Cosmos: Global Warming

The scientists obviously did, but it was obviously omitted by Neil onGrass Tyson.

Um, your smugness is a fail. lol


Ummm.... I'm still going with over 90% of all the scientists, all the scientific organizations, all the universities in the world, all the climatologists and all those that care about this planet and the quality of life for us humans on it, and the smartest people in the world. Like Tyson, over you and Fox news and the big oil companies. How's that for smugness?

The Science/Global/Government tyranny is more "official" now.....


Obama administration unveils controversial emissions cap on power plants

originally posted by: amazing

The scientists obviously did, but it was obviously omitted by Neil onGrass Tyson.

Um, your smugness is a fail. lol


Ummm.... I'm still going with over 90% of all the scientists, all the scientific organizations, all the universities in the world, all the climatologists and all those that care about this planet and the quality of life for us humans on it, and the smartest people in the world. Like Tyson, over you and Fox news and the big oil companies. How's that for smugness?

Smugness 0 out of 10, irrelevance however is a perfect score. 10

originally posted by: Astrocyte
That was arguably the most powerful TV program ever broadcast on television since it's invention.

The show begins with a visual of the planet Venus. Were told that the planets outer atmosphere is almost entirely sulfuric oxide - an aerosol - which reflects the suns rays away from the planet. Why then, is Venus 455 degrees celcius - a hellish environment? Because the minute rays of sunlight that do eke by the shield of sulfuric oxide are kept IN by a small concentration of Carbon Dioxide. If you can imagine, an outer gas enveloping the planet keeps energy away from the planet. But the bit of energy that gets through is kept within the lower atmosphere by a gas which enhances the effects of the energy. This is where Venus' boiling hot 455 degree surface temperature comes from.

That's not what Tyson said. He said there were sulfuric oxide clouds and that ALL of the carbon dioxide on Venus was in the form of an aerosolized gas. That there was none anywhere else. Of course in this piece of propaganda, they also do not mention that temperature increase is the precursor for carbon dioxide aerosolization in the atmosphere. They also take the great leap that there would have been water on Venus before hand and very possibly a working ecosystem even though Venus is roughly 30 million miles closer to the sun. That somehow in the distant past when the sun was not the engine it is today, Venus might have been in the "sweet zone."

It's all supposition and propaganda as far as I am concerned. Another well paid shill like Suzuki spouting doom porn for the masses.

I agree we need to pollute less and take personal responsibility in our day to day activities. I want to leave this planet better than I found it if I can, but increases in taxes or new tax plans meant to engorge the few have never been the answer to anything, except bleed the people dry and engorge the few.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: charles1952

The results, however are the same. Over 95% of the models predicted warmer temperatures (when charted as five-year trends) than recorded either on the surface or by satellite.

Yes, I know about the "pause". I also know that the models are not expected to predict such short term internal events.

Furthermore, the timing of internal decadal climate variability is not expected to be matched by the CMIP5 historical simulations, owing to the predictability horizon of at most 10 to 20 years (Section 11.2.2; CMIP5 historical simulations are typically started around nominally 1850 from a control run). However, climate models exhibit individual decades of GMST trend hiatus even during a prolonged phase of energy uptake of the climate system (e.g., Figure 9.8; Easterling and Wehner, 2009; Knight et al., 2009), in which case the energy budget would be balanced by increasing subsurface–ocean heat uptake (Meehl et al., 2011, 2013a; Guemas et al., 2013).

I also know that, despite that, observed temperatures fall within predicted ranges.

Various analyses have been done on Mr. Cook's study (I believe he is not a doctor) and there has been a very impressive amount of condemnation of his techniques, resulting in an extraordinarily skewed and nearly useless study.

Do you know what Cook's study actually says? You know that he is not the only one who worked on the study, right?

a reply to: Psynic

You're killin me.

I mean, are you telling me to ignore science? I get what you're saying but we're talking like almost every single scientist in the world, even those without any funding or grant relevance. I also think Tyson does a good job in explaining Global Warming and the science behind it. It's not my or his or anyone's fault that some people want to make money off it. Denying truth doesn't help matters. Know what I mean?

a reply to: Phage

There are three things they forgot to tell everyone about earths predicament. Number one is that the melting of the ice caps have also destabilized the rotation causing the planet to wobble off it's axis, causing stress on the core (that also spins) creating more heat and expansion of the molten mantle (you know that fire and brimstone hell below the crust).
Number two is that with more moisture in liquid and vapor form, rather than solid form (including land based ice from melted glaciers) we are seeing the atmosphere become more unstable and hotter/dryer during summer and wetter/colder in winter.
And number three is that when THEY pulled all of the freon (CFC's) off the market and replaced them with CFC 12 back in the 80's it was already TOO LATE. Anything they are doing now will just be smoke and mirrors delaying the inevitable.
Yep, I still trying to find in the bible where it states that man created the LAKE OF FIRE. The punishment must fit the crime.

Even the Pentagon is being used as ...............

Consultants told the military that, by now, California would be flooded by inland seas, The Hague would be unlivable, polar ice would be mostly gone in summer, and global temperatures would rise at an accelerated rate as high as 0.5 degrees a year.

“[Laughing] Isn't that a hoot?!? I mean, none of that came even close to happening, but those predictions sure led to a lot of bad outcomes for spending and national security."

Climate Change Pentagon Expert: My Goal Was to Induce Fear, Not be Accurate

a reply to: Phage

Dear Phage,

It's a pleasure to speak with you, the world of Science is a vast mystery, and I appreciate you pointing a finger along the way.

I'm sorry for such misunderstanding between us. I'm sure we can clear up a lot of it quickly. First, the easiest part. My reference to "Mister Cook" was not meant to imply that he didn't have the skills to do the task. Besides, the main work didn't require a Doctorate.

As far as what it says, I know his conclusions from the study. I also know that the study has been condemned widely as so badly flawed as to be unusuable. He had to have helpers, the people who looked at 12,000 studies to try to interpret what they meant. The whole project being made easier as he threw out 8,000 studies before he announced his results. But, his study deals only with the 97% figure. I hope you will tell me that you don't believe anywhere near 97% of the scientists believe global warming is real, caused primarily by man, and is harmful.

Please tell me you don't believe that.

Now, as to how nearly every single climate model has overestimated warming over the last 35 years. I suppose you had to pick some kind of defense, but frankly, I wouldn't care to defend the position you've taken. Oh, perhaps some kind of case could be made out for it, but I would be very uncomfortable trying to present it as my honest belief.

Your position is that there is a lot of natural variability and fluctuation which can't be accounted over the short term, say 10-20 years, and that's why all of the models are calling for warmer weather, when it isn't getting warmer.

"Well," a Congressional Committeeman might ask, "If your models are unreliable 10 or 20 years out, Why are we supposed to believe that they'll be reliable 30 years out? And if they won't be reliable over the next 30 years, why are we spending in excess of $20 Billion each year to look into this?"

Unfortunately, while it's easy enough for James Hansen, and Michael Mann and whatever your source was, to say we are in a period which couldn't have been predicted, IT WAS PREDICTED, and those predictions were set aside in favor of the more alarmist ones.

Consider the predictions of Nicola Scafetta:

At this point it is possible to attempt a full forecast of the climate since 2000 that is made of the four detected decadal and multidecadal cycles plus the corrected anthropogenic warming effect trending. The results are depicted in the figures below. The figure shows a full climate forecast of my proposed empirical model, against the IPCC projections since 2000. It is evident that my proposed model agrees with the data much better than the IPCC projections, as also other tests present in the paper show. (Emphasis added)

Or Don Easterbrook:

In 2001, I put my reputation on the line and published my predictions for entering a global cooling cycle about 2007 (plus or minus 3-5 years), based on past glacial, ice core, and other data. As right now, my prediction seems to be right on target and what we would expect from the past climatic record, but the IPCC prediction is getting farther and farther off the mark. With the apparent solar cooling cycle upon us, we have a ready explanation for global warming and cooling. If the present cooling trend continues, the IPCC reports will have been the biggest farce in the history of science. (Emphasis added)

Or Syun-Ichi Akasofu:

Thus, there is a possibility that only a fraction of the present warming trend may be attributed to the greenhouse effect resulting from human activities. This conclusion is contrary to the IPCC (2007) Report (p. 10), which states that “most” of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. It is urgent that natural changes be correctly identified and removed accurately from the presently on-going changes in order to find the contribution of the greenhouse effect. (Emphasis added)

Or Patrick Michaels:

Contrary to the assertions of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there is a significant nonclimatic warming in global land-surface temperature records. That warming results from previously unaccounted-for influences of non-climatic factors that are largely socioeconomic in origin. The result is that as much as half of the land-surface warming that has been detected in recent decades may be spurious. (Emphasis added)

appinsys.com...

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: xuenchen
The preface to An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United
States National Security

Imagining the Unthinkable
The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable – to push the boundaries of current research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United States national security.

We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted additional research, and reviewed several iterations of the scenario with these experts. The scientists support this project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First, they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller. We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and
would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately.

www.futurebrief.com...

The DOD wanted a worst case and that's what they were given. The authors were told by the scientists they talked that this was the case. The authors knew this was the case. The study was presented as what it was, a worst case scenario, not a prediction.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Except for during the Ordovician Period(460 million years ago) when CO2 concentrations were 4400 PPM, but the temperatures were about the same as they are today.

a reply to: charles1952

This is a discussion that will go badly every time. The scientist involved will have his credibility torn away. Luckily there will be an outcome in time and either his predictions will be shown as true, or the IPCC's disaster scenario will be true.
(as an optimist, I vote for Easterbook) But I don't like to say that out loud as it usually ends badly.

a reply to: charles1952

I hope you will tell me that you don't believe anywhere near 97% of the scientists believe global warming is real, caused primarily by man, and is harmful.

That is not what the study says.

"Well," a Congressional Committeeman might ask, "If your models are unreliable 10 or 20 years out, Why are we supposed to believe that they'll be reliable 30 years out? And if they won't be reliable over the next 30 years, why are we spending in excess of $20 Billion each year to look into this?"

Because the long term models fit the long term warming trend. Because ignoring the effects of a warming world will have a far greater cost than $20 billion per year.

Scafretta's model is based on an assumed 60 year climactic cycle caused by the orbital patterns of Jupiter and Saturn. Sounds more like astrology than science to me. In any case such a cycle, if existant, should appear in "hindcasts". It doesn't.
www.skepticalscience.com...
www.skepticalscience.com...


Easterbrook's predictions (based on his perception of past "cycles) vs observations:
www.skepticalscience.com...

Or Syun-Ichi Akasofu: Allow me to adjust your bolding:

Thus, there is a possibility that only a fraction of the present warming trend may be attributed to the greenhouse effect resulting from human activities. This conclusion is contrary to the IPCC (2007) Report (p. 10), which states that “most” of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. It is urgent that natural changes be correctly identified and removed accurately from the presently on-going changes in order to find the contribution of the greenhouse effect. (Emphasis added)

His predictions vs observations:
www.skepticalscience.com...

Michaels seems to imply that the IPCC and others ignore the possible effects of "heat islands." In fact, they don't ignore them. They look at them closely and have found that there is virtually no difference in temperature anomalies determined from rural locations and urban locations. Interesting though, that the greatest amount of warming is seen in the Arctic and other sparsely populated high latitude regions. Not a lot of socioeconomic activity in the Arctic. Interesting, the eastern seaboard (a hub of socioeconomic activity) has seen a cooling trend. Interesting that vast areas of the ocean show a warming trend.
blogs.discovermagazine.com...

a reply to: Phage

Dear Phage,

Thanks for your response. Perhaps I wrote poorly, causing confusion.

I was hoping that YOU didn't believe that anywhere near 97% of the scientists believe that Global Warming is real, primarily man-made, and dangerous.

That may or may not be what the study said, but:

So when US secretary of state John Kerry told graduates at Boston College on 19 May that there is a scientific consensus on climate change, you wouldn't expect him to footnote his sources. But he seized upon a specific figure – that 97 per cent of the world’s scientists believe that climate change threatens the future of the planet – and projected it as the Gospel truth.
His boss, President Barack Obama, was even more trenchant in his description of the problem. In a tweet on 17 May, he said: ‘Ninety-seven per cent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, manmade and dangerous. Read more: OFA.BO/gJsdFp.’

www.spiked-online.com...

Cook, himself, wrote on his website:

For example, if a paper were to say "the sun caused most of the global warming over the past century," that would be included in the less than 3% of papers in the rejection categories.

Many studies simply defer to the expert summary of climate science research put together by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which states that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century has been caused by humans. According to recent research, that statement is actually too conservative.

Of the papers that specifically examine the human and natural causes of global warming, virtually all conclude that humans are the dominant cause over the past 50 to 100 years.

So, Cook is saying that global warming exists and that it is primarily man-made. Of course, he believes it's dangerous. Otherwise we could all ignore it.

Do me another favor. Find some criticisms of those models other than SkepticalScience. That' Cook's website. All there is there is Cook saying he's right and the others are wrong. What did you expect him to say? There are many more sites saying that they are right and Cook is wrong. Does Cook get outvoted? Of course not, science doesn't work that way. So why has Cook created The Consensus Project to broadcast the claim that scientists are voting for his side? I thought voting wasn't scientific.

Besides, what's Cook's reputation now for forming rigorous studies, making data available, and summarizing accurately? I don't believe he has one left at all.

Several sources are independently reporting that fewer than 1% of the papers Cook saw stated that Global Warming was real, primarily man-made, and dangerous. That's vital. All of those positions have to be believed before we have to change what humans do. But scientists, in the incredibly vast majority, don't believe those three things.

Thank you for the time you've given me.

With respect,
Charles1952

And yet Neil deGrasse Tyson's little soapbox show will produce a larger carbon footprint in one season of production than I will in my entire life.

Hypocrite/Opportunist.

a reply to: charles1952

I was hoping that YOU didn't believe that anywhere near 97% of the scientists believe that Global Warming is real, primarily man-made, and dangerous.

That's quite a loaded question you constructed there. I don't know what percentage of scientists believe that Global Warming is real, primarily man-made, and dangerous. That would be a difficult number to arrive at and the validity of the opinion of a molecular biologist probably would not carry much weight in either direction anyway. I do however, understand what Cook's study says and I have looked at both sides of the discussion. I know which side I weigh in on.

I don't really pay much attention to what politicians say when it comes to science or much of anything else.

Do me another favor. Find some criticisms of those models other than SkepticalScience. That' Cook's website. All there is there is Cook saying he's right and the others are wrong.

Do me a favor and find fault with Cook's criticisms. Cook provides information about those other models. He provides output from those models and compares it to observations. Is that not exactly what your sources have done with reference to CIMP5? But Cook goes a bit farther than just saying "He's wrong", he explains how the models are constructed. A "climate model" based on the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter just doesn't make much sense.

Several sources are independently reporting that fewer than 1% of the papers Cook saw stated that Global Warming was real, primarily man-made, and dangerous.

Perhaps if you really read the study you would see that is a strawman argument. Perhaps you would see what the study actually says. But here's another review of the literature:
www.sciencemag.org...

Here's a survey of Earth scientists:
tigger.uic.edu...

originally posted by: snarky412

originally posted by: irgust
a reply to: Astrocyte
If the ice sheets melt in the Antarctic how many more fossils of plants and animals will they find? I was reading about plant fossils that were 100 million years old and dinosaur bones they found there. Not sure if mankind was burning fossil fuels or coal powered plants back then to make it warm enough for plants to grow in the Antarctic. Sorry but I don't agree that imposing a carbon tax would help lower the temp of the planet. I think it's just a way to get more money from people. If they want to tax something why not tax politicians $20 for every lie they say that way the country would be out of debt and might even have a surplus.

I have to agree...
It's what I refer to as 'Climate Evolution'.....natural cycles that Mother Earth goes through and has been for millions of years

And what is imposing taxes gonna do?
Nothing except make cost of living higher

The ONLY way to stop mankind from polluting our Earth is to stop production of all products

NO cars/trucks
NO tv's
NO smart phones
NO air conditioners
NO games/consoles
NO dvds/cds
NO computers
NO airplanes/buses
NO internet
NO.....
NO.....
NO....

In other words, as long as consumers demand all these products, well lectures on 'Global Warming ' is useless
The only way to stop polluting our air is by going back to the pioneer days before Man created all these fancy gadgets

--NO technology -- *gasp*

But is anyone willing to give all this up?????????
NOPE...

So tax away, all that will do is make people have to pay more for said products, because it WILL NOT do anything to deter GW
That's the truth of the matter

As long as we want our toys, well.....*shrugs*

Very good point. A tax will only make the gap between rich and poor grow even wider than it already is. Everyone will continue to use their products and simply pay more, leading to a rise in crime and more poor people in prisons and lotty da, the cycle continues. A carbon tax doesn't make that much sense because people aren't willing to give up their toys if the toys are still available.

And I highly doubt governments would get away with outlawing these things either...so, bottom line, we're screwed!

It was a great episode. I've been enjoying the entire season in fact.

Detachment is what we need now. We need to detach from our desires, from our toys.

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: snarky412

The only way to stop polluting our air is by going back to the pioneer days before Man created all these fancy gadgets

No we don't have to go that far back. What would help is if we were to get rid of a few things like planned obsolescence and stop being a disposable society. Now we make products that last till their warranty is over then it dies so we have to get a new one. Also look at people that just have to get the latest and newest product even though the product they already have more than fits their needs. We can make our energy without polluting the atmosphere but people want to keep America on fossil fuels because of all the money that is being made.

No, we don't have to go that far back....about the 40's-60's/70's when 'Quality' was the key factor on products

When a vacuum would last for 20 years before you had to buy a new one
Now, if I get 3 years out of one I'm lucky....and no, I stopped paying a lot for them due to the fact they don't last
They--the companies--fix it so you have to get another one

It's about 'Quantity' now a days, gone is the 'Quality'

Years back my husband bought a set of tires for our Blazer, at Sears
Best tires we had, lasted a long, long time before we had to get a new set
We went back to Sears for the same tires and the manager told us that they no longer carried them
My husband said 'Why, they lasted forever and were the best' and the manager told us straight out 'That's why they don't carry them any more. They lasted too long. They want consumers to buy them more often'.....grrrrr

It's all about the money $$$$

So then we have 'Supply and Demand'
People needing/wanting gadgets and replacing them every time something new comes out
A never ending cycle

As far as our energy goes, that's out of the people's hands, controlled by whomever has the most invested/power & has the best lobbyist

IMO, we should go nuclear as much as possible, as their effects are exaggerated, here are my arguments:

1) The Japanese have the longest lifespan in the world, so obviously, nuclear radiation hasn't really done anything to them. There may be some signs of cancer from the survivors here and there, but it appears to me that it doesn't really get passed on, so to speak. Keep in mind that they got the bombs dropped on them outright. In addition, wildlife is actually thriving in Chenobyl. Finally, there has been no accidents in the U.S, so I don't see why, as long as precautions are taken, you can't go nuclear entirely. The very important thing to note is that it doesn't get passed on, so even if something happens, future generations will not be affected.

2) Go with the electric cars. You actually save more with the electric cars by using them for their lifetime(15+ years, and this is taking into account batteries replacements and charging), by not having to pay for gas. The range
problem can be solved by certain car rental places, taxis, etc.

3) Buy smaller houses. You pay 20 more times for a house than for an electric car. To me, if anything that should come down, it's the price of the house(no coincidence that people make the most money in this area). The fact of
the matter is, no matter how much you try to save on things, it won't come close to what overpaying for a house will do. House prices are priced twice as much as they are made. By buying cheaper houses, they will eventually come down.

4) Wait for solar power to catch up.