"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: Marvin the Martian on 17 Jul 2010 12:26 On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 07:27:03 -0700, Bret Cahill 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. > >> > 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. >> >> If the persons in question are outside the field, then they are not >> peers. > > Is the peer review process different for different fields? Yes. In most fields, a paper comes in, the editor of the journal take a look at the abstract, and sends it to people who are doing similar work or in a related field. The reviewers look for errors and check citations and make a judgment on how interesting a paper is for the journal's target readership. In climatology (and apparently anthropology) the "editor" reads the abstract, decides if the paper supports the paper's conclusion (AGW). If it does, it is published. If it isn't, it is sent to "reviewers" who slander it, the author, the author's mother, and the author's dog and hand it back to the author as rejected. Then, peer review is claimed to be part of the scientific method, which it most certainly is not. > Are you this stoopid in real life or are you just pulling our legs? > > > Bret
From: Bret Cahill on 17 Jul 2010 12:30 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. .. . . > . . . a Nobel prize winning authority > says authority is the enemy of science. Authoritarianism, such as that promoted by hate filled ignorant bigot rightard talk show hosts, is certainly an enemy of science. Indeed, as posted in the OP and as you cut/snip dodged, appeal to authority by itself doesn't promote _pioneering_ science: 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
From: Bruce Richmond on 17 Jul 2010 22:19 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:0.2/plot/gistemp/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958 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 "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 "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 "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 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.
From: M Purcell on 18 Jul 2010 01:18 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. > 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. > "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. > "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. > "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. > "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.
From: Marvin the Martian on 18 Jul 2010 01:41
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 09:12:47 -0700, M Purcell wrote: > On Jul 17, 8:26 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > >> 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. > > I agree with your views of science and appeal to authority and I hate to > just post an agreement. What other planets are you refering to? CO2 does > absorb heat and we are releasing tremendous amounts of it into the > atmoshpere which correlates with the current increasing average global > temperatures. The decreasing solubility of CO2 seems to be reinforcing. My home planet Mars is warming, for one. Even this poorly written, totally pro-AGW biased article admits that Mars is warming. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html Also Pluto is warming. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html Jupiter is experiencing "Climate chagne" http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html And Neptune's largest moon, Triton http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html Humans, as a species, puts about 5.5 GtCarbon into the Earth's atmosphere every year, which is a drop in the bucket of the carbon cycle, You can see here: http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/earth_system/ carbon_cycle_NASA.jpg That even NASA, which has a pro-AGW bias, admits that there's some 90 GtC being exchanged with the ocean and 120 GtC being exchanged with vegetation. So, it is more like a 2% perturbation than a "tremendous amount". Note that there exist an equilibrium point between atmospheric CO2 and ocean CO2, and between ocean CO2 and carbonate rocks. Yes, the solubility of CO2 in the ocean is decreasing, which indicates nothing more than a warming ocean, not that our 5.5 GtC year is causing the ocean, which has 38,000 GtC, to reach saturation. Recall from freshman chemistry that the only way to change an equilibrium constant is to change the temperature of the system. The correlation of CO2 to mean global temperature is an effect of warming, not a cause of warming. One must be on guard against the "correlation proves causation" fallacy. |