"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: Bill Ward on 19 Jul 2010 14:36 On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 11:27:21 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote: > 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. IIRC, the presence of a solid-liquid system guarantees the liquid is saturated at equilibrium. The oceans have been there a long time... >>> 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. AGWers don't deal well with inconvenient truths.
From: Last Post on 19 Jul 2010 22:30 On Jul 19, 8:36 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > There is peer review and experimental evidence for the greenhouse > effect. I gave you two links to pdf files which themselves will lead > you to other research and even to information that will explain how > you and I can ... Ø So where are you hiding it??? | In real science the burden of proof is always | on the proposer, never on the skeptics. So far | neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one | iota of valid data for global warming nor have | they provided data that climate change is being | effected by commerce and industry, and not by | natural causes.
From: Sam Wormley on 19 Jul 2010 22:48 On 7/19/10 9:30 PM, Last Post wrote: > On Jul 19, 8:36 pm, Immortalist<reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > >> > There is peer review and experimental evidence for the greenhouse >> > effect. I gave you two links to pdf files which themselves will lead >> > you to other research and even to information that will explain how >> > you and I can ... > So where are you hiding it??? > Infrared Radiation Parameterization in Numerical Climate Models http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/4/4/pdf/i1520-0442-4-4-424.pdf Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases http://www.whrc.org/resources/primer_fundamentals.html The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
From: BDR529 on 20 Jul 2010 01:00 On 7/20/2010 6:39 AM, Claudius Denk wrote: [snip] > If you ever come across any peer-reviewed and/or experimental evidence > that CO2 has any kind of thermal effect on the atmosphere let me know > and I will reconsider my position? > > Fair enough? You are asking for the usual information, perhaps start reading www.realclimate.org where the role of CO2 is nicely described. Q
From: Marvin the Martian on 20 Jul 2010 11:00
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 18:19:26 -0700, Immortalist wrote: > On Jul 19, 4:22 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: >> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 22:05:44 -0700, Immortalist wrote: >> > On Jul 18, 9:43 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> On Jul 18, 9:11 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > I think the mistake in reasoning your attempting to illustrate is the >> > appeal to ignorance. Even though your own approach looks ignorant >> > thats not what I mean. >> >> > The argument from ignorance ("appeal to ignorance") or argument by >> > lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that >> > a premise is true only because it has not been proved false or that a >> > premise is false only because it has not been proved true. >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance >> >> True enough about the appeal to ignorance. Ignorance neither proves no >> disproves the assertion being made. However, in the case of AGW, there >> is no theory out there that predicts that the observed warming of the >> 1990s was due to an increase in CO2. > > Was Claudious referring to the 1990s or is this a new aspect for the > argument? I am to lazy to look back and frankly don't care So, I'm supposed to do your checking for you? If you don't care, I'm certainly not going to bother. >> HOWEVER, simple chemistry (equilibrium between ocean and air CO2, and >> between ocean Co2 and carbonate rock), the lag in the increase of CO2 >> in response to warming, the warming on other planets, the much stronger >> correlation of climate change to solar cycle, the experimentally >> demonstrated physical process that shows how solar cycle changes >> climate, the past history of climate change, all point to rejecting the >> AGW non- hypothesis. >> >> > In science we don't really "reject" theories, they just become more or > less probable on emerging evidence. One thing about science, which is > not like religion, is that you must be prepared to see everything you > believe in proved wrong. 1) This is irrelevant gibberish. 2) Scientist reject hypothesis that fail to predict, they don't reject theories. Theories predict or they don't. No "more or less probable" about it. 3) In science, you're not part of "we". >> I say "non-hypothesis" because as of now, there is no hypothesis of AGW >> to test. >> >> > Can you explain what would be necessary for a hypothesis of AGW? That you even ask this proves you're no scientist. >I mean > if we burned all the coal on the planet at once would that be sufficient > for the case, or volcanoes for example. I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were a troll. |