The Origins of "Consensus" Science?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So where do the (more than) 30 billion tons of CO2 go?


Say your car's gas tank contains 10 gallons of gas. You added another gallon, and you then measure the contents of the tank and find it now contains 11 gallons of gas. Would you then reasonably conclude the extra gallon came from "natural sources" and not from the gallon you added?

Serious lead into a question.

You speak of 30 billion tons of CO2. I dont know any different so I will give you that one for the sake of this post.

My quesion is, what percentage of the total atomosphere (in tons) is 30 billion tons?

Do you know? It is possible to know?

I trully wonder.

Thanks in advance if you have the info

The mass of the atmosphere is approx 5x10^15 tons - easy to calculate from the radius of Earth and the atmospheric pressure at sea level.

So, what percentage of the atmosphere is the current CO2 levels?

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/07.htm

About 0.038% by volume or 0.059% by mass, and rising.

thanks
and rising..........for now.........

If the temps drop (which I know you do not think will happen) CO2 levels will follow.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

About the gas tank. Yes, it would be reasonab le to assume several things - among then that the extra gallon came from the extra gallon that you added. It would make the most sense.

Let us say in addition that I claimed, "this is unprecedented, Never has the gas tank held 11 gallons.". Would it be reasonable to conclude that I'm full of shit?

Then let us look a bit deeper. "I used to be able to go 310 miles on 11 gallons, on average. Now I am only getting about 270 per tank. My driving habits are the same. The only thing I've done is a couple of oil changes in the last six months and filled up when running low.

I thus conclude that the lowering of fuel economy is either the oil or the fuel and I decide that higher octane fuel and custom oil are the only way to prevent this loss of economy.

Is this reasonable? Or might there be other factors that I am not be considering?

Is it reasonable to assume that the angles of a triangle do not add up to 180 degrees? I'd say, "absolutely.". I bet you agree. Because there are variables at play that have not been put into this hypothetical.

So, to answer your question. Yes. It is a reasonable conclusion. Is it the correct conclusion? That's the issue.

P.s. There were some people who thought it unreasonable to launch the shuttle in Jan. 86. However, this stood in the way of the reasonable and admirable goals of NASA administrators who, for good reasons, wanted the launch to proceed.

It was reasonable to conclude the Shuttle would have launched without problem. Such a malfunction was not a foregone conclusion. They assumed it would work.

We ALL go through life assuming things every day. It is how we operate. There is no problem with that - until our actions are based on assumptions that prove incorrect. Even the learned are often proved wrong.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,409]

> You posted not too long ago that common sense sometimes lies.

It does indeed. Results, however, do not.

>Just cause it is smaller (it is not gone you know) you claim victory.

?? How big is it supposed to be?

>Oh and I love the label the new PC title. Need to insult to stop the debate again

Sorry, those two sentences were incomprehensible.

[billvon 2,409]

>If the temps drop (which I know you do not think will happen) CO2 levels will follow.

Hmm. You've claimed several times that global warming has ended; your first claim was in 1998. Yet CO2 is not decreasing. Odd. It's almost like the billions of tons of CO2 we put in the atmosphere actually is doing something.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Is it reasonable to assume that the angles of a triangle do not add up to 180 degrees? I'd say, "absolutely.". I bet you agree.

I would disagree (assuming the triangle is defined in cartesian space).

Quote

There were some people who thought it unreasonable to launch the shuttle in Jan. 86. However, this stood in the way of the reasonable and admirable goals of NASA administrators who, for good reasons, wanted the launch to proceed.

I recommend that you read Richard Feynman's What Do You Care What Other People Think? before considering that decision to be based on good reasoning.

Quote

It was reasonable to conclude the Shuttle would have launched without problem.

No, it wasn't. The launch was performed outside the operating parameters of the components. Had the focus been on the science and engineering, rather than the policy, the launch would not have taken place.

Science has a place in public debate and policy, but public debate has no place in science. Null hypotheses should be kept or rejected based on science, not political expedience.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I would disagree (assuming the triangle is defined in cartesian space).

Bingo! You are assuming cartesian space as opposed to non-Euclidean concept, such as a large sphere. the smaller the space on a sphere, the more approximately the angles on the triangle will approach 180 degrees. But the larger the area, the greater the sum of the angles of the three straight lines.

Thus, the assumption is the catch. It is reasonable to assume that the three angles of a triangle can total 180 degrees. It is no less reasonable to assume that the three angles of a triangle can total in excess of 180 degrees.

Both are reasonable. Neither is incorrect based upon the assumptions. Once you move into assumptions, the "correct" answer becomes more and more fuzzy.

That's Crichton's point. Once "assumptions" move into to play, the validity of the data is implicated.

When policy becomes the science, it it more so implicated.

We don't know what the world will be like in 2100. Those that claim they do are selling wares. The "computer models" are subject to inputting errors and even errors of judgment. This is why computer models show variation, a reflection of uncertainties in input data and methodology.

"But the all agree on the general pattern." Yes, they do. Why are not the uncertainties that cause the difference also indicated as uncertainties in the end result?

That these questions are not answered is troubling to me.

Assumptions must be made to generate the models. What are the assumptions? How can we test the validity of the assumptions? We can't.

Miller-Urey were able to demonstrate the synthesis of primitive organic compounds from inorganic compounds in their famed experiment. They made assumptions about what the early earth's atmosphere would be.

Miller-Urey's experiment was likely inaccurate in the constituents of their hypothetical primordial ooze. They were likely inaccurate with the amount of electrical discharge in the early atmosphere. Changing the factors (i.e., the inclusion of oxygen) prevented the formation of these organic molecules. It is assumed by many that oxygen was a constituent of the primordial atmosphere on the basis of analyzed uranium sediments.

Assumptions. We don't know what the past atmosphere was like, much less what the future will bring. All we can do is make predictions. And like predicting the results of a football game, predictions can be wrong.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>If the temps drop (which I know you do not think will happen) CO2 levels will follow.

Hmm. You've claimed several times that global warming has ended; your first claim was in 1998. Nope, that is a lie you like to keep going Yet CO2 is not decreasing. Never have I said it is. A new lie just for me? Odd. It's almost like the billions of tons of CO2 we put in the atmosphere actually is doing something.

Excuse me but you will have to explain to me what the last sentence actually means

Also, I am curious as to why you feel the need to miss-represent my position? Being as confident as you are in your position, why do you feel so threatened that you have to do that?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JackC 0]

Quote

"But the all agree on the general pattern." Yes, they do. Why are not the uncertainties that cause the difference also indicated as uncertainties in the end result?

Good greif. Read the original research article. The uncertainties will have been discussed. I do wish people would criticise science for what it actually is.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

About the gas tank. Yes, it would be reasonab le to assume several things - among then that the extra gallon came from the extra gallon that you added. It would make the most sense.

It would, wouldn't it? The rest of your post was beside the point.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

***

Assumptions. We don't know what the past atmosphere was like, much less what the future will bring. All we can do is make predictions. And like predicting the results of a football game, predictions can be wrong.

Predicting that adding another 35billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere will make atmospheric CO2 levels rise seems pretty safe, given that atmospheric CO2 has increased in sync with human CO2 emissions for many decades already.

Of course, some attribute it to natural phenomena that occur once every 650,000 years or so. Some coincidence if that just happens to occur when humans start pumping out billions of tons of CO2.!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,409]

> Nope, that is a lie you like to keep going

RushMC thread title: "There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998"

>Excuse me but you will have to explain to me what the last sentence actually means

You have claimed that the climate is now cooling - not just in the 1998 quote, but in several other threads. You have also said "If the temps drop (which I know you do not think will happen) CO2 levels will follow."

This is not happening.

>Also, I am curious as to why you feel the need to miss-represent my position?

I don't "feel the need" to do that. I am responding to what you post. You have mentioned several times in the past that you do not necessarily post what you mean (i.e. the 1998 quote) but as I am not a mindreader all I can do is respond to your words.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

> Nope, that is a lie you like to keep going

RushMC thread title: "There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998"One more time sir, as I do in many of my posts I use the tittle of the article I am posting. YOU say I make the claim. As you know, the claim you make is a lie

>Excuse me but you will have to explain to me what the last sentence actually means

You have claimed that the climate is now cooling - not just in the 1998 quote, but in several other threads. You have also said "If the temps drop (which I know you do not think will happen) CO2 levels will follow."

This is not happening.So you think it all happens instantly?? I dont.

>Also, I am curious as to why you feel the need to miss-represent my position?

I don't "feel the need" to do that. I am responding to what you post. You have mentioned several times in the past that you do not necessarily post what you mean (i.e. the 1998 quote) but as I am not a mindreader all I can do is respond to your words.

And I have expalined and proven it to you yet you lie and miss-represent me. Sorry you are so paranoid about my positions

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,409]

> I do in many of my posts I use the tittle of the article I am posting.

As I mentioned, I realize that you do not always mean what you post. However, I am not a mindreader, and can only reply to what you post. If you wish me to reply to something else, you have to post it. I don't have access to the secret RushMC list of "what I really meant instead of what I posted" issues.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Predicting that adding another 35billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere will make atmospheric CO2 levels rise seems pretty safe, given that atmospheric CO2 has increased in sync with human CO2 emissions for many decades already.

Agreed.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

About the gas tank. Yes, it would be reasonab le to assume several things - among then that the extra gallon came from the extra gallon that you added. It would make the most sense.

It would, wouldn't it? The rest of your post was beside the point.

Yes, beside the point, so long as it is assumed that there can be only one reasonable conclusion to make with things.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

> I do in many of my posts I use the tittle of the article I am posting.

As I mentioned, I realize that you do not always mean what you post. However, I am not a mindreader, and can only reply to what you post. If you wish me to reply to something else, you have to post it. I don't have access to the secret RushMC list of "what I really meant instead of what I posted" issues.

Then read what I posted as an explination!
Oh, no wait, then you would have to admit you are not telling the truth or miss-representing someone even after they explain it to you 300 times. (even after you have read it how many times?

At least many on here see you for what you are doing

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

I would disagree (assuming the triangle is defined in cartesian space).

Bingo! You are assuming cartesian space as opposed to non-Euclidean concept, such as a large sphere. the smaller the space on a sphere, the more approximately the angles on the triangle will approach 180 degrees. But the larger the area, the greater the sum of the angles of the three straight lines.

Thus, the assumption is the catch. It is reasonable to assume that the three angles of a triangle can total 180 degrees. It is no less reasonable to assume that the three angles of a triangle can total in excess of 180 degrees.

True, but you overlook that a triangle in non-Euclidian space does not imply a triangle in Euclidian space.

Quote

That's Crichton's point. Once "assumptions" move into to play, the validity of the data is implicated.

His point was invalidated when he screwed up the Drake equation, the cornerstone of his argument, not unlike your own misrepresentations of claims made by science regarding global warming.

Quote

When policy becomes the science, it it more so implicated.

That's exactly the problem when deniers try to counter objective scientific data with sophist rhetoric.

Quote

We don't know what the world will be like in 2100. Those that claim they do are selling wares.

Please, link to the peer reviewed studies claiming to tell us exactly what the world will be like in 2100. Or were you erecting yet another straw man?

Quote

The "computer models" are subject to inputting errors and even errors of judgment. This is why computer models show variation, a reflection of uncertainties in input data and methodology.

Yep, that how stochastic models work. Overall, they work well, but they are virtually never 100% accurate, nor are they represented as such. That doesn't make them useless; it just means that predictions are only approximate.

Quote

"But the all agree on the general pattern." Yes, they do. Why are not the uncertainties that cause the difference also indicated as uncertainties in the end result?

They are.

Quote

That these questions are not answered is troubling to me.

Then you should try reading the studies themselves, as well as the primary data. You'll find the answers you seek.

Quote

Assumptions must be made to generate the models. What are the assumptions? How can we test the validity of the assumptions? We can't.

That depends on the assumption. The scientific conclusions in the multitude of studies will generally state what assumptions have been made. Again, read the studies if you are not getting the information you desire from the media.

Quote

Assumptions. We don't know what the past atmosphere was like, much less what the future will bring.

That depends on how far in the past, and how precisely the makeup needs to be known. Knowledge isn't binary. Does the fact that you don't know every detail of the law an indication that you know nothing about the law? Of course not. You are able to perform your job competently with incomplete knowledge. Scientists do the same thing. Does PD need to wait until science understands the fundamental cause of gravity before they can build a parachute that allows skydivers to survive landing after exiting an in flight aircraft?

Quote

All we can do is make predictions. And like predicting the results of a football game, predictions can be wrong.

It sure can, but when those making predictions are qualified in the relevant field, they can be very accurate and reliable. There's a reason that bookmakers tend to consistently make money above and beyond the vig. They know their field, and those that don't quickly go out of business.

Likewise, there is a reason insurance companies consistently make money. They can generally predict their future costs, and can price their insurance premiums appropriately. (Incidentally, AIG will likely survive their current problems because of the reliability of their insurance underwriting.)

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Likewise, there is a reason insurance companies consistently make money. They can generally predict their future costs, and can price their insurance premiums appropriately. (Incidentally, AIG will likely survive their current problems because of the reliability of their insurance underwriting.)

Today, of course, the Feds announced an $85 billion bailout loan. Even actuaries can get it wrong from time to time (for those who don't know, an actuary is merely a CPA without the warm and magnetic personality).

Aside from that:

Your post has really got me reconsidering some positions. Thank you.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Even actuaries can get it wrong from time to time (for those who don't know, an actuary is merely a CPA without the warm and magnetic personality).

Indeed!

(DZ.COM's own Vallerina is an actuary, IIRC.)

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Likewise, there is a reason insurance companies consistently make money. They can generally predict their future costs, and can price their insurance premiums appropriately. (Incidentally, AIG will likely survive their current problems because of the reliability of their insurance underwriting.)

Today, of course, the Feds announced an $85 billion bailout loan.

Yep. I'm still betting they will survive, due largely to their insurance investments. Still, mortgage investments seem to have burned them.

Quote

Even actuaries can get it wrong from time to time

Sometimes, although we don't know that it was actuaries who directed the investments.

Quote

(for those who don't know, an actuary is merely a CPA without the warm and magnetic personality).

Not really. There is definitely some overlap in the skill sets, but not as much as you might think. An actuary is closer to a sports book's oddsmaker, only they work with different data sets (and typically have much more extensive formal mathematics training).

Quote

Your post has really got me reconsidering some positions. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

I didn't want her to read that. Yes, she is an actuary - an exception to the rule.

Throw me under the bus? Lawyers are like engineering professors, only without the willing audience.

My wife is hotter than your wife.