Anyone Watch Cosmos?

[RetroGrow]

This is a great show, hosted by physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, and now on Fox, not PBS, where it started with Carl Sagan years ago. Tonight's episode pretty much smacks down climate deniers. Neil points out with PROOF, exactly what is going on, and why, and answers any possible "critics" questions. They showed footage of Carl Sagan in 1980 warning about global warming and the melting of the polar ice caps, and the dire consequences that could transpire. Now that the polar ice caps are melting, (and this is not open to debate: it's proven by all sorts of scientific observations and measurements by camera, satellites with all kinds of instrumentation, and every other way observations can be made). He gives some good examples through animation just how massive the amounts of CO2 we are dumping into the atmosphere are. The first scientist to predict the melting of polar ice caps and ensuing rise in ocean levels was a Swedish scientist in 1896! All this time, and things are still getting worse and worse, as more coal/oil/gas is being burned to meet the demands of teeming billions. They showed the first solar farm in the Sahara desert that was taken down during WWI so that the materials could be used in weapons manufacture.
Just an excellent series, so find it online if you missed it. Final episode is next Sunday.

 

[Wiggs Dannyboy]

Hell Yeah! I have to watch it online, so I can't catch it on Sunday nights, have to wait for one day to pass before Fox puts it online. I love the show. Haven't missed one yet.

 

[dddaver]

I started watching last night but again when they started showing those crappy bullshit cartoons I had to switch. They obviously make half that shit up, and badly, total speculation and only one explanation too. The science gets left in the dust of their cool bullshit distracting graphics. They keep saying shit as fact which is total speculation and totally unprovable explanations of history and fact.

 

[Spider Crab]

dddaver are you related to debbie downer?

It's a brilliant show, as was the first series.

It's done in an 'entertainment' format to help share information with people who have limited attention spans.

 

[HidingInTheHaze]

I've watched most of them but I will agree the cartoons are my least favorite part as well. It's a shame everything has to be dumbed down so more people can pay attention.

 

[Wiggs Dannyboy]

I started watching last night but again when they started showing those crappy bullshit cartoons I had to switch. They obviously make half that shit up, and badly, total speculation and only one explanation too. The science gets left in the dust of their cool bullshit distracting graphics. They keep saying shit as fact which is total speculation and totally unprovable explanations of history and fact.

What?

Are you really going to accuse Dr. Tyson with "making shit up," and "science getting left in the dust?" Do you think Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Anne Druyan (Carl Sagan's widow) would associate themselves with the show if that stuff was true?

In my opinion, the animations are well done and are used very effectively to tell the story the show wants to tell. Sounds like you woke up on the wrong side of the bed there Dddaver....

 

[Coconutz]

Chris Hayes did an interview with Tyson that should blow the lid off the conservatives arguments against climate change and acting on it.
Oh yea... it airs on FOX...LOL
The episode probably wont mention how stupid he thinks conservatives are.
Everything both of those guys do is worth a look.
Hayes is part of the Living Dangerously program on Sho right now.

 

[D. B. Doober]

I love it but it is on late for me 9pm, that's my bedtime

 

[Skip]

I tried to watch it, but it was on the level of a six year old.

Plus he didn't say anything I didn't know already. In all a waste of time.

However I did see "Cosmos with DRUNKEN Neil deGrasse Tyson" on the Wil Wheaton show, and THAT was the funniest thing on that whole show. It had Neil deGrasse Tyson on, pretending (?) to be drunk, saying b.s. I found that easier to watch than Cosmos...

BTW, never was a fan of Carl "bullions and bullions" Sagan, so thus not one of Neil Tyson's show. I give credit for Carl for liking cannabis, but why didn't he speak up more about it when he was alive? Carl tried to debunk astrology on numerous occasions but never could come up with any proof, whereas science has LOTS of proof of how the planets (and sun and moon) affect everyone one of us on earth... But why look at scientific facts when you can sling b.s. about Astrology, something he obviously knew nothing about.

 

[trichrider]

I beg to differ.

Antarctic ice at record levels...

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSID), with the support of the NASA Earth Sciences, just announced that Antarctic sea ice has expanded to all-time record levels for April. Last month the ice expanded by more than 42.5 square miles and continues to grow in May.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/05/12/Antarctic-Sea-Ice-at-All-Time-Record-Levels
.........................

The rate of sea-level rise

Anny Cazenave,
Habib-Boubacar Dieng,
Benoit Meyssignac,
Karina von Schuckmann,
Bertrand Decharme
& Etienne Berthier

Nature Climate Change 4, 358–361 (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2159 Received 16 October 2013 Accepted 04 February 2014 Published online 23 March 2014

Present-day sea-level rise is a major indicator of climate change1. Since the early 1990s, sea level rose at a mean rate of ~3.1 mm yr−1 (refs 2, 3). However, over the last decade a slowdown of this rate, of about 30%, has been recorded4, 5, 6, 7, 8. It coincides with a plateau in Earth’s mean surface temperature evolution, known as the recent pause in warming1, 9, 10, 11, 12. Here we present an analysis based on sea-level data from the altimetry record of the past ~20 years that separates interannual natural variability in sea level from the longer-term change probably related to anthropogenic global warming. The most prominent signature in the global mean sea level interannual variability is caused by El Niño–Southern Oscillation, through its impact on the global water cycle13, 14, 15, 16. We find that when correcting for interannual variability, the past decade’s slowdown of the global mean sea level disappears, leading to a similar rate of sea-level rise (of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm yr−1) during the first and second decade of the altimetry era. Our results confirm the need for quantifying and further removing from the climate records the short-term natural climate variability if one wants to extract the global warming signal10.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n5/full/nclimate2159.html
............................................

Global Temperature Update: No global warming at all for 17 years 8 months – No Warming Since August 1996

monckton april 2014 avg

'The global warming trend in the 17 years 8 months since August 1996 is zero. The 212 months without global warming represents just over half the 423-month satellite data record, which began in January 1979.'

'The mean of the GISS, HadCRUt4, NCDC, RSS, and UAH monthly global mean surface or lower-troposphere temperature anomalies shows no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero over the 18 full years from March 1996 to February 2014'


By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotApril 4, 2014 9:10 PM with 27 comments

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley — Special to Climate Depot

Global Temperature Update

No global warming at all for 17 years 8 months

Global warming? What global warming? According to the RSS satellite data, whose value for March 2014 is just in, the global warming trend in the 17 years 8 months since August 1996 is zero. The 212 months without global warming represents just over half the 423-month satellite data record, which began in January 1979.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04...-global-warming-at-all-for-17-years-8-months/

quit television!

 

[Coconutz]

I tried to watch it, but it was on the level of a six year old.

Plus he didn't say anything I didn't know already. In all a waste of time.

However I did see "Cosmos with DRUNKEN Neil deGrasse Tyson" on the Wil Wheaton show, and THAT was the funniest thing on that whole show. It had Neil deGrasse Tyson on, pretending (?) to be drunk, saying b.s. I found that easier to watch than Cosmos...

BTW, never was a fan of Carl "bullions and bullions" Sagan, so thus not one of Neil Tyson's show. I give credit for Carl for liking cannabis, but why didn't he speak up more about it when he was alive? Carl tried to debunk astrology on numerous occasions but never could come up with any proof, whereas science has LOTS of proof of how the planets (and sun and moon) affect everyone one of us on earth... But why look at scientific facts when you can sling b.s. about Astrology, something he obviously knew nothing about.

Thats the point.
Remember... We're talking about a FOX audience.
99.9% of people are idiots.
Trying to reason with their audience is like trying to teach a 6yr old physics... ya dig?
99.9% of them will forget about everything the next day when some movie star is all the gossip and their brains cant handle any actual information.
When Neil was being interviewed by Colbert he took a shot at information from CERTAIN stations.
Peace

 

[Betterhaff]

Trying to reason with their audience is like trying to teach a 6yr old physics... ya dig?

What do you expect from people with the aptitude of a 6 year old? Btw, I crack up every time I see your sig.

 

[Pinball Wizard]

they did dumb it down & I appreciate that

...asleep in 14 minutes

 

[RetroGrow]

I beg to differ.

Antarctic ice at record levels...

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSID), with the support of the NASA Earth Sciences, just announced that Antarctic sea ice has expanded to all-time record levels for April. Last month the ice expanded by more than 42.5 square miles and continues to grow in May.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/05/12/Antarctic-Sea-Ice-at-All-Time-Record-Levels
.........................

The rate of sea-level rise

Anny Cazenave,
Habib-Boubacar Dieng,
Benoit Meyssignac,
Karina von Schuckmann,
Bertrand Decharme
& Etienne Berthier

Nature Climate Change 4, 358–361 (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2159 Received 16 October 2013 Accepted 04 February 2014 Published online 23 March 2014

Present-day sea-level rise is a major indicator of climate change1. Since the early 1990s, sea level rose at a mean rate of ~3.1 mm yr−1 (refs 2, 3). However, over the last decade a slowdown of this rate, of about 30%, has been recorded4, 5, 6, 7, 8. It coincides with a plateau in Earth’s mean surface temperature evolution, known as the recent pause in warming1, 9, 10, 11, 12. Here we present an analysis based on sea-level data from the altimetry record of the past ~20 years that separates interannual natural variability in sea level from the longer-term change probably related to anthropogenic global warming. The most prominent signature in the global mean sea level interannual variability is caused by El Niño–Southern Oscillation, through its impact on the global water cycle13, 14, 15, 16. We find that when correcting for interannual variability, the past decade’s slowdown of the global mean sea level disappears, leading to a similar rate of sea-level rise (of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm yr−1) during the first and second decade of the altimetry era. Our results confirm the need for quantifying and further removing from the climate records the short-term natural climate variability if one wants to extract the global warming signal10.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n5/full/nclimate2159.html
............................................

Global Temperature Update: No global warming at all for 17 years 8 months – No Warming Since August 1996

monckton april 2014 avg

'The global warming trend in the 17 years 8 months since August 1996 is zero. The 212 months without global warming represents just over half the 423-month satellite data record, which began in January 1979.'

'The mean of the GISS, HadCRUt4, NCDC, RSS, and UAH monthly global mean surface or lower-troposphere temperature anomalies shows no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero over the 18 full years from March 1996 to February 2014'


By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotApril 4, 2014 9:10 PM with 27 comments

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley — Special to Climate Depot

Global Temperature Update

No global warming at all for 17 years 8 months

Global warming? What global warming? According to the RSS satellite data, whose value for March 2014 is just in, the global warming trend in the 17 years 8 months since August 1996 is zero. The 212 months without global warming represents just over half the 423-month satellite data record, which began in January 1979.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04...-global-warming-at-all-for-17-years-8-months/

quit television!

Checked out those pages and found both of them to be bullshit, IMO. On your first link, you forgot to mention that the data they are using was for one month, the month of April. We had an unusually cold winter and spring, so no surprise that April saw an unusual amount of ice in the Antarctic. You conveniently forgot to mention the decline of ice in the Arctic.
"Increased ice cover in the Antarctic is contrasted to falling Arctic ice levels, where the summer melt has again pushed levels below the average extent for 1981-2010."
Your second link, about global temperatures is obviously paid for by big oil, etc. There is nothing scientific about the nonsense they posted, which in fact shows an increase in temperatures over the years, although not to the full extent that some had predicted. They even admit in the table below the article that:

"Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend is equivalent to 1.2 Cº per century."

The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century."
Note: it only takes a few degrees of warming to have a catastrophic effect, causing polar ice to melt, causing oceans to get warmer and water levels to rise. Losing the reflectivity of the ice/snow exacerbates the problem. When I see a page like this, which is obviously propaganda paid for by big industry, it makes me wonder just how stupid they think we are. They are no different than the corporatists that have tried to keep cannabis down.
I liked the comment posted below the article, debunking the whole thing, as it should be:
"People, you really need to learn more about the huge problems with using satellites to take the atmosphere’s temperature:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

The UAH & RSS people have made fools of themselves consistently over the last 2 decades.

Certainly you have some idea about orbital decay of satellites?

Orbital decay is one of many factors. This deceptive POS web author waxes eloquently about the accuracy of the Pt thermometer on the satellite, but declines to mention that their huge errors have largely been due to the calculations trying to convert atmospheric radiance into actual temperatures. Their errors have been worse than those at the IPCC.

While you are beginning to learn some basic science, keep in mind that most of the atmosphere’s mass and therefore heat storage capacity is in the troposphere. Don’t get too excited about stratospheric trends.

Speaking of fools, the correlation coefficient (r2) was 0.000 on the graph that you and the web page were so proud of. That means the line was meaningless and any other line drawn would fit the data just
as well or better. But the data was satellite data which has many problems. Plus the satellite people generally recognize a warming trend now.

This web page is a classic example of the dogsh*t on the internet that cleverly fools ordinary people and willfully ignorant people that visit this site.

The atmosphere is warming; get over it. And the oceans are storing a prodigious amount of heat.
Your only remaining line of defense is to claim it’s all natural, which is BS-Obfuscation!

Just wait till the sand your heads are in gets real warm or saturated by rising oceans, only then will you look into your children's eyes and say we were stupid and had some other motive."
The notion that we can keep on dumping crap into the atmosphere/oceans without effect is ludicrous, irresponsible, and plain wrong.

 

[RetroGrow]

I tried to watch it, but it was on the level of a six year old.

Plus he didn't say anything I didn't know already. In all a waste of time.

However I did see "Cosmos with DRUNKEN Neil deGrasse Tyson" on the Wil Wheaton show, and THAT was the funniest thing on that whole show. It had Neil deGrasse Tyson on, pretending (?) to be drunk, saying b.s. I found that easier to watch than Cosmos...

BTW, never was a fan of Carl "bullions and bullions" Sagan, so thus not one of Neil Tyson's show. I give credit for Carl for liking cannabis, but why didn't he speak up more about it when he was alive? Carl tried to debunk astrology on numerous occasions but never could come up with any proof, whereas science has LOTS of proof of how the planets (and sun and moon) affect everyone one of us on earth... But why look at scientific facts when you can sling b.s. about Astrology, something he obviously knew nothing about.

Astrology? Really? I find it hard to believe that any adult can subscribe to such nonsense. It reaffirms my faith in Carl that he pointed out the silliness of astrology. It's not up to him to prove that something absurd doesn't exist. It's up to you to prove that it does. It's like saying, "prove to me that aliens don't exist". The burden of proof is on the believers, who, of course, in this case, have none. Superstition is a powerful force. I try to keep it out of my life. People believe in astrology, people believe in witchcraft, people believe in all sorts of bizarre religions, all without a shred of evidence.
So my character traits are determined by the month that I was born? That's way beyond ridiculous. I give more credence to witch craft.
Carl was a scientist. As such, he shouldn't even address the fable of astrology. Science is fact based. Mathematics and skepticism are big parts of it. Astrology, on the other hand, is the "anti-science", based entirely on the superstitions of ancient peoples, who also thought the world was flat.
There isn't even the tiniest shred of any evidence supporting this superstitious belief system. I'm kind of shocked that you would even mention it.
I have read several of Sagan's books, and there is no doubt he is brilliant, and a great communicator.

 

[orev]

COSMOS on weed

[YOUTUBEIF]7uAmJwYenIs[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[trichrider]

nasa allows up to 8000ppm co2 on short sorties and 5000ppm co2 on extended missions. air force also 8000ppm.
we're nowhere near historical percentages.
400 ppm is insignificant...and the percentage of co2 in the atmosphere at 400 ppm is around 4%...of that 4%, only 4% is anthropogenic.

co2 is necessary for plant growth, it's not bad.

more worries with deforestation and the co2 output of the largest biomass on the planet, archea, fungi, and micro-organisms, fauna, plant decay and of course us.

...and yes, as a matter of fact, this is most likely cyclical natural forcings aka solar reduction in magnetic fields protecting us from cosmic rays.

cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/2011MmSAI.pdf
...
Cosmic Rays and Climate

By: Nir J. Shaviv

Article originally appeared in PhysicaPlus.

Sir William Herschel was the first to seriously consider the sun as a source of climate variations, already two centuries ago. He noted a correlation between the price of wheat, which he presumed to be a climate proxy, and the sunspot activity:



“The result of this review of the foregoing five periods is, that, from the price of wheat, it seems probable that some temporary scarcity or defect of vegetation has generally taken place, when the sun has been without those appearances which we surmise to be symptoms of a copious emission of light and heat.”



— Sir William Herschel, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, 91, 265 (1801)



Herschel presumed that this link arises from variation in the luminosity of the sun. Today, various solar activity and climate variations are indeed known to have a notable correlation on various time scales. The best example is perhaps the one depicted in fig. 1, on a centennial to millennial time scale between solar activity and the tropical climate of the Indian ocean (Neff et al. 2001). Another example of a beautiful correlation exists on a somewhat longer time scale, between solar activity and the northern atlantic climate (Bond et al. 2001). Nevertheless, the relatively small luminosity variations of the sun are most likely insufficient to explain this or other links. Thus, an amplifier of solar activity is probably required to explain these observed correlations.....


Solar variation


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One composite of the last 30 years of solar variability...

Solar variation is the change in the amount of radiation emitted by the Sun (see Solar radiation) and in its spectral distribution over years to millennia. These variations have periodic components, the main one being the approximately 11-year solar cycle (or sunspot cycle). The changes also have aperiodic fluctuations.[1] In recent decades, solar activity has been measured by satellites, while before it was estimated using 'proxy' variables. Scientists studying climate change are interested in understanding the effects of variations in the total and spectral solar irradiance on Earth and its climate.

Variations in total solar irradiance were too small to detect with technology available before the satellite era, although the small fraction in ultra-violet light has recently been found to vary significantly more than previously thought over the course of a solar cycle.[2] Total solar output is now measured to vary (over the last three 11-year sunspot cycles) by approximately 0.1%,[3][4][5] or about 1.3 Watts per square meter (W/m2) peak-to-trough from solar maximum to solar minimum during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The amount of solar radiation received at the outer limits of Earth's atmosphere averages 1366 W/m2.[1][6][7] There are no direct measurements of the longer-term variation, and interpretations of proxy measures of variations differ. The intensity of solar radiation reaching Earth has been relatively constant through the last 2000 years, with variations estimated at around 0.1–0.2%.[8][9][10] Solar variation, together with volcanic activity are hypothesized to have contributed to climate change, for example during the Maunder Minimum. Changes in solar brightness are too weak to explain recent climate change.[11]
...

Indirect Solar Forcing of Climate by Galactic Cosmic Rays: An Observational Estimate

Posted on May 20, 2011 by Anthony Watts


By Dr. Roy Spencer, PhD (reprinted from his blog with permission)


UPDATE (12:35 p.m. CDT 19 May 2011): revised corrections of CERES data for El Nino/La Nina effects.

While I have been skeptical of Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory up until now, it looks like the evidence is becoming too strong for me to ignore. The following results will surely be controversial, and the reader should remember that what follows is not peer reviewed, and is only a preliminary estimate.

I’ve made calculations based upon satellite observations of how the global radiative energy balance has varied over the last 10 years (between Solar Max and Solar Min) as a result of variations in cosmic ray activity. The results suggest that the total (direct + indirect) solar forcing is at least 3.5 times stronger than that due to changing solar irradiance alone.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/...lactic-cosmic-rays-an-observational-estimate/

i'm betting solar forcing over anthropogenic. I may be fringe, but I always find things in the last place I look...and i'm still looking.

fox didn't allow me viewage online. I would like to see it.

 

[igrowone]

interesting for all arguments, best to be respectful to all viewpoints
anyone have a good rebuttal why the rate of sea level increase is rising?

 

[dannykarey]

Hey Trichrider..........still trying I see.

Cosmos is one of the best things to hit TV since..............well fuk, since the last cosmos aired.

I think the dumbed down format is best, it will reach more people and get them thinking differently about things like climate change, astrology (don't even get me started on f'n chicks and astrology....first f'n question I ask a chick is if she believes in that crap.....if yes, I dip....that simple......Got some really stupid f'n stories of some epically stupid f'n chicks and astrology...maybe I'll start a thread lol).

But yeah, great show.

Danny

 

[Spider Crab]

The cartoons are aimed at kids, i would guess.

People 'complaining' about the cartoon bits just seem sad to me.