Neil deGrasse Tyson shuts down climate change deniers

a reply to: buster2010

How would temps reach that high again? There is something called rock weathering which acts as a buffer when temps rise removing CO2 from the atmosphere. This Climate buffer is an example of a large scale LeChatelier's Principle. The atmosphere is always trying to find equilibrium.

In order for temps to get that high we would need some type of catastrophic/astronomical event to take place that would throw the equilibrium out of whack.

Look, if you are so concerned with high CO2 levels being the main cause of the destruction of Earth, you better talk to China, and India. They are exponentially increasing their CO2 outputs, while we have been decreasing ours.

i'm a AGW denier but a fan of climate evolution.

So I wonder why no one blames deforestation for an increase in CO2; however, we focus on CO2 production due to coal/oil burning. Do you think because we can't see deforestation in S America and Africa and the great Northwest we must have a veil over eyes while "leaders" induce self hate, stable energy supplies, & a loathing for some ways of progress in order to reign in other forms of progress they've invested in? I don't know say T Boone Pickens and his Natural Gas investments. A lot sales strategists will use doom and gloom to motivate you to follow and eventually lead you to believe it's your idea to buy and then promote.

It was recently discovered that there is more smog in London than Beiging.
a reply to: Euphem

a reply to: sirjunlegun

So I wonder why no one blames deforestation for an increase in CO2; however, we focus on CO2 production due to coal/oil burning.

Deforestation does increase CO2 levels. Stopping it would be very helpful. It accounts for a relatively small but important percentage of all anthropogenic CO2. Estimates range from 6 to 17%.

I guess we could end clear cutting in the US. That would help a bit. But it's not really practical, politically or economically.

www.nature.com...

a reply to: sirjunlegun

Neil just introduced, to the world in Cosmos, free energy. Or near enough to be considered free.

No need for fossil fuel's any more. We can fix our damage to boot.

Think different.

originally posted by: coastlinekid
science and public policy site

Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that –

The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
“Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

any other liars or lunatics you care to use? Is your entire worldview based fully on the obvious antiscience liars?

Christopher Monckton is a British consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, and hereditary peer. While not formally trained in science, Monckton is one of the most cited and widely published climate skeptics, having even been invited to testify to the U.S. Senate and Congress on several occasions.

Not a scientist to begin with..a commentator, writer, and advisor.
Here is a link to a comprehensive debunking of every single thing he claims. The debunking is scientifically sourced, grounded in facts and reality by a multitude of studies, etc
Source
Just some gems:

"Climate sensitivity is low"

Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.

"Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated"

Sea level rise is now increasing faster than predicted due to unexpectedly rapid ice melting.

"Hockey stick is broken"

Recent studies agree that recent global temperatures are unprecedented in the last 1000 years.

"Sea level rise is exaggerated"

A variety of different measurements find steadily rising sea levels over the past century.


Everything you appear to be posting is by fully decredited frauds and liars who are a laughing stock to the scientific community...but it doesn't bother them, because they are not part of the scientific community...so good on you for defending pollution, corporate greed, and the destruction of the biosphere...you some sort of alien trying to terraform the planet for better reptile support or something?

It's nearly impossible to shut down climate deniers as their beliefs are not based on scientific evidence but on ignorance, as in, they ignore scientific consensus, accumulation of data over time, and solid physical evidence. When you can ignore the truth, anything is possible! Yet.... the phrase ignorance is bliss seems to be a non-issue here...... these ignorant people seem less than blissful; rather, mostly mud slinging haters. Did anyone see John Oliver's new show on HBO and the video about scientific consensus regarding climate change? Hilarious! (and sadly too true!)

It's worth noting that Neil deGrasse Tyson is merely the presenter on "Cosmo" he didn't write the series. The series is written by Ann Druyan and Steven Soter. These people also co-wrote the original "Cosmos" with Carl Sagan. Druyan is Sagan's widow.

The article the OP linked implies these are Tyson's words. They are not. He was speaking words written by others.

In addition, the new series has been criticized for a number of historical and scientific inaccuracies. So it's probably best to seek the source of any "facts" presented in the series.

What are you going to about climate change if it turns out it is humans causing it- kill everyone?

What is harping on about it doing except bumming everyone out? Sit down, have a nice cup of tea and some cake and stop dragging everyone down with your negative doomsday rants.

Climate change has and will happen again with or without our help so why not try making people smile instead of making them fear life?

a reply to: Euphem

Climate change is due to either the planet warming or cooling. The planet warms or cools for various reasons... our orbital position around the sun (our orbit is elliptical not circular so sometimes our orbit keeps us closer to the sun and sometimes it keeps us further and sometimes it takes us both closer to the sun and further from the sun in the same year), in addition to orbit our planet wobbles so sometimes more of the planet faces the sun and sometimes less of our planets surface faces the sun. Currently our orbit and wobble should be giving us mild cooling.

Solar output obviously is another major factor for our climate, however, that hasn't changed much over the period we've been warming but has been on the lower side of it's normal range, so again we should at least not be warming. Also despite claims of all planets are warming, they aren't... Mercury, Venus, Jupiter aren't warming and it's difficult to know exactly how other planets and their moons are affected by their own orbits and tilts as of yet.

Another factor is volcanic activity. Usually when volcanoes spew ash or erupt they give our atmosphere a dosing of sulfur dioxide, volcanoes don't actually put out much greenhouse gases and sulfur dioxide is an aerosol which tends to reflect sunlight as well as ash blocking out the sun... so again, slight or major cooling can come from volcanic activity. Likewise if a giant rock or ball of ice slams into us the atmosphere would darken from the dust and dirt and block out the sun and we would cool.

Greenhouse gases, of Carbon Dioxide is one, in the lower atmosphere cause the planet to retain more heat vs it escaping back out into space, if we had none our planet would be too cold for life as we know it but the opposite is also true, too much would (eventually) cause the planet to become too hot for life as we know it. Temperatures affect how much or how little moisture is retained in the air. Warming causes more evaporation so we get more rain and snow where temperatures allow for precipitation to fall. Cooling keeps evaporation low. Temperatures also affect the wind circulation, warmer equals slower winds, cooler equals faster winds.

So in a warming cycle we get both extremes of flood and drought, even though there's more moisture in the air, because the winds are slowed it tends to fall all in one area as opposed to carrying moisture over a long distances and thus never reaching other areas.

TLDR: Climate change and global warming are correctly interchangeable because it's warming that is cause the climate to change.

a reply to: Kali74

sometimes it takes us both closer to the sun and further from the sun in the same year

Not sometimes, every time.

Earth's orbit is not a perfect circle. It is elliptical, or slightly oval-shaped. This means there is one point in the orbit where Earth is closest to the Sun, and another where Earth is farthest from the Sun. The closest point occurs in early January, and the far point happens in early July (July 7, 2007). If this is the mechanism that causes seasons, it makes some sense for the Southern Hemisphere. But, as an explanation for the Northern Hemisphere, it fails miserably

Read more here, please. www.space.com...

in addition to orbit our planet wobbles so sometimes more of the planet faces the sun and sometimes less of our planets surface faces the sun. Currently our orbit and wobble should be giving us mild cooling.

I don't get what you're trying to say here. It looks wrong so I'll just ask, you got a source for that?

If anyone is really interested in climate change, then you should stop arguing about it. It just pisses people off, and is the wrong approach.

A better approach is asking if folks like radiated fish, or Corex shrimp? How about extra mercury or arsenic in your fish? How about air quality....do people like air that doesn't taste like sulphur?

All the same end can be achieved by just campaigning logically instead of arguing and being confrontational. What people are most afraid of is having another tax levied on them for daily living. Meanwhile, GM makes a really good electric car that is pulled from the market. Not to mention that in 1992 when i graduated high school, there were 2 or 3 cars readily available that were in the 50mpg range....why isn't that available now?

We are all being played. Solutions that were available 20 years ago are not available now. Solutions that have come on market since then were only leased (not sold) and have since been pulled from the road. This isn't about solutions. Meanwhile, we are here arguing about carbon instead of just doing something.

BTW, while i like Neil DeGrasse-Tyson, he is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the establishment.

a reply to: Kali74

You said the following:

in addition to orbit our planet wobbles so sometimes more of the planet faces the sun and sometimes less of our planets surface faces the sun. Currently our orbit and wobble should be giving us mild cooling.

Are you aware that when a sphere like the Earth is in orbit about the sun, that exactly 1/2 of that sphere will receive sunlight......at ALL TIMES.

The sphere may rotate, tilt, wobble, get closer, or move further away, however, exactly 1/2 of it will always be lit by the sun.

The only way to decrease the amount of sun light falling on to that sphere is to block the sun light.

I'm pretty sure that you know this, as anyone can prove it with a golf ball and a flash light. So I'm thinking you must have meant something else.

Are you meaning the difference between the amount of land vs. water that receives sun light? Temperate areas vs. tropical areas sun light changing (IE 90 degrees vs shallow angle?).

a reply to: eriktheawful

I probably shouldn't talk science before morning caffeine. I'm on my phone headed to work but briefly I think it has more to do with the poles and the equator. I think my overall point stands though lol.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

What I said about orbit is true and not unclear but I'll try to clarify or you can just look up Milankovitch cycles. Because our orbit is like an oval, we aren't the exact same distance all the time, plus that oval shifts so June 3rd 2014 our distance from the sun is very different than June 3rd thousands of years ago.

originally posted by: SonoftheSun
...

Last night, Neil deGrasse Tyson came out with interesting figures regarding CO2:

...

Didn't realize he was a climate scientist. I'm a computer scientist, I have the same level of qualifications to discuss climate change, aka global cooling, aka global warming, aka polar vortex.

The Sun will continue to get hotter and hotter as it ages, we cannot do anything to stop it. Instead of spending and taxing based on the carbon religion, we should invest time and money into space travel. Interstellar space travel is the only way to keep humanity alive, unless you believe taxes can stop the Sun from getting hotter. Eventually eons from now, even with interstellar space travel, all the stars in the universe will die. Not sure if humanity will enjoy that type of universe.

P.S. - Pluto is still a planet in my book.

a reply to: sirjunlegun

If that is true...sucks for Londoners.

a reply to: BIGPoJo

Didn't realize he was a climate scientist. I'm a computer scientist, I have the same level of qualifications to discuss climate change

Lol what? He is an astrophysicist. pretty close to climate science... computer science is not even "real" science... its like political science.

The Sun will continue to get hotter and hotter as it ages, we cannot do anything to stop it.

of course it will, we are just making it faster. We can do something, not burn fossil fuels like its paper.

Instead of spending and taxing based on the carbon religion

yeah, not everyone who are for protecting the earth also loves taxing. but we have deniers who deny just because they think it will tax them. people deny science because of their political affiliations.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Exactly....I have been saying this for years. Rather than argue about AGW/Climate change and what causes it, focus on cleaning up the environment. There are 315 BILLION pounds of plastic in the ocean right now!!! Why don't we start focusing on cleaning up the environment and everything else regarding CO2 emissions, nuclear waste, etc..will begin to get better.