Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Cosmos and science ignorance

[Abraham3]

Easy. Does AGW cause more rain or less rain? More snow or less snow? Warmer temps or cooler temps? I can show you peer reviewed papers (and they are in fact in a few of these innumerable threads on here) that claim each and every one of those for AGW.

That's not how science works. You get one or the other. Not both. You guys always claim both sides.

You really don't understand the question, do you. Let's try again.

Why do you believe that the theory that says human activity is the primary cause of the global warming we've experienced the last 150 years is not falsifiable? If the only answer you've got for us is a display of your personal ignorance, I can accept that. We all have our limitations.

ps: A hint: AGW is not defined by the posts on this message board.

I just gave you the reasons. Clearly your reasoning ability is greatly reduced. The AGW supporters MAKE ALL OF THOSE CLAIMS. That is the very definition of an untestable hypothesis, or have you never taken a science class?

Your post is an excellent example of why we can't take you people seriously anymore. You haven't the vaguest clue how science actually works. You fundamentally don't understand the scientific method......or...you are intellectually dishonest and simply don't care about the lack of scientific rigor in the field of climatology.

You make all those charges, yet you never explain WHY you think such charges might be true.

I have provided four, falsifiable predictions completely implicit in AGW. I am asking the folks on your side to explain why you seem to believe those predictions are not falsifiable.

I'd also like to hear why you think I have no grasp on the scientific method.

I see my hint went over your head. What amateurs on this board or any other might have to say about AGW or this debate is irrelevant. If you want to attack the real AGW, you're going to have to attack the AGW of the world's published climate scientists. THAT's where the theory is defined.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Twice, in this thread, I have posted four, eminently falsifiable claims included in AGW. The only one to make any response was Crusader Frank and I hope I don't have to explain how much that was worth. Are any of you hotshot - particularly those of you that want to kill people over this - willing to defend your claims?

600,000 year data set falsifies your AGWCult of CO2 driving climate

This same graph has been put up before Frank. The zero on that graph is 1950. It's completely normal to use 1950 as "the present" as in "Before the Present" or "BP" but it's not okay to leave out the largest part of the contemporary warming phenomenon. If you were to plot the temperature and CO2 levels to the present day, the temperatures would leave the grid and the CO2 would leave the entire piece of paper. So, that data is being presented in a deceptive manner.

Now then, while the actual data might, that graph does not have the resolution to make any statements about CO2 lagging or leading temperatures. However, this topic has just about been talked to death. I'll presume you weren't listening and see if I can put together the Readers Digest version.

Increasing temperatures, from whatever cause, will cause CO2 levels in the atmosphere to rise. That has happened on numerous occasions in Earth's history and NO ONE is disputing the point.

CO2 is a Greenhouse gas and its presence in the atmosphere causes the Earth to accumulate solar energy by absorbing IR (aka long wave or LW radiation). That is a completely SEPARATE process to that which releases CO2 on heating.

So, what happens when ANYTHING causes the Earth to get warmer? CO2 levels go up and the Greenhouse warming THEY cause start to increase. As Jeremy Shakun and his co-researchers found, in almost every case of post glacial warming in the course of the last 22,000 years, after a few hundred years, warming from the released CO2 overtook whatever warming had started the process.

And, as you would all realize if you'd take off your "Biased Political Zealot" hats and put on the ones you wear while actually thinking about stuff, that warming releases CO2 in NO WAY prevents or suggests or in any way makes us think that CO2 cannot cause greenhouse warming. They are SEPARATE PROCESSES. The truth is that the nature of these two processes are such that one is providing a strong positive feedback to the other. It is NOT a good thing that both are true.

BTW, your graph addresses NOTHING in the four falsifiable AGW claims of mine that you quoted at the head. I believe you just used them as an excuse to put up a graphic Frank. Not good.

This is how anyone with a lick of common sense can tell AGW is a fraud.

You begin by ignoring a 600,000 year data set in favor of some arbitrary 60 year set. There's no 1950 zero point on the graph, you made that up out of whole cloth. Are you telling us that CO2 after 1950 is somehow different and more powerful? The chart measures variations in temperature and the lagging CO2 over a very, very, very, very long time period. Even Linus would have given up looking for the Great Pumpkin, but you Warmer are still there telling us, "Just wait, this year CO2 will LEAD temperature!"

You keep telling us there's this "Global Warming" since 1950, but it's not showing up anywhere. Last time we heard you were telling us that it's not showing up on the surface of the Earth because it's in the Pacific Ocean 700 meters deep. Which is it? Do you even know you change your story on an almost daily basis?

There's not "Deceptive" about a data set that fails your "CO2 drive temperature" theory. You might not like, but that's because you're too intellectually lazy to develop a new theory.

Again, the chart fails Shankun and your "CO2 drives temperature" theory. If that were true you'd see CO2 LEADING the change on the Charge, but it LAGS. And not just once, but repeatedly over 600,000 years. That's a data set 10,000 TIMES longer than your ridiculous 1950 zero point.

 

[Abraham3]

I'm sorry Frank. I should not have gotten on your case for a Vostok ice core failing to show contemporary data. That same graph had been used by someone in the last week to argue there was no warming in recent times. You were only (originally) trying to argue CO2 lags temperature and it was a perfectly valid piece of evidence to make the point. Trouble is, I never disputed the point. Neither do any climate scientists. They just make the additional point - that I was attempting to pass along - that it also leads temperature. I was not ignoring your graph - I have used it myself on multiple occasions.

At no time in the distant past, has CO2 been released without otherwise rising temperatures driving it out of sequestration in the ocean on tundra. There has been no occasion in which CO2 COULD initially, out of the blue, lead temperature. But we humans have done what has never been done before. This has been pointed out to you all dozens of times yet either no one is catching the point or none of you are willing to do so.

As to 1950: Whenever you hear someone use the term BP or Before the Present, they don't mean "Before whatever date and time you happen to be reading this" or even "Before the date I finally finished this fershlugginer graph". What they mean, by common agreement, is January 01, 1950 AD. Look it up if you don't want to believe me.

That we have been warming the last 150 years is really indisputable, Frank. You've been making an effort to present better arguments here lately. Don't blow it.

PS: I noted that the resolution on that graph was inadequate for just about anything. But if you look closely at it, it actually seems to shown CO2 leading temperature. Look at those spikes. It looks to me as if the red is just a pixel ahead of the blue. Now I know that is not the case. I just make this point as a piece of advice that to avoid foot-in-mouth syndrome, make certain data you post shows what you think it shows.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm sorry Frank. I should not have gotten on your case for a Vostok ice core failing to show contemporary data. That same graph had been used by someone in the last week to argue there was no warming in recent times. You were only (originally) trying to argue CO2 lags temperature and it was a perfectly valid piece of evidence to make the point. Trouble is, I never disputed the point. Neither do any climate scientists. They just make the additional point - that I was attempting to pass along - that it also leads temperature. I was not ignoring your graph - I have used it myself on multiple occasions.

At no time in the distant past, has CO2 been released without otherwise rising temperatures driving it out of sequestration in the ocean on tundra. There has been no occasion in which CO2 COULD initially, out of the blue, lead temperature. But we humans have done what has never been done before. This has been pointed out to you all dozens of times yet either no one is catching the point or none of you are willing to do so.

As to 1950: Whenever you hear someone use the term BP or Before the Present, they don't mean "Before whatever date and time you happen to be reading this" or even "Before the date I finally finished this fershlugginer graph". What they mean, by common agreement, is January 01, 1950 AD. Look it up if you don't want to believe me.

That we have been warming the last 150 years is really indisputable, Frank. You've been making an effort to present better arguments here lately. Don't blow it.

PS: I noted that the resolution on that graph was inadequate for just about anything. But if you look closely at it, it actually seems to shown CO2 leading temperature. Look at those spikes. It looks to me as if the red is just a pixel ahead of the blue. Now I know that is not the case. I just make this point as a piece of advice that to avoid foot-in-mouth syndrome, make certain data you post shows what you think it shows.

You seem serious enough. Can you tell me what the correlation is between temperature and CO2?

How much of an increase in temperature does each incremental 10ppm cause?

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Abraham3]

You seem serious enough.

Well, that's very nice of you.

Can you tell me what the correlation is between temperature and CO2?

Yes, yes, of course I can. When one goes up, the other goes up. It's a relatively weak forcing and so the trend is a bit bouncy, but in the long run, it's up, Up, UP.

How much of an increase in temperature does each incremental 10ppm cause?

Well, you could actually figure that out pretty easily once you assume some value for the sensitivity factor. And, since the sensitivity factor comes in two varieties (transient and equilibrium), the answer will come in two varieties. If we assume a 1C transient sensitivity, the short term (say, 1 decade) response to a 10 ppm increase would be 1C * (10ppm/395ppm) which comes to 0.025C (0.045F). The effect of an absolute change (like 10 ppm) is dependent on the absolute value at the moment, so that 10 ppm will have less effect in the future than it does today. The equilibrium response to that 10 ppm, which would take a century or so to come about, would be three times that: 0.075C (0.135F)

Why do you ask?

 

[Abraham3]

Keep in mind that since it takes a decade just to get the full transient response and CO2 levels have been steadily rising quite some time, we are still catching up with the past. If we stopped right now and never added another atom of GHGs, the transient response would rise for another ten years and the equilibrium response for probably another two centuries.