"Independent Thinking" vs Appeal To Authority In Science
in [Math]
|
Prev: Benford's Law
Next: where we have a new understanding of what factorial means in 254! = 10^500 #648 Correcting Math
From: hersheyh on 18 Jul 2010 23:54 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 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. So is the analysis I present below. And if the one for CO2 at Mauna Loa looks familiar, that is because it is. I looked at the other temperature measures, and they looked pretty similar to the one in my graph. Clearly *someone* is manipulating the raw data (see below) to *somehow* to generate the data you *claim* represents CO2 and temperature. It is not at all clear what the manipulations of the raw CO2 data and raw temperature data are. *CAN YOU OR CAN YOU NOT EXPLAIN* how the raw data was manipulated to get the graph above? > > > 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. I agree. That is why the ocean will not ever get below pH 7. But the ocean is by no means saturated for carbon, especially at the lower depths (colder and higher pressure) below the saturation horizon. But distributing the C from the upper ocean through the rest of the ocean will take about 6000 years. And even the upper ocean can become more saturated for carbonate and bicarbonate (and lower pH) than it currently is before there will be *chemical* rather than *biochemical* removal. Biochemical removal in the form of CaCO3 does depend on a source of Ca. But the *fact* is that the ocean is currently a net sink, not a net source of atmospheric carbon. > > > 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. That graph is by no means clear. One of the lines claims to be atmospheric CO2 levels, but that line differs rather dramatically from the raw data for Mauna Loa CO2 levels for those years. I have no idea what this graph is measuring. > 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. > Again, all I have is your claim that this graph actually is what you claim it is. I have presented the raw Mauna Loa data and it doesn't look like your graph at all. So, again, what is this graph actually measuring and how was the Mauna Loa CO2 data manipulated to acheive that graph. > > > > "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. > You may claim that, but I don't see any supporting evidence. The ocean has more than enough capacity to absorb the half of the CO2 pumped by humans into the atmosphere. If we were to stop doing so the extra anthropogenic atmospheric concentration would (over 6000 years) decay and wind up in the ocean sink. > > > >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. Yes. But unless there were some hidden source of CO2 coming directly *into* the ocean and not from the atmosphere, such a temperature induced loss of ocean CO2 would be observed by a *decrease* in ocean carbonates/bicarbonates, not an *increase* as indicated by a pH change. So are you claiming that there is some oceanic source of CO2 that has been radically changing? And an increase in CO2 *from* the ocean would still not account for the anthropogenic amount of CO2 that we *know* has been pumped into the atmosphere. You are still requiring *all* the anthropogenic CO2 to magically disappear from the atmosphere only to be replaced by a magical source of CO2 that both increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere *and* in the oceans. > > > > 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. > > Again, you have not explained how that graph was made and what it represents. > > > > "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 > > > > "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 carbonic 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. There are no carbonates precipitating out in the middle of the ocean, although some can in tidal salt pans after evaporation. Take a gallon of sea water and start evaporating it and see how much has to disappear before carbonates start precipitating out. Even the biologically induced/catalyzed carbonates in shells dissolve once the shell falls below the saturation horizon. > > The net rate of CO2 getting converted to CaCO3s is quite slow. It is > > a biological process that, depending on the particular species, > > produces aragonite or calcite shells and maintains them over the life > > of the organism. At death, a *small* fraction gets buried under > > either more CO3 shells or in the muck (many protist shells fall below > > the saturation line and dissolve; the deep ocean deposits are not > > limestones). This occurs only very slowly and only on the continental > > shelves or atoll regions. There is no rain of chemically produced > > CaCO3 occurring in the oceans (except in a few shallow tidal regions) > > even in areas where there is supersaturation for CaCO3s. > > There are many forms of carbonates that have nothing to do with > organic processes. It is also possible for the salts formed to stay > in suspension. I know there has been much talk of mining minerals on > the ocean floor that have collected on the surface. I don't know > enough about what is there to make any claims, but I doubt you do > either. I know enough carbonate chemistry to know you are blowing smoke. The fact remains that the only sink (on the timescale of decades rather than centuries) for anthropogenic CO2 remains the upper ocean, with the next sink being the rest of the ocean. Unless you know of another huge source of CO2 that can account for both the increase in CO2 in ocean waters *and* the increase in the atmosphere, the oceans are actually absorbing about half the anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere > > Anyway, my point was to show that the relationships involved are not > nearly as simple as they are often portrayed. But, again, you presented a graph that purported to be something to do with atmospheric CO2 as measured at Mauna Loa and temperature measurements. Yet when I run a graph of the raw data, it looks nothing like what you are presenting. Can you or can you not explain the manipulation of the raw data that resulted in the graph you presented?
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?
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. |