Cosmos Episode 4: Heaven and Hell Part 7 of 7

A descent through the hellish atmosphere of Venus to explore its broiling surface serves as a warning to our world about the possible consequences of the increasing greenhouse effect.

Then Dr. Sagan leads us on a tour of our solar system to see how other heavenly bodies have suffered from various cosmic catastrophes.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Cosmos
• sagan
• heaven
• hell
• episode

[badcat1226]

Man... I wish Carl Sagan was still alive. I'd smoke a fat blunt with him and rap about the cosmos. Man that would kick ass.

[HeadCodeMonkey82]

That really does sound like an awesome thing to do.

Damn, it's a shame, the world needs more people like him

[picknick21]

Love you Carl :(

[iridescentsquids]

@iridescentsquids ...let me rephrase that:

" and confess as much uncertainty as is possible AND merited"

[iridescentsquids]

@SgtCrom There are two emotionally charged extremes to this debate, and I agree that the stupid comments and myopic analysis abounds.

Which is why I prefer to stick to logical arguments and data, and confess as much uncertainty as is possible... and point out when people make dumb generalizations or show unmerited conviction on either side of the debate. Such nonsense merely contributes to the emotional polarization that's already rampant.

[iridescentsquids]

@SgtCrom Youtube isn't the best place for comments, but you seem unusually cynical.

I'm sure this won't help: You have essentially said nothing. Basically all you've said is that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is what matters if you are considering how CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to global warming.

No shit.

The real question what impact does C02 concentration in the atmosphere actually have on global warming. We don't determine this by looking at concentration data alone.

[iridescentsquids]

@SgtCrom "I can't teach you math, chemistry and physics in 500 characters on a youtube video comment. "

You can't summarize why an "only a 0.006% increase in CO2 relative to the entire atmosphere" set off your "bullshit detector" as you put it?

I'm not asking for a thesis paper here. I'm confidence if you try I'm quite capable of understanding you. Frankly, I'm getting a little wiff from my own bullshit detector. Jeeez.

[iridescentsquids]

@SgtCrom Very sensitive. Why?

My ONLY criticism of you so far is that you avoided my question. I'm not asking you to prove you chops as a scientist. I'm asking you to PLEASE share with me what set off your bullshit detector.

You seem to be, very curiously, unable to do that. I don't know why.

If anything, I'm trying to help your case here, and make sure you don't look like a bullshitter yourself.

[iridescentsquids]

@SgtCrom "What you're confused about is which comparative frame of reference is relevant. "

Let's be clear, so as to avoid any bullshit detectors going off. Are you saying that the 0.006% increase relative to the entire atmosphere is the relevant "frame of reference"?

Remember, your original post suggested there is a link between your bullshit detector and these numbers. But you have not described what that link is, only implied that the numbers speak for themselves. Obviously they don't.

[iridescentsquids]

@SgtCrom Lame reply. If you have something substantial to say in response I'd appreciate it. I'll repeat my question: Does it look like bullshit to you merely because of the number of decimals from zero? And now I'll ask my question more provocatively: Do you realize how inane that sounds?

FYI, a change from 0.031% to 0.039% means about a 25% increase in C02 levels.

Please explain to me why this is bullshit. If you can.

[iridescentsquids]

@SgtCrom I'm confused. Are you saying alarm about an increase from 0.031% to 0.039% is bullshit because the numbers are small? Obviously you know that "small" changes (quotes because change is relative, duh) can have significant impact elsewhere, which is in large part why measurements are made ppmv. Nobody in their right mind is going to determine a number's significance/insignificance on how many decimal places it starts above zero. Err..at least I find it hard to believe you'd argue that.

[iridescentsquids]

@SgtCrom Global warming model(s) are not based on Matlhusianism.