Neil DeGrasse Tyson Says Left Is Just as Guilty of Anti-Science as Right

[VanceMack]

:lamo Shhhhh don't say anything about the girly men Tyson or you will become pariah like us. Unless of course he wants to join the dark side. I love the dark it's fun.

Here he is helping Bill Nye battle rap verses Sir Isaac Newton.

For the record...Newton kicks both their butts. Creating things others talk about always trumps regurgitating others works that you dont really even understand...which is kinda funny considering that is what happens every time AGW gets brought up.

 

[katzgar]

No Maggie, sometimes stupid is just stupid.

Vaccines don't cause autism.

Blind use of alternative medicine can kill

Technically, we've been genetically modifying crops since the beginning of agriculture.

Man made climate change is reality.

Evolution is fact.

Science. Done.

steve jobs?

 

[Deuce]

For the record...Newton kicks both their butts. Creating things others talk about always trumps regurgitating others works that you dont really even understand...which is kinda funny considering that is what happens every time AGW gets brought up.

... erm, unless there's an actual climate scientist posting on this forum, that's what everyone is doing.

 

[VanceMack]

... erm, unless there's an actual climate scientist posting on this forum, that's what everyone is doing.

It would be swell if they actually understood what they were citing and not just regurgitating **** pretending they know what they are talking about and spewing it like it was gospel.

 

[Cardinal]

The left has become very intolerant of any challenges to their dogma.
I wounder if they throw Degrasse under the bus?

No doubt some will. People (yes, conservatives very much included since they are people) don't like to have their dogma challenged.

 

[longview]

No doubt some will. People (yes, conservatives very much included since they are people) don't like to have their dogma challenged.

People really need to learn to think outside the box, embrace the Scientific method and question everything.
If they do not understand the Science, learn it, or at least learn enough to be able to identify BS.

 

[Threegoofs]

People really need to learn to think outside the box, embrace the Scientific method and question everything.
If they do not understand the Science, learn it, or at least learn enough to be able to identify BS.

No kidding.

Like pretending the NAS doesn't really believe climate change is man made, or a problem.

Those people are idiots.

 

[Deuce]

It would be swell if they actually understood what they were citing and not just regurgitating **** pretending they know what they are talking about and spewing it like it was gospel.

Yes, I agree. Climate "skeptics" could do for some basic education in what they're pasting.

 

[longview]

No kidding.

Like pretending the NAS doesn't really believe climate change is man made, or a problem.

Those people are idiots.

Please cite, where I said the NAS doesn't really believe climate change is man made?
It is fairly unlikely I said something like that , since I think the majority (61%) of the observed
warming is likely from the added CO2.
My Skepticism of AGW is about the sensitivity of CO2, and the amplified feedbacks.

 

[VanceMack]

Yes, I agree. Climate "skeptics" could do for some basic education in what they're pasting.

:lamo

Even Ray Charles, man....

 

[Threegoofs]

Please cite, where I said the NAS doesn't really believe climate change is man made?
It is fairly unlikely I said something like that , since I think the majority (61%) of the observed
warming is likely from the added CO2.
My Skepticism of AGW is about the sensitivity of CO2, and the amplified feedbacks.

I didn't say you did.

I will point out that the IPCC (also known as 'experts') estimate the percentage closer to 110%.

But 61% sounds so scientific!

 

[longview]

I didn't say you did.

I will point out that the IPCC (also known as 'experts') estimate the percentage closer to 110%.

But 61% sounds so scientific!

Your "experts" estimate calls for speculation which is not evident in the empirical data.
Actually I made a mistake, it is not 61 % but .61 C, based on 1.73 X ln(400/280).
The GISS record says it has warmed 1.07 C since 1880, so .61 C is 57% of 1.07.
So if one uses the IPCC's numbers for the direct response warming of Doubling the CO2
level, (1.2 C) more than half of the warming is from added CO2.
This in no way indicates that the predicted amplified warming will happen at catastrophic levels!
The difference between the two, is that the doubling sensitivity of CO2 is based on somewhat accepted
physics, while the amplified feedback warming is based on speculation, and labeled,
in the IPCC key concept document as a belief, but then you already knew this!

 

[Threegoofs]

Your "experts" estimate calls for speculation which is not evident in the empirical data.
Actually I made a mistake, it is not 61 % but .61 C, based on 1.73 X ln(400/280).
The GISS record says it has warmed 1.07 C since 1880, so .61 C is 57% of 1.07.
So if one uses the IPCC's numbers for the direct response warming of Doubling the CO2
level, (1.2 C) more than half of the warming is from added CO2.
This in no way indicates that the predicted amplified warming will happen at catastrophic levels!
The difference between the two, is that the doubling sensitivity of CO2 is based on somewhat accepted
physics, while the amplified feedback warming is based on speculation, and labeled,
in the IPCC key concept document as a belief, but then you already knew this!

Ah, but you calculated it at your own kitchen table, so it's better than the 'speculation' they somehow are able to quantify with a distribution curve, and make clear definitive statements about.

I guess it's because other deniers have proved there is no lag time in warming at their OWN kitchen tables!

 

[longview]

Ah, but you calculated it at your own kitchen table, so it's better than the 'speculation' they somehow are able to quantify with a distribution curve, and make clear definitive statements about.

I guess it's because other deniers have proved there is no lag time in warming at their OWN kitchen tables!

Quantum reactions do have lag times, for CO2 they are measured in tens of milliseconds.
As for the calculations, nothing special, I will show my work and you can disprove it, if you can!
The IPCC cites Baede, et al (2001) as the more comprehensive description
of the key concepts of climate science.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter01_FINAL.pdf

1.2.2 Key Concepts in Climate Science
Here, some of the key concepts in climate science are briefly described;
many of these were summarized more comprehensively in earlier IPCC
assessments (Baede et al., 2001).

Within Baede we find, the core of the IPCC's AGW concept.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf

If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,
with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared
radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm−2. In other words, the radiative
forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2concentration would be 4 Wm−2.
To counteract this imbalance, the temperature of the surface-troposphere system
would have to increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%),
in the absence of other changes.
In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the climate system is much more complex.
It is believed that the overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies
the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C. A significant part of this uncertainty range arises
from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation.

Two parts, the direct response warming from doubling the CO2 level,
and then the belief that the warming from the CO2 will be amplified by feedbacks to add
additional warming between .3 and 3.3 °C.
Their confidence is expressed in the massive range of the prediction.

So back to the calculation.
The IPCC says doubling the CO2 level instantaneously, would cause warming of 1.2°C.
(they did not mention a lag time for direct response!)
1.2°C/ln(560ppm/280ppm)=1.73,
lets validate that number, 1.73 X ln(560/280)=1.1994...°C
Well that's within the ±10%.
So, to find out how much warming would have been caused by moving the CO2 level from
280 ppm to to 400 ppm, we do what I showed before,
1.73 X ln(400/280)=.61 °C
Please point out any mistakes I may have made!
P.S. and show your work also!

 

[Threegoofs]

Quantum reactions do have lag times, for CO2 they are measured in tens of milliseconds.
As for the calculations, nothing special, I will show my work and you can disprove it, if you can!
The IPCC cites Baede, et al (2001) as the more comprehensive description
of the key concepts of climate science.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter01_FINAL.pdf

Within Baede we find, the core of the IPCC's AGW concept.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf

Two parts, the direct response warming from doubling the CO2 level,
and then the belief that the warming from the CO2 will be amplified by feedbacks to add
additional warming between .3 and 3.3 °C.
Their confidence is expressed in the massive range of the prediction.

So back to the calculation.
The IPCC says doubling the CO2 level instantaneously, would cause warming of 1.2°C.
(they did not mention a lag time for direct response!)
1.2°C/ln(560ppm/280ppm)=1.73,
lets validate that number, 1.73 X ln(560/280)=1.1994...°C
Well that's within the ±10%.
So, to find out how much warming would have been caused by moving the CO2 level from
280 ppm to to 400 ppm, we do what I showed before,
1.73 X ln(400/280)=.61 °C
Please point out any mistakes I may have made!
P.S. and show your work also!

Thanks for your kitchen table calculations.

I think I'll stick with the people who know the field, and tell us that we have only seen a portion of the warming. You know...people that understand the concept of equilibrium.

You know...like NASA.

If we immediately stopped emitting greenhouses gases, would global warming stop? : Climate Q&A : Blogs

But your amateur attempts are valiant. I'm sure they would be impressed you read their study.

https://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S38/51/51I69/index.xml?section=topstories

 

[longview]

Thanks for your kitchen table calculations.

I think I'll stick with the people who know the field, and tell us that we have only seen a portion of the warming. You know...people that understand the concept of equilibrium.

You know...like NASA.

If we immediately stopped emitting greenhouses gases, would global warming stop? : Climate Q&A : Blogs

But your amateur attempts are valiant. I'm sure they would be impressed you read their study.

https://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S38/51/51I69/index.xml?section=topstories

Gee! I do not see you taking apart my calculations, why is that?
As always you only have rhetoric, and appeals to authority.
Is that the only cards you know how to play?
From the title of your citation,

Even if emissions stop, carbon dioxide could warm Earth for centuries

The COULD, is based on the predicted amplified feedback, which is based on speculation!
While there are feedbacks, how much they will effect the climate in aggregate is still very much in question.

 

[Threegoofs]

Gee! I do not see you taking apart my calculations, why is that?
As always you only have rhetoric, and appeals to authority.
Is that the only cards you know how to play?
From the title of your citation,

The COULD, is based on the predicted amplified feedback, which is based on speculation!
While there are feedbacks, how much they will effect the climate in aggregate is still very much in question.

I'm not looking at your calculations in the same manner I don't listen to my great aunts interpretation of some random MRI results she saw. It's amateurs pretending they know more than they do.

And the feedback a are only a question in your mind. In the experts minds, they have quantified them and come up with a probability range.

 

[longview]

I'm not looking at your calculations in the same manner I don't listen to my great aunts interpretation of some random MRI results she saw. It's amateurs pretending they know more than they do.

And the feedback a are only a question in your mind. In the experts minds, they have quantified them and come up with a probability range.

Is that why a bunch of the lead authors from IPCC AR5 published a paper saying the the range was much lower?
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
Just because you cannot do the math, does not mean others cannot.
It is not like we are talking quantum physics, it is a simple doubling curve.

 

[joG]

The left has become very intolerant of any challenges to their dogma.
I wounder if they throw Degrasse under the bus?

I am finding that even logic is ignored, when it seems to get in the way of their ideology.

 

[Threegoofs]

Is that why a bunch of the lead authors from IPCC AR5 published a paper saying the the range was much lower?
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
Just because you cannot do the math, does not mean others cannot.
It is not like we are talking quantum physics, it is a simple doubling curve.

Yes, someone published a paper three years ago and it seems the general consensus remains what it was before.

Unless its a GIANT CONSPIRACY!

We remain awed by your math skills. I saw a fifth grader calculate how to get a rocket ship to the moon a while ago, too. I was equally impressed. He even did it without logarithms!

 

[Mithrae]

We've covered this topic before, but it's interesting that he who left wingers suppose is the Dean of "Left wingers are reason based" is saying this.

And he said it on Bill Maher's show. Maher is an exemplar of anti-science bullcrap from the left.



Neil DeGrasse Tyson Says Left Is Just as Guilty of Anti-Science as Right | Heat Street

I wonder, are any of these examples (anti-vaccers, alternative medicine and opposition to GMOs) part of the public ideology of major left-wing parties at a national level in the US or worldwide, as ignorant 'scepticism' of climate science is for the right?

Not quite the same thing, if they're not :lol:

 

[longview]

Yes, someone published a paper three years ago and it seems the general consensus remains what it was before.

Unless its a GIANT CONSPIRACY!

We remain awed by your math skills. I saw a fifth grader calculate how to get a rocket ship to the moon a while ago, too. I was equally impressed. He even did it without logarithms!

It is not that a paper was published 3 years ago, but that the paper came after IPCC AR5, and was written
by many of the the lead authors from AR5.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
They explain that the ECS sensitivity should be lowered,

The most likely value of equilibrium
climate sensitivity based on the energy
budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 °C,
with a 5–95% confidence interval of 1.2–3.9 °C

This finding is also laid out graphically, With the ECS centered around 2°C rather than the earlier 3°C.

 

[Threegoofs]

It is not that a paper was published 3 years ago, but that the paper came after IPCC AR5, and was written
by many of the the lead authors from AR5.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
They explain that the ECS sensitivity should be lowered,

This finding is also laid out graphically, With the ECS centered around 2°C rather than the earlier 3°C.
View attachment 67202419

Like I said, a three year old paper that's changed precisely nothing.

I find your deference to the lead authors of the IPCC amusing though.

Here's the studies on ECS from the IPCC... Showing why the range is 2-4.5, but may be higher (and probably is not lower):

 

[longview]

Like I said, a three year old paper that's changed precisely nothing.

I find your deference to the lead authors of the IPCC amusing though.

Here's the studies on ECS from the IPCC... Showing why the range is 2-4.5, but may be higher (and probably is not lower):

So you deny the later study that show a lower ECS range?

 

[Manc Skipper]

I see him saying that the left has some areas where science denial is high, not that they are "as guilty" or equivalent.