In other news, after a shipping snafu, I finally received my Blu-Ray copy of Cosmos from Amazon today. I fired it up on the teevee and it looks absolutely gorgeous. The extras are minimal: an "interactive Cosmic Calendar" which is basically a big screen version of what's already available on the app; and a "Making Of" documentary. That documentary, though - it was like a whole other episode of Cosmos - really amazing and uplifting (and insightful into the process of making the series, too). The segment I enjoyed the most was with Alan Silvestri and his insight into how he composed the series. But the best moment was at the end when Ann Druyan said that we, as a species, can accomplish anything ... if we "pierce the denial" that is holding us back. Quite apropos of some of the comments in this thread.
The process is not valid if it requires continuing and ongoing adjustments to the past, which we know is constant. The reason the technique was probably accepted is that climatologists wanted to see rising temperatures, and it showed them just that, so it seemed to work. If it had shown declining temperatures (which it would if the sawtooths ran the other way, down slowly and up abruptly), they'd have abandoned it after the first few tries. As Richard Feynmann said about cargo cult science, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool." Then comes validation, and what a mathematician would throw at the technique are various generated series of random walks, stochastic time-series curves that can serve as a statistically good analog for recorded temperatures, with differing levels of correlation between different data sequences that are standing for temperature curves at related sampling sites. Then discontinuities can be introduced into those series and the output of the homogenization algorithm can be checked against the unbroken data series. The technique will pass all those test with flying colors, because the statistically clean series used for validation wouldn't have the inherent saw-tooth pattern that makes the technique go all wonky, since there will be as many upward as downward discontinuities, and the series will have as much upward as downward drift. So the technique makes sense, it will pass all sorts of validation tests that someone would throw at it, and it will screw up on real data-world and indicate that temperatures ripple backwards in time. In normal science, when a glaring flaw is found in an algorithm or procedure, it is abandoned or corrected. In climate science, anyone who points out such a flaw is branded as a denier, a heretic, and a servant of Satan and the Koch Brothers. That's a serious problem, one that even climate scientists are complaining about.
^ Tootles. I have to spend the day at home while the windows in the apartment are replaced. I figure it's a good opportunity to start rewatching the series. The more I reflect on it, the more the animated segments have grown on me. It'll be interesting to see if that new appreciation holds up on a second watch.
Well, some good news at last. Two days ago Zeke Hausfather, a coauthor of a climate homogenization benchmarking paper that was published June 4 (and who is part of the new International Surface Temperature Initiative that's going to try to come up with realistic benchmarks for testing homogenization algorithms) was at another site I frequent that was discussing the sawtooth issue. He said: In the aforementioned paper they say: So, once their project gets rolling, they should in a year or two be able to rein in the crazy downward adjustments to historical temperatures - and make sure that the homogenization algorithms don't keep choking on sawtooth patterns. ETA: Meanwhile, in the alarmist world, PhysOrg published an article titled "Climate change may prevent contact with alien civilisations" Is there anything it can't do?
I have loved the animated segments from day one. I guess I appreciate them a little bit more than the live action sequences. Plus, Patrick Stewart voiced one of the characters, which makes it all awesome.
Well, all I managed yesterday was the first episode (too hectic). But ... wow ... on BR it's absolutely beautiful. Gorgeous. Having seen the entire series, and knowing how it turns out, seeing the introduction to it all is all the more special. And yes, Neil's story about Carl was still just as moving.
No I'm not, look at the blue line. Just walk away. You are contributing nothing to this conversation. That's just false. Take of your climate change armegeddon binders and critique this series honestly. Start with Bruno. It's all over the internet, just google it.
Yes, you really are. If you're referring only to decade-length data within the overall graph, then yes, you're losing the forest for the trees. Take a look at that long-term rise in the blue line. That is the CO2-driven climate change. I don't think there's a clearer visual representation of that long-term change. Thank you for providing it. Then find one of those lies and share it here. Please, provide sources, too.
I never siad there wasn't long term change. I'm saying and have always said the sky isn't falling. ... wonder how those trends went down during the industrial revolution... Just read this thread. It's not like you'll accept them anyways...
And who, exactly has said, "The sky is falling"? Speaking plainly and soberly about climate change - acknowledging that it is happening at what the long term effects are likely to be is the responsible discussion most scientists (and people here) are having. More fixation on the dog on the leash ... Not with unsupported, vague assertions. Please provide the exact quote (including the episode and time) from Cosmos and the evidence proving it was a "lie." Otherwise, I absolutely will not accept the claim as valid.
Even Galileo, who was persecuted by the Church and knew Bruno, didn't make the leap that Bruno was somehow a martyr for science. Aside from worshiping the Egyptian god Thoth, Bruno wanted to lead a vast army in a religious war against Christians. In another episode Tyson talks about the early Chinese philosopher Mozi who wrote an anti-religious book called "Against Faith" which advocated rationalism over religion. Unfortunately, Mozi's essay (not book) was "Against FATE" and was an argument against fatalism. In fact, Mozi founded a monotheistic religion, and may be the only Chinese philosopher to do so. Regarding Hypatia, who Cosmos claimed was killed by Christians in Alexandria because she was a pagan scientist, the only known source says the mob killed her because they thought she was poisoning the well of reconciliation between the Christian Roman governor and a bishop (Cyril) who was defending the Jews in a Christian/Jewish dispute. According to Cosmos, her death was shortly after the destruction of the Great Library in Alexandria in 391 AD by a Christian mob, which is odd because it was actually destroyed in 47 or 48 BC, which makes the Christian mob story rather unlikely. And we don't know that Venus ever had an ocean, and will probably never know because it got resurfaced by volcanic activity. We also don't know that the Earth's oceans were entirely boiled away, repeatedly, and indeed we can rule that out because it would take an impactor that would make Chicxulub look like a BB. But of course he needed the ridiculously large (and scientifically indefensible) impact so he could make his panspermia lines seem viable. I suppose that if NGT's multiverse is correct, there must be a universe where Cosmos didn't just make stuff up.
Not worth it gt. They actually think that comparing current climate conditions to a period in earth's history is level headed rational discussion.
The direct quotes from the series to support all of these assertions are ... where? If I had to guess, they're probably where all the missing sources that belonged in the others posts ended up, too.
So you don't believe that the topics hotly discussed in this thread after an episode aired were actually discussed?
I don't believe any characterization of Cosmos in your posts. Your posts routinely distort truth, resort to hyperbole, and are entirely unsupported by factual sources. Your posts have made broad, sweeping claims about what the series stated on a number of points, and I'm asking for those posts to provide the exact quotes in question. See, that would be the scientific approach: claims supported with actual, verifiable evidence. Otherwise, I believe your posts are thoroughly mischaracterizing, distorting, or are quite simply are wrong about what was actually stated in the show. It's a wonderful investment. As much as I enjoyed it the first time through, the series is even better on a rewatch - on Blu-Ray, sans commercial breaks. It really is highly compelling science.