It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Neil deGrasse Tyson shuts down climate change deniers

page: 2
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

You and everyone here is falling into their trap...... lets all go back to bear skins and bone knives, live in caves, and chew on grass...Every type of energy generating systems have their drawbacks...either in efficiency or waste products....
so what IS the answer...




posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: SonoftheSun
I also know that many members do not believe in climate change, that it's all part of a money agenda but facts remain facts.

What say you?


I don't recall the old volcano argument ever having been about CO2 specifically. The focus on CO2 as 'the enemy' is a relatively recent obsession. Volcanoes emit more greenhouse gasses than just CO2, most of which have a much higher greenhouse effect than CO2 itself, as well as aerosols aka dust etc.

In terms of his role in propaganda, Neil deGrasse Tyson is a TV pop-science pitchman aiming squarely for the lowbrow audience, so he can get away with basic dirty tricks like simple goalpost moving such as this.

The obsession with CO2 is insane, and will have real consequences. London already has horrible air pollution again because they have been giving priority to diesel engines over CO2 concerns. Diesel engines are somewhat better than gas for CO2 totals, but are much worse for air pollution in general.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 08:40 PM
link   
The world is heating. Most of this heat is going into the oceans, particularly the deep ocean. In 1998, there was a large expulsion of heat from the oceans, which was an "el nino" year. That is why "the world stopped heating in 1998", according to some.

This year there is about a 75% chance of another el nino, and the heat getting ready to be expelled from the oceans back into the atmosphere is going to make the event 16 years ago look like childs play.

If there is an el nino this year, that will be the first audible ring of the death knell for most life on earth, humans included. Humans need habitat, just like all animals, and when that habitat is destroyed, the animal dies with it, and that is what global warming is going to cause; lose of habitat.

Theres nothing that can be done to stop whats occurring at the moment. The total and complete termination of all CO2 sources on the planet would not stop whats begun. The inertia is beyond mosts ability to conceive, and it is ever increasing with self-reinforcing feedback loops.

Fear not, though... the Earth will live on.

Humanity though, will soon be left behind.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: SonoftheSun
First someone needs to scientifically prove CO2 is bad and it changes the climate. Then we can have a conversation. Oh and in doing so, release more CO2



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: SonoftheSun
a reply to: VoidHawk


Volcanic activity has reduced over the millions of years, does that mean we have to continually reduce emissions to keep in line with the reducing volcanic activity?
Thats nonsense!


Hi VoidHawk,

Perhaps (I'd like to see a link for that claim though) but it still wouldn't account for the ppm change during the last six decades or so.

And by the looks of it thus far, you are probably right in saying that he did NOT shut down Climate Change deniers!!!



Here is a link to several papers on the subject onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

As to shutting down all the deniers no, no it will not however it does shut down the argument which I have seen dozens of times within these threads that volcanos produce more co2 than man.

Though I am sure I will see it argued again to which from now on I will link that clip.

Already I see arguments that volcanos put out other greenhouse gasses and that is true however yet again it is ignored they also emit gasses such as so2 which have a cooling effect.

So the battle to educate and correct all the deniers misconceptions isn't over but it just became that much easier.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Climate change is natural. Global warming is simply the tag we have decided to give to climate change. Of this I am convinced.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi


Already I see arguments that volcanos put out other greenhouse gasses and that is true however yet again it is ignored they also emit gasses such as so2 which have a cooling effect.

So the battle to educate and correct all the deniers misconceptions isn't over but it just became that much easier.

By far the largest contributer gas is water! The effects of all the other gases become completely insignificant when compared with the amount of water in the atmosphere! It can be compared to adding a drip of water into a lake and thinking its going to cause the lake to flood!
Its not the deniers that need educating, its the believers of the new religion!



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: SonoftheSun

Climate changes. Climate has ALWAYS changed. There are NO climate change deniers. YOU are DUMB for not knowing the difference.

People will deny AGW...but not climate change. Get it? It is elementary stuff....



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Hmm
Ice caps and glaciers started melting over 50 years ago..
right on schedule with the eb and flow of the last 600,000 years of Ice core data
and yet.. it is due to the emissions of the US coal factories? or the rest of the world for that matter?

OK neal.. please step out of Oblamas pocket and tell the real facts please

also to add
how is it that all the planets are acting differently
is that because of our emissions?
edit on 2-6-2014 by Lil Drummerboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: VoidHawk



By far the largest contributer gas is water!

Yes. And the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is, on average, stable because it is determined by air temperature. Because we are burning fossil fuels, CO2 levels are not.

A small amount of warming caused by rising CO2 levels will cause there to be more water vapor in the atmosphere because warmer air can hold more water vapor. More water vapor will further increase temperatures. It's a multiplier effect.

edit on 6/2/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


During the Ordovician Period(460 million years ago) when CO2 concentrations were 4400 PPM, the mean surface temperature was similar to current temps.

If CO2 levels are so in sync with mean surface temperatures, how is this possible? 15X pre industrial times? Nothing should have lived, but life flourished for the most part.

There are SO many different variables that we cannot account for yet when it comes to climate change. Maybe in a few hundred years we can start to create precise climate models...right now it is just pseudo science.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Euphem

If CO2 levels are so in sync with mean surface temperatures, how is this possible?
Mostly, total solar irradiance was lower. The Sun was not as hot then as it is now.


Since its birth 4.5 billion years ago, the Sun's luminosity has very gently increased by about 30%.3 This is an inevitable evolution which comes about because, as the billions of years roll by, the Sun is burning up the hydrogen in its core. The helium "ashes" left behind are denser than hydrogen, so the hydrogen/helium mix in the Sun's core is very slowly becoming denser, thus raising the pressure. This causes the nuclear reactions to run a little hotter. The Sun brightens.

faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu...


There are SO many different variables that we cannot account for yet when it comes to climate change.
But there are several facts that remain. The Sun provides the energy which heats earth. GHGs trap that heat in the atmosphere. The Sun has not recently increased its output enough to account for the observed rise in temperatures. CO2 levels have risen to their highest levels in more than 500,000 years as a result of burning of fossil fuels. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

edit on 6/2/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Euphem

Granted.

The point is the CO2 levels are unnatural. There are no records to compare this to.

Instead of burying our head in the sand, we should address it. If we continue treating the planet this way, we are going to mess up something.

In many ways, we already have.

That brown smog, and all those chemicals you physically see, eventually make it into your food and water. Including the pollutants you can't see.
edit on 2-6-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: VoidHawk



By far the largest contributer gas is water!

Yes. And the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is, on average, stable because it is determined by air temperature. Because we are burning fossil fuels, CO2 levels are not.

A small amount of warming caused by rising CO2 levels will cause there to be more water vapor in the atmosphere because warmer air can hold more water vapor. More water vapor will further increase temperatures. It's a multiplier effect.

Oh come on phage! "the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is, on average, stable"
So how long a span of time are you using for that average?
We could have a bottle of beer thats full to the top today, and tomorrow it could be completely empty, and we could then say its on average 50% full!
The amount of water in the atmosphere could spike up and down wildly and we could still say on average it stable!
The truth is the amount of water in the atmosphere varies enormously by the day!



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Nobody is denying that the Sun heats the earth, are they? Nobody is denying CO2 is a greenhouse gas are they? I fail to see why you mention this.

Where is your proof of total solar irradiance during that period? Those amounts are only theorized and cannot be proven. I am not denying it was lower, just the amount.

Sorry but this is one area that even climate scientists have a hard time twisting into their models. With a 3-4% lower total luminosity, the CO2 levels needed to be lower than 3000 PPM for the glacial conditions that occurred during the late Ordovician. Since they were 5600 PPM at that time, how was it possible there were glacial conditions then?

Go ahead...find an excuse better than the climate scientists have...oh wait they don't have one yet.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: VoidHawk


The amount of water in the atmosphere could spike up and down wildly and we could still say on average it stable!
It varies quite a lot regionally, but globally it doesn't because the water vapor content of air is governed by temperature and pressure.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Euphem



During the Ordovician Period(460 million years ago) when CO2 concentrations were 4400 PPM, the mean surface temperature was similar to current temps.

The mean surface temps were similar to today's temps at the end of that period. During the height of that period the oceans temps reached as high as 45°C (113°F). What do you think would happen if the water temps reached that high again? There would be a mass extinction again.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Euphem

With a 3-4% lower total luminosity, the CO2 levels needed to be lower than 3000 PPM for the glacial conditions that occurred during the late Ordovician.
It's more like 3.5-5%, but how did you calculate that? Are you basing it strictly on radiative forcing? Isn't that your critism of AGW? That it's too simple? Are you considering difference in albedo? The length of a day during the ordovician? Changes in Earth's orbit? And, of course, the way water circulated was a whole lot different then, since the continents as we know them didn't exist. These guys thought about more than radiative forcing.
www.whoi.edu...


edit on 6/2/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Euphem



Sorry but this is one area that even climate scientists have a hard time twisting into their models. With a 3-4% lower total luminosity, the CO2 levels needed to be lower than 3000 PPM for the glacial conditions that occurred during the late Ordovician. Since they were 5600 PPM at that time, how was it possible there were glacial conditions then?

Continental drift. One of the theories for that ice age is the supercontinent of Gondwana drifted over the south pole, initiating a great Ice Age that gripped the earth at this time.




top topics



 
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join