You mean the "bull crap" that's supported by 97% of climate scientists? Oh wait, I forgot. They're all on the take.
Oh ho ho, oh wow, yeah, that's, oh man, that was a good one! That's a funny joke, because anyone who has an inkling of understanding when it comes to climate and the science of how we determine the changing patterns of our global weather system, knows that anthropogenic climate change is a real thing, and is a serious concern. Good joke, though! You almost had me there!
What gets me is that this knowledge was available more than three decades ago, in part because the first Cosmos conveyed the information about the correlation between greenhouse gases (that we humans add to the atmosphere at unprecedented rates) and global warming in the episode "Heaven and Hell". In the years since, the data have only reinforced the the conclusion that we are responsible for the drastic climate change. It's a shame that so many choose to make statements that ignore scientific data, and rigorously challenged and subsequently accepted conclusions, in favor of irrational, unscientific rhetoric.
Indeed, Carl Sagan's studies of the atmosphere of Venus were pivotal in developing the concept of the runaway greenhouse effect in the first place (he was the first astronomer to predict the true nature of Venus's clouds, at a time when most were expecting a planetwide rainforest). So that episode, like several episodes of the series, was based on Sagan's own research.
Sagan's prediction of the surface temperature of Venus without greenhouse gases was over a hundred degrees hotter than his prediction for the surface temperature with greenhouse gases. But that prediction was earlier in his career when he did sound physics instead of smoking way too much weed.
This has been my favorite episode so far. I am concerned that there might be confusion between natural climate change and what we're currently doing for some audience members. But I assume that it will be covered better in an upcoming episode.
based upon that ending it seemed like it was the last one. They went full circle on that animation too.
I don't see any rational or scientific data, or rigorously scientifically accepted conclusions, in this post.
Um, would you know scientific data if it hit you in the head? Sagan included the data in his many papers on the surface temperature and atmospheric composition of Venus, a topic on which he published frequently during the 1960's, which made him rather well known in scientific circles. In his early papers the assumption was that the atmosphere of Venus would be less than 20% CO2, and probably less than 5%, with the rest made up of nitrogen. Many of the papers are quite interesting, because they were based on trying to apply various theories to a planet about which we knew very little. In one paper he went with the assumption that CO2 would exist in equilibria with carbonate rock, which gave an estimate of CO2 partial pressures, and then going with the assumption that 80% of the atmosphere was nitrogen, he could derive an estimate of surface pressures. He tried many approaches to the problem, and the key one was that we knew the cloud tops were virtually the sole source of emitted radiation, and they emitted at 234 degrees Kelvin (which is very cold). Below those, the atmosphere should roughly follow the wet or dry adiabatic lapse rate (in his early papers he assumed water clouds and a wet planet), which, when the numbers are crunched, results in a much hotter planet if the atmosphere was nitrogen than if it was CO2. His scientific reasoning was quite sound, and he was correct. As an aside, subsequent analysis has shown that a runaway greenhouse effect isn't physically possible on a planet with a transparent atmosphere. The formula the idea was based on was for the opaque atmosphere of a star. The differential equations are the same, but the boundary conditions on them are quite different, resulting in a very different answer. As for this episode, I have to assume Seth McFarlane is handling the science part, or Neil DeGrasse Tyson has never taken more than an introductory course in geology. The cause of the Permian extinction is almost certainly not coal (if it all burned, why is it still there?), and nobody is even remotely close to a consensus between Siberian volcanism, heating, cooling (which is probably why Tyson was almost incoherent about which of those was responsible), asteroid impacts, the drastic reduction in shallow continental shelf area, massive sulfur emissions, supernovas, hypernovas, colliding neutron stars, and severe ice ages (confirmed) due to continental configuration and orbital mechanics. Later he claimed the current interglacial was due to last another 50,000 years, which is nuts. The previous interglacial, the Eemian, lasted 17,000 years, and we're already 11,700 years into the Holocene, which is projected to last about 15,000 years based on previous interglacial patterns and orbital mechanics. Some scientific papers estimate the onset at about 2,000 years from now, using more refined datings on previous cycles. The show definitely needs to hire a geologist, or at least a geology undergrad.
Ah, so we're to be criticizing the poster and not the post then, eh? That's classy. Besides I can certainly see when a post lacks scientific data, as yours did - it made sweeping claims about predictions, with no evidence to support those claims. As for your most recent post, you make a lot of statements without any substantiation. Some of which are clearly hyperbolic and intended to obfuscate any rational discussion ("I have to assume Seth McFarlane is handling the science part, or Neil DeGrasse Tyson has never taken more than an introductory course in geology"). So until your posts cease their wild exaggerations and accusations, and until they're supported by rigorously, scientifically accepted sources, you'll forgive me if I don't accept them at face value.
I didn't know about that aspect of Sagan's life until about five years ago. It turns out that a friend of mine had been a pizza delivery driver in Ithaca thirty years ago, and she related some anecdotes about Sagan the private person. Andrew Sullivan posted two anecdotes about Sagan's experiences with marijuana here and here.
Paaaaaaleeeeeease..... beware of "governmental agencies" that are here to help. http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenh...n-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467 Also, he compares our climate now to a period in Earth's history that saw 9 of 10 of EVERYTHING go extinct. Juuuuuust a little stretch there? The thing you need to understand is politicians will never let a crisis go to waist. So Al Gore and the Hollywood left make a movie, Al says the argument is over and everyone is just supposed to cave and give them money. It's all about agendas. It's all about money. It's all about a "new world order" and the biggest "the sky is falling" gripers are from NATO.
Well, the content is that the new show didn't even present any doubts that the Permian extinction was caused by burning coal that was lit by volcanoes, when that conjecture is barely even in the running against the wide range of theories about the causes of the Permian extinction. Any paleontologist or geologist would be well aware of the serious problem with the show's assertion. Indeed, one of the more interesting theories that an astrophysicist should be aware of is a recent paper that linked Earth's mass extinction events to our path through dense areas of the Milky Way's spiral arms, where the odds of the neary severe supernova's would dramatically increase. Cosmos - "It's the filthy coal!!!" That's politically correct, and politically popular, but scientifically unsound. The show also, at one point, said the ice ages were over and that we've returned to a stable climate, which is nonsense. As any geologist or paleontologist will tell you, the Earth is still in an ice age, and we're in the tail-end of the current interglacial period, which will certainly not last for another 50,000 years. Even 5,000 would be a stretch.
But that's a false distinction. Humans are not "unnatural." We are a life form that evolved on this planet, and our presence and actions are influencing the climate, just as the presence and actions of earlier life forms influenced the climate. We make this distinction between nature and human activity, but that doesn't make sense. We are part of nature and our technology is part of our behavior. So our technology is part of nature too. Everything is. The point of this episode was to show that the planet can be influenced by the creatures that live on it. Creatures like us. Science continues to find more and more examples of tool use in the animal kingdom. It is no longer valid to claim that tool use makes humans unique; it is simply something that animals do. Our industries and cars and computers and so forth are unusually elaborate tools, but they're still just highly elaborated extensions of the tool use that is part of the behavior of animals on this planet. So we need to abandon this fiction that "natural" and "technological" are mutually exclusive terms.
That's a good point. Perhaps the distinction is a relic of Biblical thinking. Here's David Attenborough talking about a brilliant problem-solving (and causing) species from New Zealand. [yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak6omNRd6-g[/yt]
I still don't see any sources or evidence to support your sweeping assertions - particularly ones such as "any paleontologist or geologist ..." and "scientifically unsound" and "that conjecture is barely in the running." Conversely: So it would seem that this is being advocated by a geologist, supported by scientific data. There's also this article from 2003. So I'd say at least a few of your assertions are now ... extinct.