Neil deGrasse Tyson shuts down climate change deniers

a reply to: tadaman

I didnt even mention CO2. The sun could account for the fluctuations in temperature. I do support that idea.

There is data available for that. Have you seen it? Do you think those that think that human activity is the primary cause of warming ignore it?

a reply to: Phage

There is a difference between temperature and climate change. I actually referenced a paper that explained why Co2 emissions cant explain the change in climate. Did you read it?

a reply to: tadaman
I know. Temperature is a measure of heat content. Climate change is a change in large scale meteorological patterns.

Big difference. But changes in global temperatures will lead to climate change because heat is the energy which drives climate.

That Nasif guy? Yeah. It doesn't make much sense. He says CO2 has a cooling effect? I don't think you're going to find a lot of people that agree with that, even those who don't think warming is primarily human driven.

a reply to: Phage

Well here is a good read. I liked it because its not biased.

The following article represents an alternative view and analysis of global climate change, which challenges the dominant Global Warming Consensus.

Global Research does not necessarily endorse the proposition of “Global Cooling”, nor does it accept at face value the Consensus on Global Warming. Our purpose is to encourage a more balanced debate on the topic of global climate change.

www.globalresearch.ca...

It shows the trends for climate change based on historic patterns. It covers times when no man made Co2 emissions were present and so consists of good method IMO. Seeing what climate change looked like without Co2 would give us a good idea of what we have as far as climate change because of it.

It basically says that the data collected shows a trend that C02 isnt the driving force.

EDIT TO ADD:
It has lots of cool graphs and NASA satellite data too. I know that important. LOL

A bit from it:

Despite no global warming in 10 years and recording setting cold in 2007-2008, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change (IPCC) and computer modelers who believe that CO2 is the cause of global warming still predict the Earth is in store for catastrophic warming in this century. IPCC computer models have predicted global warming of 1° F per decade and 5-6° C (10-11° F) by 2100 (Fig. 1), which would cause global catastrophe with ramifications for human life, natural habitat, energy and water resources, and food production. All of this is predicated on the assumption that global warming is caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 and that CO2 will continue to rise rapidly.

I just want to add that computer simulations only use what parameters you set in. Adding a greater factor for Co2 will show a greater impact. Especially when that impact is determined by parameters set outside of the simulation from other data that is not yet proven but is hypothesized as having a greater effect than is currently provable.

However, records of past climate changes suggest an altogether different scenario for the 21st century. Rather than drastic global warming at a rate of 0.5 ° C (1° F) per decade, historic records of past natural cycles suggest global cooling for the first several decades of the 21st century to about 2030, followed by global warming from about 2030 to about 2060, and renewed global cooling from 2060 to 2090 (Easterbrook, D.J., 2005, 2006a, b, 2007, 2008a, b); Easterbrook and Kovanen, 2000, 2001). Climatic fluctuations over the past several hundred years suggest ~30 year climatic cycles of global warming and cooling, on a general rising trend from the Little Ice Age.

PREDICTIONS BASED ON PAST CLIMATE PATTERNS

Global climate changes have been far more intense (12 to 20 times as intense in some cases) than the global warming of the past century, and they took place in as little as 20–100 years. Global warming of the past century (0.8° C) is virtually insignificant when compared to the magnitude of at least 10 global climate changes in the past 15,000 years. None of these sudden global climate changes could possibly have been caused by human CO2 input to the atmosphere because they all took place long before anthropogenic CO2 emissions began. The cause of the ten earlier ‘natural’ climate changes was most likely the same as the cause of global warming from 1977 to 1998.

Figure 3. Alternating warm and cool cycles since 1470 AD. Blue = cool, red = warm. Based on oxygen isotope ratios from the GISP2 Greenland ice core.

Relationships between glacial fluctuations, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and global climate change.

After several decades of studying alpine glacier fluctuations in the North Cascade Range, my research showed a distinct pattern of glacial advances and retreats (the Glacial Decadal Oscillation, GDO) that correlated well with climate records. In 1992, Mantua published the Pacific Decadal Oscillation curve showing warming and cooling of the Pacific Ocean that correlated remarkably well with glacial fluctuations. Both the GDA and the PDO matched global temperature records and were obviously related (Fig. 4). All but the latest 30 years of changes occurred prior to significant CO2 emissions so they were clearly unrelated to atmospheric CO2.

a reply to: tadaman

I'm quite familiar with Easterbrook. He ignores known influences on climate and depends on what he sees as cycles. His model ain't so good.
Easterbrook

a reply to: Phage

But you cant deny a pattern when you see one. I cant at least. It is the very measure of intelligence.

EDIT TO ADD:
Also surface temperature has little to do with climate change IMO. It is a product of how much energy is present on earth from our source, the sun.

More energy means higher temperatures. More energy being emitted could be melting polar ice caps at a higher rate during some periods depending on what cycle the sun is at. It could be causing greater temperate air flow. It could all be negligible.

If we want to establish a pattern for natural climate change and from that deduce where we are actually altering it by the deviations we must first look at natural trends.

As far as your last post:
I am not a fan of predictions used in proving a theory myself. I will concede to that much Mr. Phage. Its better for a theory to be proven first (or at least as much as possible) and then for what is learned and provable to be used for making predictions.

Have a good one.

a reply to: Phage

Reply to my previous reply when you gain a few IQ points Phage...until then just keep on that ignorant train.

I love that you talk about someone ignoring influences on climate, and proceed to hate on their models, when you blindly accept the most idiotic model of all from the IPCC.

CHOO CHOO! All aboard!

a reply to: Euphem

Reply to my previous reply when you gain a few IQ points Phage

Ah yes. The ad hominem approach. Always a very effective argument.

a reply to: Phage

I think you mixed up the posts. If you want to separate my arguments from his I will address them unless you want him to answer.

I will wait for your edit or your response.

a reply to: tadaman
Sorry, I noticed a moment before you pointed it out.

Also surface temperature has little to do with climate change IMO. It is a product of how much energy is present on earth from our source, the sun.

Interesting. How does solar energy affect climate if it doesn't affect temperatures?

More energy means higher energy.

Higher energy. Can you define that?

Its better for a theory to be proven first (or at least as much as possible) and then for what is learned to be used for predictions.

Another question. Isn'ts science about making predictions based on a theory and seeing if those predictions are valid?
www.sciencemadesimple.com...

It could be true but that doesn't stop me from being skeptical. Mr. Tyson is no doubt a poster child spokesperson for the new world order, pushing whatever scientific agenda they want him to push. One day people will realize, like elections, whoever is in the public spotlight being propped up, is undoubtedly another henchman of the new world order. That's just the way it works.. Won't bend over? no fame then..

a reply to: Phage

1-

Interesting. How does solar energy affect climate if it doesn't affect temperatures?

I said it is a product of the sun and its irradiance as per the going theory I endorse. I do think that the sun is the driving force behind global temperatures. Measuring the temperature wouldn't be as effective as measuring the sun's output is all. IN finding a trend, Knowing the product on earth wouldnt be as effective as knowing the cause by the suns cycles.

2-

Higher energy.

A Typo. I think we can look that one over no? I looked over you replying to someone else with my arguments. I corrected it already before you posted. I meant higher temperatures.

3-

Another question (sorry, I know I'm not at your level). It's science about making predictions based on a theory and seeing if those predictions are valid?

You dont have to be rude. I wasnt mocking you sir. I assume you are intelligent enough to read and think. If not I wouldnt be talking to you. Science is not about making predictions. Predictions CAN be used to test a theory though they are not conclusive since you have to first rule out EVERY other factor and first KNOW what they are to do so. .....*is not its. You made a declaration. You did not posit a question. Typos I know.

Posting a link to scientific method is a bit tongue in cheek no?

I am familiar with it yes. I did go through basic grade school, yes.

The process also calls for using several methods to make sure you have ruled out any possible mistakes in the method you use. Trying to use predictions alone would be tantamount to a psychic making a few good guesses and thus being vindicated for her blind luck. It does happen.

EDIT TO ADD:
I dont think I can continue this conversation. You are way too intense and hostile. I dont think you can be objective and take it down a notch so as to avoid ill interpreted words. I will take my own advice and just choose not to engage you in debate. Interpret that as you wish, but its your loss. I actually read and can understand the complexities necessary for a mutually beneficial exchange. Again, take it as you will, vindication, victory. I dont care.

Enjoy.

a reply to: tadaman

Measuring the temperature wouldn't be as effective as measuring the sun's output is all.

I told you that data is available.

You dont have to be rude. I wasnt mocking you sir.

I know. That was a leftover from the prior mixup. I fixed it.

Predictions CAN be used to test a theory though they are not conclusive since you have to first rule out EVERY other factor and first KNOW what they are to do so.

Predictions of expected observations are a requirement of defining a theory. Without predictions you have a hypothesis, not a theory.


I do not intend to be rude. I apologize for the reply mixup. I acknowledge my screw up. I tried to clean it up but failed to do so entirely.

a reply to: Phage

I see, thanks for the link phage.

Now I did find this.

2006,Phenomenological Solar Contribution To The 1900-2000 Global Surface Warming,Geophysical Research Letters,Scafetta| N; West| Bj,4,1

If I'm reading this right. This paper is a 4, 1.

Category
2,Impacts
3,Mitigation
4,Methods
5,Paleoclimate
8,Not climate related
9,Not Peer-Reviewed
10,No Abstract

Endorsement
1,Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%
2,Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise
3,Implicitly endorses AGW without minimising it
4,No Position
5,Implicitly minimizes/rejects AGW
6,Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW but does not quantify
7,Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW as less than 50%

It has a category of methods and an endorsement of 1 that explicitly endorses and quantifies agw more than 50%.

Now over here Dr Scaffeta says.

www.populartechnology.net...

Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.

What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings.

The "less" claim is based on alternative solar models (e.g. ACRIM instead of PMOD) and also on the observation that part of the observed global warming might be due to urban heat island effect, and not to CO2.

By using the 50% borderline a lot of so-called "skeptical works" including some of mine are included in their 97%."


Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?

Scafetta: "Please note that it is very important to clarify that the AGW advocated by the IPCC has always claimed that 90-100% of the warming observed since 1900 is due to anthropogenic emissions. While critics like me have always claimed that the data would approximately indicate a 50-50 natural-anthropogenic contribution at most.

What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. Instead of apologizing and honestly acknowledging that the AGW theory as advocated by the IPCC is wrong because based on climate models that poorly reconstruct the solar signature and do not reproduce the natural oscillations of the climate (AMO, PDO, NAO etc.) and honestly acknowledging that the truth, as it is emerging, is closer to what claimed by IPCC critics like me since 2005, these people are trying to get the credit.

They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face.

Now they are misleadingly claiming that what they have always claimed was that AGW is quantified as 50+% of the total warming, so that once it will be clearer that AGW can only at most be quantified as 50% (without the "+") of the total warming, they will still claim that they were sufficiently correct.

And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006."

What are your thoughts on this?

a reply to: SonoftheSun

While I love his new show Cosmos, I'm not sure that Neil deGrasse Tyson or anyone else for that matter, (regardless of the irrefutable scientific evidence supporting their assertions) has actually "shut down" climate change deniers. Hell, I'm not even sure it's possible.

I think the comedian Ron White put it best when he said, "You can't fix stupid"

The climate is sure messing with our brains, just love all the hot air being added to global cooling these days, I am just as bad, I'd sooner read climate depot than anything that comes out of that money pit called the UN, or any scientists bank rolled by any big business, or governments, so that does not leave many scientists not tainted with 'big money' does it?

a reply to: SonoftheSun

I have a hard time believing any data from anyone concerning this topic, period. To have faith that any single person or report is absolutely fact and true is silly considering ever report or person makes the same claim regardless of which side they are arguing.

My problem with "climate change" is I can't quite figure out how taxing and taking money from citizens will change or reverse anything that is happening. No matter what anyone says, money can't change the climate or atmosphere. It just can't. So in that sense, there is no doubt it is a money grab, to claim otherwise is being ignorant in my opinion. I am not saying you are ignorant, just making the statement.

Still trying to find some actual, living, breathing, "Climate Change Deniers".

So far all I have found are:

People who believe that Climate Change is the fault of humans.

And

People who don't believe that Climate Change is the fault of humans.

Both however do believe that the climate does indeed change.

Could someone direct me to some of these actual Climate Change Deniers? I want to get their pictures, talk to them. Find out why they don't think that the Earth's climate changes.

I'd ask here on ATS, but so far I've yet to see anyone say they don't think the climate of Earth changes. Just those that disagree what the cause of those changes are.

Little help here?

a reply to: sputniksteve

So in that sense, there is no doubt it is a money grab, to claim otherwise is being ignorant in my opinion.

That is why most people are opposing change and prefer the status quo. We have a serious trust issue when it comes to government money grabbing and spending and with good reasons.

I would certainly encourage stopping to spend billions for the military (especially in helping out foreign countries at the other end of the world under an umbrella of peace and freedom bringers) and transfer those funds for a major re-haul of the environmental and recycling programs. But that's like believing in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy.

Just a few points.

Not everyone supporting or advocating Man Made Global Warming is government funded or a New World Order puppet.

They aren't. There are thousands of real scientists studying this issue that are telling us that We are causing Global Warming separate from any Solar Activity or Natural Cycle.

Secondly, there really is good science and research going back decades that show that we are warming. That's not really disputable. This fact is separate from any Man Made Global Warming arguments. The earth is warming for some reason. Just a fact.

Thirdly, it's not doom porn, if you are getting your information from real scientists writing real papers with real research and relaying that information.

Let's not forget that there are some incredibly rich and well funded companies, corporations and organizations that don't want higher mileage cars or more public transportation or more regulation on fossil fuels or renewable energy, because it will hurt their bottom line.