pm, Dawlish <pjg...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 19, 7:03 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > > > 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? > > Why bother posting if you are going to be that stupid. It's time you > woke up in the stupid seats to what actually happens in science and > stopped thinking that there's a denk with all the answers and no-one > else even knows the questions. Your arrogance in thinking that way far > outweighs your intelligence and your ability to think that way. That's > why you occupy one of the stupid seats reserved for the crazies and > even your own side shun you. Don't be so stupid and think before you > post. I wish I wuz more smarter lyke yiew.
From: Dawlish on 19 Jul 2010 02:48 On Jul 19, 7:20 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On Jul 18, 11:09 pm, Dawlish <pjg...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 19, 7:03 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > 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? > > > Why bother posting if you are going to be that stupid. It's time you > > woke up in the stupid seats to what actually happens in science and > > stopped thinking that there's a denk with all the answers and no-one > > else even knows the questions. Your arrogance in thinking that way far > > outweighs your intelligence and your ability to think that way. That's > > why you occupy one of the stupid seats reserved for the crazies and > > even your own side shun you. Don't be so stupid and think before you > > post. > > I wish I wuz more smarter lyke yiew.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Yes, you posted that before. It doesn't help you; it just makes you look even more stupid. No-one should enter into discussion with someone who feels they know more than every single scientist working in the climate field. Someone who *knows* he is right and who cannot be persuaded in any way. That's why you have a special place amongst the crazies in the stupid seats. That odd on that uses "thus and so" is there, as is Ward and the strange one with the really silly sig. You are all crazy because of the way you all think no-one else can think like you can and that only you know the answers and you and you alone are correct; but look around and see the people next to you. They all think the same. It's a bit like hearing voices - hearing some god.or prophet, talking to you alone. You think you're special because you are hearing the voice, but so are thousands of others in their own heads and, unfortunately, every one of them is crazy. No-one can help that, but yourself. Sit down again.
From: hersheyh on 19 Jul 2010 10:05 On Jul 18, 4:47 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] > > > > > 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. Oh, I almost forgot. If the *extra* CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere were from the burning of fossil fuels, it would be CO2 depleted of 14C. That is the isotopic signature of fossil fuel-based CO2. OTOH, if the *extra* CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere were from CO2 in the ocean, it would have the 14C signature of oceanic CO2, which is roughly depleted only by one half-life (5000 years old) relative to atmospheric CO2 (because the equilibration throughout the ocean takes about 6000 years). It is relatively easy to distinguish between 5000 years old CO2 (like that which is in the oceans) and millions of years old CO2 (like that which is from fossil fuels). The carbonates stored as shells on the ocean floor is, at the upper most exposed portion, similar in 14C to the ocean from which it was recently deposited. But even if ancient carbonates were being dissolved, they first would become diluted in with all the other CO2 in the oceans before it gets outgassed. There are a few places (deep sea vents) that vent old carbon, but there hasn't been a large increase in that source. There is no question but that the observed increase in CO2 is much more likely to be from old carbon completely depleted in 14C than from CO2 from the oceans (which is "older" carbon than the atmosphere, but not that much older). Now, if you have any real evidence that the *extra* CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere *and* in the oceans is not the CO2 that is due to anthropogenic causes, present it. > 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. > > > > > > > > "Carbonic acid is the organic compound with > > ... > > read more »
From: Marvin the Martian on 19 Jul 2010 12:27
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:11:11 -0700, hersheyh wrote: > On Jul 18, 1:50 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: >> 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. > > You can change the amount in each pool by dumping a large bolus of CO2 > from a source that cannot be replaced into one of the pools. Totally Irrelevant. Neither the oceans, the atmosphere, or the solid carbonate rocks are near saturation. >> to the entire SYSTEM will have a very small effect on the CO2 >> concentration in the atmosphere. > > Depends on the number of years that extra C is added. No. The carbonate precipitates have been building up for millions of years. Whenever the CO2 level is above that premitted by temperature and partial pressure in the atmosphere, they precipitate out. >> Raising the temperature of the >> earth will shift the equilibrium constants so that more CO2 enters the >> water, and more CO2 enters the atmosphere. >> >> 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. > > Actually the amount of CO2 put in the atmosphere during the course of > the industrial revolution (or more recently) is sufficient that the > atmospheric increase in CO2 should be twice what is observed. Only if you can't do simple science and don't properly identify the atmosphere/Ocean/carbonate rock system as the entire carbon cycle. That is, if you get it wrong you would say what you say. |