What I learned from "Star Talk with Neil deGrasse Tyson"

[Hop David]

Smells like B.S. to me. According to NASA data CO2 has gone up 37% between 1850 to 2011.

Tyson is becoming notorious for spreading misinformation. Google: fact checking Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

[Subduction Zone]

Smells like B.S. to me. According to NASA data CO2 has gone up 37% between 1850 to 2011.

Tyson is becoming notorious for spreading misinformation. Google: fact checking Neil deGrasse Tyson

That was the OP's statement. I did not see a link to deGrasse Tyson making that claim. It went from about 280 ppm to 385 ppm during that period of time. Your figure looks to be correct. That would still begin to drive the warming that we see today and only make it worse in the future as we add more carbon dioxide.

Do you understand that AGW is not at all controversial today? Do you deny it? If you do perhaps we should start with the Greenhouse Effect. There is no doubt at all that that is a real thing.

 

[Hop David]

Do you understand that AGW is not at all controversial today?

The number usually bandied about is 97% consensus. Which comes from a 2013 paper by John Cook et al. Quoting from that paper:

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

I don't see a 97% consensus on catastrophic global warming.

Do you deny it?

I question the O.P's claim that CO2 concentration has increased 100% over the last 200 years.

Which prompts you to ask leading questions suggesting a strawman argument.

If you do perhaps we should start with the Greenhouse Effect. There is no doubt at all that that is a real thing.

Yes, let's start with the greenhouse effect. Do you know that CO2 is already thick enough that it's opaque to the infrared wavelengths in question? And it's been that way since pre-industrial times.

Let's talk about other factors. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Will more water vapor boost temperatures? Or will more clouds increase earth's albedo and lower temperatures?

There's some uncertainty in the effect of clouds and there are other uncertainties. See this article from the MIT Technology Review.

Personally I would rather err on the side of caution. In my opinion we should cut our reliance on carbon energy as soon as possible. But that doesn't mean I endorse false information. Making claims like the O.P. does more to discredit those sounding the alarm on global warming.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The number usually bandied about is 97% consensus. Which comes from a 2013 paper by John Cook et al. Quoting from that paper:



I don't see a 97% consensus on catastrophic global warming.

Of course you don't. You relied upon a person that is extremely biased and has no understanding of the science at all:


Skeptical Science - Wikipedia


And no Gish Gallops. Let's try to discuss this properly.

You need a better source:

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

 

[Subduction Zone]

What worldwide famous politician first introduced the threat of AGW to the world?

 

[Hop David]

Of course you don't. You relied upon a person that is extremely biased and has no understanding of the science at all:


Skeptical Science - Wikipedia


And no Gish Gallops. Let's try to discuss this properly.

You need a better source:

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

And what is the first citation in this so called better source? The same John Cook paper I just cited.

I'm enjoying this. Please continue.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And what is the first citation in this so called better source? The same John Cook paper I just cited.

I'm enjoying this. Please continue.

You should have read it. They used Cook's paper to refute his claims.

 

[Hop David]

You should have read it. They used Cook's paper to refute his claims.

It notes that most scientific organizations have endorsed the position of Cook's paper. You call that a refutation?

I don't think you've read the article you cited. And it seems like you don't even know what Cook's position is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It notes that most scientific organizations have endorsed the position of Cook's paper. You call that a refutation?

I don't think you've read the article you cited. And it seems like you don't even know what Cook's position is.

Not if Cook denies the scientific consensus. It appears that Cook tried to make that claim, but his own paper refutes him. You do not seem to understand how citations work.

 

[Hop David]

Not if Cook denies the scientific consensus. It appears that Cook tried to make that claim, but his own paper refutes him. You do not seem to understand how citations work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You forgot to add text. Or you confirmed my claim. Citing an article does not mean that one supports its conclusions. It only means that one found some facts in it that are useful. The facts from Cook's article refuted Cooks article.

 

[Hop David]

Not if Cook denies the scientific consensus. It appears that Cook tried to make that claim, but his own paper refutes him. You do not seem to understand how citations work.

And just what scientific consensus is Cook denying? Once again, Cook's claim:

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

The article you pointed to notes:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

(Emphasis added by me). Nobody in that article is refuting Cook's claims. They are strongly endorsing his findings.

Again, what Cook claim does the article supposedly refute?

 

[We Never Know]

That was the OP's statement. I did not see a link to deGrasse Tyson making that claim. It went from about 280 ppm to 385 ppm during that period of time. Your figure looks to be correct. That would still begin to drive the warming that we see today and only make it worse in the future as we add more carbon dioxide.

Do you understand that AGW is not at all controversial today? Do you deny it? If you do perhaps we should start with the Greenhouse Effect. There is no doubt at all that that is a real thing.

150 lakes in the Tahoe Basin are still frozen, and it's June

This isn't typical, at least in recent decades. "I've seen it happen only a few times over the past 40 years," he says.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And just what scientific consensus is Cook denying? Once again, Cook's claim:



The article you pointed to notes:



(Emphasis added by me). Nobody in that article is refuting Cook's claims. They are strongly endorsing his findings.

Again, what Cook claim does the article supposedly refute?

Cook tries to damn with faint praise. He does not accept the well accepted an well proven concept of AGW. He does get some things right. that was why he was quoted. When someone is incredibly wrong one of the best ways to put an article in place is to quote the parts of it that are correct and refute his general point. He tries to admit that most scientists accept AGW but then foolishly tries to deny it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

150 lakes in the Tahoe Basin are still frozen, and it's June

This isn't typical, at least in recent decades. "I've seen it happen only a few times over the past 40 years," he says.

Yes, that is weather. Climate change is a as its name tells you climate. One of the predicted results of climate change are larger extremes in winter. More powerful storms, When it does get cold deeper cold. When it gets hot more extreme hot. The general trend is towards hotter weather. But again that is the general. If one looks at the patter of record temperatures there are more new record highs than record lows. Do you need links for any of these claims? I will gladly supply them.

 

[Hop David]

Cook tries to damn with faint praise. He does not accept the well accepted an well proven concept of AGW.

Absolutely false. The guy you're trying to discredit is on your side. His Skeptical Science web site is devoted to debunking climate deniers.

You're perfectly happy to write many paragraphs about Cook without knowing any thing about him.

 

[We Never Know]

Yes, that is weather. Climate change is a as its name tells you climate. One of the predicted results of climate change are larger extremes in winter. More powerful storms, When it does get cold deeper cold. When it gets hot more extreme hot. The general trend is towards hotter weather. But again that is the general. If one looks at the patter of record temperatures there are more new record highs than record lows. Do you need links for any of these claims? I will gladly supply them.

I didn't post anything or say anything that denies AGW. I actually posted that link as an experiment and the result I expected happened. You reply to like I was denying AGW which shows me you just want to argue with others.

 

[Hop David]

I didn't post anything or say anything that denies AGW. I actually posted that link as an experiment and the result I expected happened. You reply to like I was denying AGW which shows me you just want to argue with others.

I point out that CO2 hasn't doubled over the last 200 years and Subduction Zone asks me if I'm a denier.

I point out Cook's oft cited 97% conclusion doesn't have the word "catastrophic" in it and now Subduction Zone is telling us Cook is a denier and doesn't know what he's talking about. When Cook is one of the most passionate crusaders against AGW.

It's my opinion that AGW is potentially catastrophic and that we need to do something about it. However that doesn't justify falsehoods and ad hominem. In fact I believe these arguments are counter productive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't post anything or say anything that denies AGW. I actually posted that link as an experiment and the result I expected happened. You reply to like I was denying AGW which shows me you just want to argue with others.

It appeared from your posts that you were. This is an ongoing tendency of yours. But if no sources are needed then we are fine.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I point out that CO2 hasn't doubled over the last 200 years and Subduction Zone asks me if I'm a denier.

I point out Cook's oft cited 97% conclusion doesn't have the word "catastrophic" in it and now Subduction Zone is telling us Cook is a denier and doesn't know what he's talking about. When Cook is one of the most passionate crusaders against AGW.

It's my opinion that AGW is potentially catastrophic and that we need to do something about it. However that doesn't justify falsehoods and ad hominem. In fact I believe these arguments are counter productive.

I confirmed that was the case. That Tyson was merely inaccurate. The post that you made was the sort that deniers make. And I did screw up on croft, but you were the one that added the term "catastrophic". The problem with terms like catastrophic is that they are rarely scientific and not used by scientists but are used by deniers. Your post had all of the hallmarks of a denier. Then when I asked about the Greenhouse effect you made implied that the fact that the atmosphere is already opaque to infrared as if that was a valid point. Yes, we know that the atmosphere is already largely opaque. But more CO2 is akin to throwing another blanket on a bed. More layers more insulation. The same is the case with CO2. You also do not seem to understand why CO2 is the main focus, even though other gases are greenhouse gases too. Take water for instance it is a very strong greenhouse gas, but it is self limiting. Too much water and it rains. Carbon dioxide makes a difference since it sets a higher base temperature which allows more water to get into the atmosphere. You may have heard the term "forcing". Since carbon dioxide is a long term gas it tends to set the base that all others work off of . A bit more carbon dioxide Raises the base level and causes a greater contribution of warming by other gases.