Bad scientists: you have given bad info on global warming

[Ziggy Stardust]

The most recent example is Ziggy's screw-up: he went pointing out that the box core taken from the Sargasso Sea only showed that, during the Medieval Warm Period, the ocean was 1 degree warmer than today in the Sargasso Sea. Ziggy's mistake is two-fold: first, that's not what the web site actually says. It says that a box core taken from the Sargasso Sea showed that ocean temperatures were a degree warmer, but does not specifiy the Sargasso Sea only.

But it does specify the North Atlantic only. You can tell by the name of the Chapter. It's in big bold font just above what you were quoting. You should be able to recognize big bold fonts.

And funny enough it's just below the chapter : Globally. Which refutes your silly claims about oceans being 1 degree warming than they are now. It explicitly says the oceans are colder than they are now you silly bint.

So no, we can't assume that. And the other half of Ziggy's mistake is that the ocean was a degree warmer than today, even if only locally, DURING MEDIEVAL TIMES.

Except that's not what you said now was it?

A thousand years ago, the oceans were a full degree warmer than they are now.

Plural "the oceans" clearly referring a global trend.

I've got to tell you by the way, telling me I'm not in your division could be the greatest compliment you ever gave me. Thanks!

Here's one you have almost certainly never heard of: the "Champagne Vent" in the Marianas Trench.

Almost certainly never heard of

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I thought finding a mistake in Einstein's work would refer to something that Einstein wasn't in fact aware of nor referred to as "his biggest blunder". Or is that just me?

 

[Dragonlord]

Some people don't want global warming to be real, so they go looking for evidence to support it. Or flat-out making it up. And they ignore evidence to the contrary. .

Now this is a prime case of the pot calling the kettle black! Fixed that for you...

Speaking for myself, as one of those people you are referring to, you are flat out wrong (not that you'll ever admit it!). I would love to see real evidence that AGW is not a problem and doesn't exist - really, really love it! One thing less to worry about....
Unfortunately, the crap you keep spouting doesn't do the trick. But do keep trying - if you ever present some real evidence, I'll be the first to applaud!

However, upon further reflection, if I give any names of people who are doing it right, I would probably be doing more harm than good because my endorsement is kind of similar to an endorsement by George Bush. Just that people don't hate me quite that much.

I agree, for a change - GWB was an idiot with power and thus a real danger. While you .... just post on the internet. Quite entertaining, really. Nothing to hate, there...

I thought finding a mistake in Einstein's work would refer to something that Einstein wasn't in fact aware of nor referred to as "his biggest blunder". Or is that just me?

Nope, me too. Doesn't qualify as "finding" a mistake when it's common knowledge and he acknowledged it himself.
What it shows is that even Einstein made mistakes (which he would have been the first to acknowledge) - not that BasketCase is smarter than Einstein.

 

[El_Machinae]

Moderator Action: The thread will have to lay off the nastiness. In a serious way.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Bootstoots]

Here's what Einstein did wrong: he discovered a problem with his relativity equations--a problem that seemed to predict an expanding universe. So he postulated a value called the "cosmological constant" to compensate for that; the cosmological constant would produce a static, nonexpanding universe. His mistake was in the fact that there was no evidence, anywhere, that the cosmological constant actually existed; Einstein didn't like the idea of an expanding universe. He wanted a static universe, so he went looking for a way to make the numbers work the way he wanted. Without any actual evidence to support it.

Wait, what? You mean that you discovered this independently from him or something? Because he admitted it as a serious blunder of his after the universe was discovered to be expanding in the 1920s, and anybody who had some familiarity with Einstein would likely run across a mention of this. So this wasn't your discovery at all.

And it might not have even been all that wrong. A cosmological constant could explain acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Granted he got the direction of the effect wrong, and it's still far from certain that's what going on, but it might have been a useful part of the theory after all.

 

[BasketCase]

But it does specify the North Atlantic only.

Wrong. It specifies sampling performed in the Sargasso Sea, Puerto Rico, the Gulf Coast, and Iceland. Covering a pretty freakin' huge area.

And funny enough it's just below the chapter : Globally.

Which says specifically that one study found local warming and global cooling.

And which also says specifically that "certain regions such as central Eurasia, northwestern North America, and (with less confidence) parts of South Atlantic, exhibit anomalous coolness."

Anomalous.

Wait, what? You mean that you discovered this independently from him or something? Because he admitted it as a serious blunder of his after the universe was discovered to be expanding in the 1920s

It's the kind of blunder Einstein never should have made to begin with. He should have known better than that. You never allow your personal wants to get into the numbers. Ever.

and anybody who had some familiarity with Einstein would likely run across a mention of this.

What I describe has never been mentioned by anybody before, ever. Yes, the history books do say Einstein admitted his mistake after he got pwn3d by Edwin Hubble; what I'm describing is why Einstein's mistake was a mistake. It was a mistake because Einstein allowed his personal bias to cloud his judgement. He wanted the universe to be static, even when the evidence in his own theories suggested otherwise.

And it might not have even been all that wrong. A cosmological constant could explain acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

And that cosmological constant is caused by what?? That's the problem. Einstein never had any actual evidence, other than his desire for a static universe.

Speaking for myself, as one of those people you are referring to, you are flat out wrong (not that you'll ever admit it!).

Heheh. Weasel words, dude. I said "a bunch of you" want global warming to be real. I did not say which of you I'm referring to.

I would love to see real evidence that AGW is not a problem and doesn't exist - really, really love it! One thing less to worry about....

Okay. I'll reiterate some past material for ya.

First off, it's known that during the Paleocene epoch, the Earth was TEN DEGREES warmer than today. And that's not Fahrenheit, either. That's Celsius. The Earth was much warmer than it is now--yet there was no ecological disaster. The United States was a tropical region, the poles were temperate zones, there were almost no deserts anywhere, and every part of the planet that wasn't a desert was positively stuffed with plant and animal life.

Second: it's known that at least some parts of the Earth saw warmer temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period. In those regions where it was warmer, there was no ecological disaster--instead there was mild weather and bountiful harvests.

Third: during the Little Ice Age, there was massive disaster. On a global scale. Frozen harbors, paralyzed trade, crop failures, famines. And wars. Though that last one is really just a result of the previous stuff in the list.

Fourth: how is it possible that the jungles of the Far East can exist on the same latitude as the Sahara Desert?? Obviously it can't be solar radiation that's making the Sahara into the Sahara, because both the Sahara and all the green parts in the East are at the same latitude and getting the same amount of radiation. It's not heat that makes a desert. A desert is not a desert because it's hot, it's a desert because it's dry. (In fact, at night, deserts are FREEZING COLD) Therefore global warming and deserts are unrelated.

Fifth: while hurricanes are more destructive than in the past, they are not actually becoming more powerful. That's a blatant lie by global warming alarmists. The most powerful hurricane ever to hit the U.S. (that I know of) happened in 1938. That one was a lot more powerful than Katrina. And if that hurricane had struck today, the result would have been far worse than New Orleans. Today, there are more people and more buildings, more closely sardined together. Hurricanes are more destructive today because there are more targets for them to hit.

All of that is stuff that's been established already. The Paelocene did happen, the Little Ice Age did happen, the Medieval Warm Period did happen, and that fourth one is simple observation of the fact that jungles exist on the same latitude as deserts (sometimes right next to deserts). The fifth takes a little more work to verify.


Global warming will cause some problems, but it will solve others, such as world hunger. So relax and enjoy driving that SUV.

 

[uppi]

Here's what Einstein did wrong: he discovered a problem with his relativity equations--a problem that seemed to predict an expanding universe. So he postulated a value called the "cosmological constant" to compensate for that; the cosmological constant would produce a static, nonexpanding universe. His mistake was in the fact that there was no evidence, anywhere, that the cosmological constant actually existed; Einstein didn't like the idea of an expanding universe. He wanted a static universe, so he went looking for a way to make the numbers work the way he wanted. Without any actual evidence to support it.

And then people made measurements and found out that the cosmological constant does actually have a value greater than zero.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/116/3/1009/
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/517/2/565/

(These papers are even free to read)

So the supposed mistake of Einstein actually was not a mistake as he introduced a parameter that was needed in his theory to explain reality. His reasoning might not have been right, but experiments proved his assertion right. And you have made a mistake in assuming he made a mistake without actually investigating the matter. If you want to assure others of you superiority, then it is not helpful to immediately prove that there is nothing to it.

Einstein did make mistakes and there is a whole field of research that would not be possible if Einstein had been right, but I guess I cannot expect you to know about that.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I'm also fairly certain there wasn't much evidence to support the General Theory of Relativity when he first thought of it. It took observations of an eclipse after the theory was published to confirm the curvature of spacetime.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I don't have to. Basic statistics already has. You can't measure the planet's CO2 levels by measuring in Los Angeles--too high. And you can't find it by measuring on top of Mauna Loa--too low. The problem is, you don't know where the "right" place to measure is, because you don't know what the average is. You have to find it first. And the only way to find it is to measure lots and lots of places.

That's why they measure it everywhere, once again those measuring stations I pointed out. Good to know you don't listen to and/or read arguments.

BY MEASURING THE ENTIRE FREAKING BODY

Really? You mind linking some PubMed studies that show temperature measurements for every conceivable cell in the body? Once again, reiterating a desire to see primary literature sources from you on a topic.

They check your temperature, and your heart rate, and your oxygen saturation, and they take blood samples, and they take X-rays, and they take throat cultures, and.....you get the idea.

I think I remember a sentence of mine with a lot of commas too regarding measurements of global CO2 movement.

Re-edit: SS-18 ICBM, prove to me (demonstrably) why we don't need any more measuring.

I'll just keep pointing to the literature and you'll keep ignoring it.

Differential equations - how do they work? We just don't know.

Mathematical miracles everywhere!

 

[BasketCase]

And then people made measurements and found out that the cosmological constant does actually have a value greater than zero.

Exactly. But that was after Einstein.

So the supposed mistake of Einstein actually was not a mistake as he introduced a parameter that was needed in his theory to explain reality.

Einstein wanted a static universe; his cosmological constant went into his equations to produce a static universe. And then Edwin Hubble proved that the universe isn't static at all.

There may be a cosmological constant, but Einstein went about it in entirely the wrong way, and his use of it turned mostly-correct equations into wrong equations. Now we know where the slang phrase "great job, Einstein" came from.

That's why they measure it everywhere, once again those measuring stations I pointed out.

These stations, perhaps?

The picture is a little tricky to decipher--the big dots are the current stations, the little dots are stations no longer active. We have perhaps fifteen to twenty stations in the Pacific Ocean, ONE station in the middle of the northern Atlantic, four in the South Atlantic, and perhaps half a dozen in the Indian Ocean. That's nowhere near enough to cover the oceans properly. And, on land, it's clear that most of our measuring work is being done in and around cities (and who can blame humans for that?? we're lazy).

Other problem: most of these measurements are at the ocean's surface. We need to be going deeper than that.

Yes, I did read your argument. No, I'm not ignoring you, I'm debunking you. We don't have enough stations. We need to fill the holes.

Really? You mind linking some PubMed studies that show temperature measurements for every conceivable cell in the body?

Start with this guy. His method was to measure the armpit. Guess what, that was the wrong place. How do you find the right place?? By measuring lots the places and calculating the average. No, doctors didn't have to measure every last cell in the body to find the best place, but they did have to measure a lot of places. Probably tickled a few patients to death prodding them with thermoscopes.....

 

[Arwon]

We can't rely on surveys and statistics, we need to count more people, we need to fill in the holes!

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

That's nowhere near enough to cover the oceans properly.

Why, does water change its chemical properties after a few thousand kilometers?

Other problem: most of these measurements are at the ocean's surface. We need to be going deeper than that.

Mind telling me why? What does deep water temperature have to do with atmospheric temperatures?

I'm not ignoring you, I'm debunking you.

No, doctors didn't have to measure every last cell in the body to find the best place

And yet you ask for there to be thousands more monitoring stations...

We can't rely on surveys and statistics, we need to count more people, we need to fill in the holes!

I don't even know why I'm arguing with a guy who confuses representative samples with censuses, but we must persist for the sake of anyone reading this thread.

 

[Abegweit]

I mean, heck, Mars is warming too. But we know why, and we know it's for a different reason.

Indeed it is warming too. What's more, there is more CO2 in the Martian atmosphere than there is in the Earth's. Not only relatively but, despite the huge difference in air pressure, absolutely as well. An interesting fact given the manifest lack of runaway greenhouse temperatures on Mars. Could it be that reality is more complicated than the Warmists proclaim?

The mass media and propaganda practices are in place. A great deal of that is due to denialist dollars and due to general unwillingness of the population to form more than a shallow opinion. We know that the denialist propaganda is effective: just look at this thread.

Fascinating argument. In fact the mass media (including FOX News) fully bought into the Warmist lies, with almost no exception, for roughly two decades. Now, when the depth of their depravity is finally coming to light, the people come to see what bullcr!p this entire notion is. Pretty much the same cycle as most statist propaganda goes through.

Abegweit is insisting upon scientific corruption.

Abegweit is insisting that the state is nothing more or less than lies. More specifically, the state lies to perpetuate its own power and it bribes intellectuals to lie for it. This has been true since the dawn of recorded history. There is nothing special about Warmist propaganda. It is no different from Egyptian state-paid propagandists lying that Pharaohs were descended from the Gods or from the Nazi state-paid propagandists proclaiming the need for Lebensraum.

The purpose is always the same: to justify theft and to justify slavery. I suppose we have made a slight bit of progress through the ages because the modern state justifies theft and slavery in the name of its victims. Back in the days of the Pharaohs, the thieves and slavers were more honest. They simply said that they had the right to steal and to enslave because they were innately superior.

The modern thieves, in contrast, proclaim that they steal because their victims are too stupid to look out for themselves. Just which group of thieves of is more self-aggrandizingly arrogant?

According to the modern theory, we need self-proclaimed scientists to steal from us and to enslave us in order to protect us from... what exactly? Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that global warming, if indeed it is happening, would be a good thing. Unfortunately, an ounce of common sense seems to be a pretty rare commodity these days.

 

[Arwon]

I think you need more angry invective, paranoia and colourful emotive adjectives to strengthen your argument.

 

[Abegweit]

I think you need more angry invective, paranoia and colourful emotive adjectives to strengthen your argument.

You have no need for more ad hominems. You have plenty enough already.

 

[Tee Kay]

And it saw farms destroyed, reduced crop yields, a decline of Iceland's population by HALF, the complete disappearance of the Norse colonies of Greenland, paralyzed international trade (due to ships being stuck in frozen harbors), and a couple of surprising invasions by French and Swiss armies who marched across frozen rivers.

Funnily, during the period many parts of the world saw massive population boom (most notably China) and long-distance maritime trade to and from Europe really took off during this period too. That harsher winters might lead to reduced crop yields in some areas is a no-brainer. But how is this a global catastrophe again?

And Europe experienced mild moist climate at the same time. Sounds very non-problematic for people living there.

Yeah, yeah, it's all about Europe.

A thousand years ago, the oceans were a full degree warmer than they are now. First off: it proves that today's ocean warming trend might not be the result of humans. And second: where was the rising ocean and massive flooding we were supposed to see?

Firstly, you've shown that climatic and temperature changes can happen naturally. Great. I don't think anyone's denying that. It certainly doesn't prove that today's warming trend is not a result of human activity.

Secondly, sea level rise is a real phenomenon. I'm not sure what you mean by massive flooding. You're probably safe where you live, but an inhabitant of Mal'e or coastal Bangladesh might not be so lucky in the future. But then why should you care, right?

A desert is not a desert because it's hot, it's a desert because it's dry. (In fact, at night, deserts are FREEZING COLD) Therefore global warming and deserts are unrelated.

No, no, not "therefore"! That's a very bad place to put a "therefore". Deserts are a result of climatic patterns. Change in temperature also changes climate.

------

Anyway, thread closing in five... four... three...

 

[warpus]

Indeed it is warming too. What's more, there is more CO2 in the Martian atmosphere than there is in the Earth's. Not only relatively but, despite the huge difference in air pressure, absolutely as well. An interesting fact given the manifest lack of runaway greenhouse temperatures on Mars. Could it be that reality is more complicated than the Warmists proclaim?

Dear coldist,

There is no greenhouse effect on Mars (technically there is, but it's barely noticable) because the atmosphere on the planet is so thin.

Signed,

Lukewarmist

 

[choxorn]

The picture is a little tricky to decipher--the big dots are the current stations, the little dots are stations no longer active. We have perhaps fifteen to twenty stations in the Pacific Ocean, ONE station in the middle of the northern Atlantic, four in the South Atlantic, and perhaps half a dozen in the Indian Ocean. That's nowhere near enough to cover the oceans properly. And, on land, it's clear that most of our measuring work is being done in and around cities (and who can blame humans for that?? we're lazy).

Other problem: most of these measurements are at the ocean's surface. We need to be going deeper than that.

Yes, I did read your argument. No, I'm not ignoring you, I'm debunking you. We don't have enough stations. We need to fill the holes.

So, if all those stations isn't enough to show a current warming trend, why is 4 data points enough to prove the conditions of the North Atlantic 1000 years ago?

Wrong. It specifies sampling performed in the Sargasso Sea, Puerto Rico, the Gulf Coast, and Iceland. Covering a pretty freakin' huge area.

Dear coldist,

There is no greenhouse effect on Mars (technically there is, but it's barely noticable) because the atmosphere on the planet is so thin.

Signed,

Lukewarmist

And it's a lot further from the Sun.

 

[Rashiminos]

Why, does water change its chemical properties after a few thousand kilometers?

Not so much the water as the amount of solar radiation and related effects being different.

Mind telling me why? What does deep water temperature have to do with atmospheric temperatures?

Short answer: Weather.

I don't even know why I'm arguing with a guy who confuses representative samples with censuses, but we must persist for the sake of anyone reading this thread.

I think he was making the claim that the samples were not representative. Straw wars contribute to warming, after all. On a less serious note, who is Darth Vader and what is the force in this depiction?

 

[Dachs]

I sensed the presence of Lord Vader in this thread

where what why