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

[Billy_Bob]

So what does the lab work show?

If we double CO2 from 280 to 560 PPM does the temperature double, go up 10%, 1F, anything at all?

As we have gone up just 0.8 deg F or 0.45 Deg C, it is outside of even her predictions....

 

[Billy_Bob]

OK when I get 5 posts for some topic that was supposed to be normal and nobody answers my reasonable question and I get accused of being a liberal,

it's time to say goodbye again to this stupid forum.

To funny;

'Normal' to you is believing what you say without question. This is not normal. This is being a dupe and failing to think critically about a subject while asking legitimate questions and seeking the information to either back up ones claims or refute them.

I accuse you of being liberal as you fail to think critically and that is a dead giveaway of a person with liberal tendencies.

 

[Billy_Bob]

OK I don't want to talk to you anymore Billy Bod until you get a spine and tell me how often 200x the usual rate of CO2 increase happens.

LOL...

Now its 200 times faster in just a few posts.... What happened to 100 times faster?

In the paper I quoted, they show 200 to 300 times faster warming trends and CO2 trends.

 

[Sunsettommy]

100x faster than by nature hmm...
and why should I trust you?

You who failed to provide a link in your first post, while claiming Tyson said something like this:

"We've doubled the CO2 levels in less than 200 years- 100x faster than by nature."

Then Billy-bob, gave you a LINK to a published PDF paper in Nature answering you with similar or greater change, your response was "100x faster than by nature hmm...
and why should I trust you? "

then after he affirms his link some more you come back with a new number:

"It didn't even look in the graphs like it moved up that fast, and the reason I'm asking why I should trust you is you haven't told me how often it goes 200x faster than normal."

bolding mine

Now here is my impression of YOU:

You are full of shit because you are too stupid to notice that Tysons alleged statement is absurd!

"We've doubled the CO2 levels in less than 200 years- 100x faster than by nature"

In 1880 it was about 280 ppm, now it is about 412 ppm in 138 years. Not even close to a doubling and obviously not even 10x faster than Nature since most of the increase is by nature anyway.

280 X 2 = 560

You at first said it was 100x faster than nature, then it became by post 6 and repeated at post 10, that it is now 200X faster than by nature.

Now that you ignored the only posted science paper by billy-bob, you have nothing at all to run with, you never posted actual evidence, source or explained what that "Book" really says either.

You are a proven moron.

 

[westwall]

What I learned from "Star Talk with Nei deGrasse Tyson", from the world-famous astrophysicist and comedian, on climate change:

We've doubled the CO2 levels in less than 200 years- 100x faster than by nature.

1 degree celsius would power hundreds more hurricanes, floods, tornados, and blizzards every year.

The mayors of citeis around the world... have been getting together and forming networks and signing on pacts with each other to set targets and timetables for greenhouse gas emissions.

The temperature might go up 1 to 5 degrees in a hundred years, and there is still a lot of debate about how long it would take to reach the tipping point... I don't think we need to go drastic right away.

Pope Francis worked as a chemical technician.

Even if we depleted all our non-renewable resources we still don't know if it would turn out like Venus, but we would push earth easily beyond the point where we could live.

Conclusion: I personally am somewhat relieved and not as scared about it than I was before.

The world has been FAR warmer than the present day for the majority of its existence.

 

[SSDD]

100x faster than by nature hmm...
and why should I trust you?

Because I just gave you empirically observed evidence by real scientists that disproves the hyperbole being propagated by liars.

It didn't even look in the graphs like it moved up that fast, and the reason I'm asking why I should trust you is you haven't told me how often it goes 200x faster than normal.

You think that what has happened in our little eye blink of geological time constitutes "normal" for planet earth? You do realize don't you, that for most of earth's history..right up till the time the present ice age began, atmospheric CO2 levels were between 1000ppm and 4000ppm with some periods having CO2 levels up to 7000ppm and never anything like a run away warming effect.

 

[SSDD]

OK I don't want to talk to you anymore Billy Bod until you get a spine and tell me how often 200x the usual rate of CO2 increase happens.

How many peer reviewed, published papers would you like to see that bring into serious question whether we are having a measurable effect on the atmospheric CO2 concentration? The fact is that we don't even produce enough CO2 to overcome the natural variation in CO2 from year to year from the earth's own CO2 making machinery..

For example, termites alone produce two times as much CO2 as we make...the soil produces 9 times more CO2 than we do and as the earth greens, the soil area is expanding producing even more CO2... Just considering those two sources which produce eleven times more CO2 than we do, it is clear that the claim that our relative wisp of CO2 is causing the globe to warm is pseudoscience of the foulest sort.

Here...have a look at the actual scientific literature rather than believe a "hollywood" scientist who is little more than a paid whore for the climate industry. His story doesn't jibe with the peer reviewed published literature on the topic..


https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

“A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming isthat there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … Results do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenicemissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

“The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”
“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

Conclusion:
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whetherrepresenting sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

“The warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

“With the short (5−15 year) RT residence time results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”



https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/011006/meta

“However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”

Error - Cookies Turned Off

“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”


There is plenty more actual evidence that our effect on the atmospheric CO2 concentration is negligible...how much more would you like to see?

 

[SSDD]

So what does the lab work show?

If we double CO2 from 280 to 560 PPM does the temperature double, go up 10%, 1F, anything at all?

1 to 5 degrees in 100 years

You should keep up with the literature rather than letting someone with a political agenda provide you with an opinion...20 years ago, some climate scientists claimed 5 or 6 degrees...10 years ago, the "consensus" said 1 to 3 degrees...today, the number is trending towards zero...most studies are now predicting less than half a degree per doubling and even those are questionable...the real number is zero or less and the trend in science is moving very quickly in that direction.

 

[SSDD]

100x faster than by nature hmm...
and why should I trust you?

How do you know it's 100 x faster than by nature?

From the book,

"On Earth, levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide change naturally over many thousands of years. Humans, though, have managed to double the carbon dioxide level in less than two centuries-a hundred times faster than it would happen in nature without humanity's help."

That is an opinion..not based in fact...the peer reviewed, published literature tells a different story...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So what does the lab work show?

If we double CO2 from 280 to 560 PPM does the temperature double, go up 10%, 1F, anything at all?

1 to 5 degrees in 100 years

Where's the lab work for an INSTANTANEOUS increase as described?

That's a bonus for you