-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Anyone Watch Cosmos?
- Thread starter RetroGrow
- Start date
I remember when this thread was about the excellent TV show about science called, "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey." Now it has been pulled off the tracks into a swamp land of ridiculous claims voiced by even more ridiculous climate deniers. I hate it when that happens.
astrology does have some basis in truth.. look at how the moon effects the earth and the animals living here. although I think the whole star signs etc is bulshit.
I don't know why people get upset about global warming.
governments putting measures in place to reduce POLLUTION is a GOOD thing. regardless whether its because of climate change or whatever reason. pollution is bad for animals and the environment.
I don't know why people get upset about global warming.
governments putting measures in place to reduce POLLUTION is a GOOD thing. regardless whether its because of climate change or whatever reason. pollution is bad for animals and the environment.
so as to be more clear, humans contribute significant amounts compared to pre-industrial times, and I abhor the pollution.
i'm not disputing pollution. the amount of pollution is alarming. no one is considering natural
variations in levels of historic significance far in excess of current values and using models designed to provide preconceived values.
that is designed science. controlled by the UN.
while the few episodes of cosmos I've seen are mentally stimulating I wouldn't base my entire outlook of the cosmos is such ridiculously small terms.
the occult is historically more influential than is science and the sun has more influence on our "Climate" than your knowledge allows.
while my 'style' is more overkill than condescension, I regret the tunnel vision it caused.
I presented facts in support of my contentions...
...I got in reply an open call to be banned.
Cosmos is big indeed.
i'm not disputing pollution. the amount of pollution is alarming. no one is considering natural
variations in levels of historic significance far in excess of current values and using models designed to provide preconceived values.
that is designed science. controlled by the UN.
while the few episodes of cosmos I've seen are mentally stimulating I wouldn't base my entire outlook of the cosmos is such ridiculously small terms.
the occult is historically more influential than is science and the sun has more influence on our "Climate" than your knowledge allows.
while my 'style' is more overkill than condescension, I regret the tunnel vision it caused.
I presented facts in support of my contentions...
...I got in reply an open call to be banned.
Cosmos is big indeed.
CO2 is pollution. Two million pounds per SECOND. Ocean has to absorb it, which is why the oceans are warming. At some point, the oceans will be over saturated with CO2, and it will all be released in one catastrophic event. That is something that cannot be allowed to happen. If it does, it will be the end of life as we know it. The entire planet will be changed. Evidence supports the notion that this already happened on Venus.
But no, I am not trying to get you banned, as I believe in free speech, but you have been ignoring the evidence that is right in front of your eyes. Just in my lifetime, the population has more than doubled, and the environmental destruction is plainly visible. Why you cannot see it is the mystery. Seven billion people cannot continue to dump crap into the air and oceans without it having a negative effect. Where I live, 30 years ago, you could go down to any one of a number of canals, and see numbers of large fish cruising by, tarpon and snook so close you could reach out and touch them. Now, not a single one survives. We are in the midst of a vast extinction of wildlife, that is rapidly wiping out animal species so we can have more palm oil and soybeans for the one billion head of cattle on the planet.
Do some Googling on the environmental effects of cattle ranching, if you want a glimpse of the devastation.
Global warming is a no-brainer that cannot be disputed. You may ignore it at your peril, but you cannot dispute it without being unreasonable.
you reap what you sow.......
This thread should be binned. I t has been taken over by psychopathic environmental nazis who only wish to empower the State to take away even more freedoms and ridicule anyone who disagrees with their own clouded opinions on very controversial issues. It amazes me that the same people who bitch and moan about the heavy hand of fascist Government ruining lives and costing billions enforcing draconian and senseless marijuana laws are the very same who cheerlead that very same authority and then beg for more to enforce YOUR ideas with YOUR solutions, while simultaneously crushing all dissent with definitive statements about the morality of even offering an opposing viewpoint. How about this: go live in a fucking yurt off the grid, grow all your own food, ditch the car, lights, heat, ac, refrigeration. Never go to a hospital. store, school. Of course the grow lights have to go, as well as your clothes, electronic flotsom, and every convenience you own. Take your smug self righteous bullshit attitude off into the woods and show us the fucking way if you are so sure it's the right path. Otherwise you are just another big government supporting, deep state, hypocrite, with little to add to anything constructive.
Copernicus and Galileo were lone voices who stood alone, courageously against the certainty of "settled"science at the time. I guess you are OK that they were killed for their willingness to stand against the "consensus". Asshole.
To the OP. Sagan was cool. He brought cosmology and physics to the masses at a time before everything was left/right, blue/red, and he blazed.
Copernicus and Galileo were lone voices who stood alone, courageously against the certainty of "settled"science at the time. I guess you are OK that they were killed for their willingness to stand against the "consensus". Asshole.
To the OP. Sagan was cool. He brought cosmology and physics to the masses at a time before everything was left/right, blue/red, and he blazed.
"psychopathic environmental nazis...ridicule anyone who disagrees with their own clouded opinions...". Yup, bin has my vote. Isn't what is quoted one of the definitions of a troll? I'm sure they don't think they are, but that is exactly that.
Hello all,
Cosmos is a great show designed to entertain and educate.
Sagan was a brilliant man highly (pardon the pun) regarded in his field but also in the scientific community in general. He clearly had disdain for astrology due to it is closely linked (both phonically and semantically) to a mythological faith-based ritualistic religion rather than to a hard fact-based sciences of Astronomy/Astro-physics.
To assign astronomical events (moon phases) to such things as menstrual cycles and call it astrology (by virtue of effecting human existence) misleading at best. One to many dabs me thinks.
As to climate change...well, my first observations are that it is indeed anthroprogenic.
What to do about it? Clearly to do nothing is not an viable choice no is it?
Am I really willing to give up my tv, car, and so on and so on?
We all agree that polluting/environmental change and all the other ills that"we" have created for ourselves need to change....yet what would you give up?
The human condition....interesting what impacts and shapes our "condition".
These problems are global in nature and it will take a global effort. Until then, the status quo will dominate.
IMHO.
minds_I
EDIT: I meant to add that application of Russels' Teapot may be in order for those that consider themselves as intellectuals. For that matter anyone with a desire for critical thinking.
Cosmos is a great show designed to entertain and educate.
Sagan was a brilliant man highly (pardon the pun) regarded in his field but also in the scientific community in general. He clearly had disdain for astrology due to it is closely linked (both phonically and semantically) to a mythological faith-based ritualistic religion rather than to a hard fact-based sciences of Astronomy/Astro-physics.
To assign astronomical events (moon phases) to such things as menstrual cycles and call it astrology (by virtue of effecting human existence) misleading at best. One to many dabs me thinks.
As to climate change...well, my first observations are that it is indeed anthroprogenic.
What to do about it? Clearly to do nothing is not an viable choice no is it?
Am I really willing to give up my tv, car, and so on and so on?
We all agree that polluting/environmental change and all the other ills that"we" have created for ourselves need to change....yet what would you give up?
The human condition....interesting what impacts and shapes our "condition".
These problems are global in nature and it will take a global effort. Until then, the status quo will dominate.
IMHO.
minds_I
EDIT: I meant to add that application of Russels' Teapot may be in order for those that consider themselves as intellectuals. For that matter anyone with a desire for critical thinking.
So you know this is global warming is made up by the UN? because you read it on the internet?
can I ask, if this was truly the case, what does the UN have to benefit from this? considering that solar power is ample to run most households with extra power to spare. so whats the gain?
you say that you have presented facts but much of it isnt fact. the UN didn't invent the science of global warming. the greenhouse effect was first warned about in the 1800's. these facts are easily found with little research. some scientists agree with it, some don't. this is the same with many scientific theories presented before it actually becomes recognised scientific fact.
so, because many contest the idea of the greenhouse effect etc, does that mean its not true? surely this is your opinion only and cant really be argued as fact.
ive not seen the program so I cant comment on his views of astrology. nor do I believe in astrology. but the moon has much effect on the earth, and animals that live here. that's fact. whether other stars etc effect humans or animals I doubt but then who knows.
You could have been more specific than that sentence above. It should read, "97% of climate scientists agree that humans are a big part of global climate change, and there are very few climate scientists who disagree."
So you are trolling a thread on Cosmos, a show which you don't like because of something about Dr. Neil, and calling for the thread to be binned so that others who may like the show can't discuss it? If you don't like the show/thread, why watch/read it? No one is making you read it. But you don't like Dr. Neil, so none of us should be allowed to discuss it? You've contributed nothing but negativity, so why are you here? You are what I would call "trolling" the thread.
I never said the UN invented anything, but they designed their IPCC reports to blame anthropogenic sources only.
that is the conspiracy I've so gravely theorized.
it's not that there isn't pollution caused by man, there is undeniably too much, but discounting the most important gas is foolishness.
water vapor.
as for measuring co2 in the atmosphere...the measurements are adjusted to homogenize the result. they average the levels and spread those averages throughout, when we know that co2 is a heavier gas and accumulates near the surface...
but I read that on the internet also.
if it wasn't typed by me specifically I didn't say it.
...and you should have said, " 97% of the 2,000 climate scientists who authored this report agree that humans are a big part of global climate change... "
U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
December 11, 2008
Posted by Marc Morano – 9:30 AM EST - [email protected]
U. S. Senate Minority Report:
More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009
Update: March 17, 2009: 59 Scientists Joint Senate Report More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009
Update: January 28, 2009: James Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic Update: December 22, 2008: More Prominent Scientists Join Senate Report
Link to Full Printable 255-Page PDF Report
(Updates Previous Report: “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims” released on Decmeber 11, 2008)
INTRODUCTION:
Over 700 dissenting scientists (updates previous 650 report) from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2009 255-page U.S. Senate Minority Report -- updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 700 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 700 dissenting scientists are more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
Antarctic Sea Ice Grows To New Record Extent
Date: 04/06/14
Paul Homewood, Not A Lot Of People Know That
Antarctic sea ice has set a new record for May, with extent at the highest level since measurements began in 1979.
http://www.thegwpf.org/antarctic-sea-ice-grows-to-new-record/
...
Arctic Ozone in Spring
Color bar for Arctic Ozone in Spring
acquired April 1, 2014 download animation (11 MB, MPEG)
Though Earth’s ozone layer has been depleted over the past four decades by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and similar chemical compounds, the changes are expressed differently at the North and South Pole. While a large ozone hole forms consistently every year over Antarctica, the concentration of Arctic ozone is much more variable. The differences occur because the weather patterns are very different.
In the far south, the ice-covered continent of Antarctica is surrounded by an ocean. Winds circle the continent in a potent eddy-like band—a polar vortex—that promotes the formation of very cold air masses and prevents atmospheric mixing with middle latitudes. Ozone depletion is highly dependent on the formation of polar stratospheric clouds, which accumulate chlorine and bromine compounds in the cold polar night and then release these ozone-eaters when the sunlight of spring returns.
The North Pole, however, is an ocean surrounded by land, and that land is irregular in shape and altitude. This leads to more atmospheric waves and uneven wind patterns that mix the air more between middle and high latitudes and between different layers of the atmosphere. This changes the amount of ozone-depleting substances delivered to and from the Arctic, while also making temperatures more variable. And while polar vortices do form in the Arctic, they do not tend to last as long or stay as stationary as their southern counterparts.
The map above shows the concentration of stratospheric ozone over the Arctic—63 to 90 degrees North—on April 1, 2014. Ozone is typically measured in Dobson Units, the number of molecules required to create a layer of pure ozone 0.01 millimeters thick at a temperature of 0 degrees Celsius and an air pressure of 1 atmosphere (the pressure at the surface of the Earth). Reaching 470 Dobson Units, April 1 marked the highest average concentration of ozone over the region so far this year. The average amount of ozone in Earth’s atmosphere is 300 Dobson Units, equivalent to a layer 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) thick—the height of 2 pennies stacked together.
The concentration of ozone over the Arctic varies greatly from year-to-year, and ozone holes do not form consistently like they do in Antarctica. In fact, ozone concentrations over the Arctic have been relatively higher the past three winters after an exceptional low in 2011. It is possible that warmer weather over the Arctic this winter, as well as the polar vortices that wandered down to lower latitudes, led to less ozone depletion in the North this winter.
The map was assembled from observations made by the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) on NASA’s Aura satellite. OMI is a spectrometer that measures the amount of sunlight scattered by Earth’s atmosphere and surface, allowing scientists to assess how much ozone is present at various altitudes, particularly the stratosphere.
Related Reading
NASA Arctic Ozone Watch (2014) Latest Status of Arctic Ozone. Accessed June 7, 2014.
NASA Earth Observatory (2011, March 30) Arctic Ozone Loss.
NASA Earth Observatory (2001, September 19) NASA Confirms Arctic Ozone Depletion Trigger.
NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory (2010) Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 2010: Twenty Questions and Answers About the Ozone Layer. Accessed June 7, 2014.
United Nations Environment Programme Frequently Asked Questions About Ozone to the Scientific Assessment Panel. Accessed June 7, 2014.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=83831&eocn=home&eoci=iotd_title
Ice extent has been consistently and continuously well above climatological norms for the last 12 months.
Filament of cosmic web set aglow
by Gabriel Popkin
GIANT STRUCTURES The cosmic web shows dark matter filaments and intersections where galaxies reside, in a computer simulation.
March 8, 2014
All of the universe’s matter, cosmologists believe, forms a web of dark matter and gas that was spun shortly after the Big Bang and has been stretching out ever since. Now astronomers say they have glimpsed a brightly lit strand of this web.
But the researchers found far more cold gas than they expected based on computer simulations of the cosmic web, suggesting the web’s structure could differ from theoretical predictions.
Most of the universe’s mass seems to reside in slender interconnected filaments, which are primarily made of dark matter with smaller amounts of gas. Cosmologists’ theories suggest that gas collects at filament intersections and becomes dense enough to form luminous galaxies. But because the filaments’ dark matter is invisible and their sparse gas emits little light, the threads connecting galaxies have remained mostly hidden.
Astronomers have recently begun to spot filaments backlit from a distance by extremely bright galactic nuclei called quasars. But researchers could gain far more information about the web’s structure from a quasar shining onto a nearby filament, which would then emit its own light, says Michael Rauch, an astronomer at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Pasadena, Calif. “To see the cosmic web in emission is the holy grail.”
Seeking it, Sebastiano Cantalupo of the University of California, Santa Cruz and his colleagues tried a clever technique. They put a filter on the Keck I telescope in Mauna Kea, Hawaii, to block all wavelengths except the one at which illuminated hydrogen gas in filaments should glow. Through this filter, they took a 10-hour image of a distant quasar and its surroundings. They found a large, outstretched cloud of quasar-lit hydrogen well outside the radius of the halo of gas and dark matter that surrounds quasars. Because no other structures are known to exist so far from galaxies, Cantalupo and his colleagues conclude January 19 in Nature that the cloud is a cosmic web filament.
Making such a finding is difficult because quasars shine only in specific directions like a flashlight beam, says Cantalupo. He calls the discovery “a lucky cosmic coincidence.” He and his colleagues say that the surprisingly large amount of gas they found — more than 10 times as much as simulations predict — could force cosmologists to revise their theories.
“It’s scientifically highly exciting to find an object like this,” says Rauch. But he is not convinced the structure is a cosmic filament. He notes that Cantalupo’s imaged quasar and a second quasar the team found in the neighborhood could have merged halos in a way that looks like a web filament. Such a scenario could explain the cloud’s high gas content.
But Cantalupo’s team argues that the cloud’s wispy, asymmetrical shape and the large distance between the quasars make such an explanation unlikely. Rather, the researchers suspect that current simulations are too imprecise to estimate filaments’ gas content correctly.
The Cantalupo team’s finding may require revisions to theories, says Volker Springel, a cosmologist at Heidelberg University in Germany. Other astronomers will probably emulate the researchers’ technique; if they find similar results, “then I think it would really convince all the skeptics.”
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/filament-cosmic-web-set-aglow
cosmos is dynamic and there are so many things we're yet to be aware of.
by Gabriel Popkin
GIANT STRUCTURES The cosmic web shows dark matter filaments and intersections where galaxies reside, in a computer simulation.
March 8, 2014
All of the universe’s matter, cosmologists believe, forms a web of dark matter and gas that was spun shortly after the Big Bang and has been stretching out ever since. Now astronomers say they have glimpsed a brightly lit strand of this web.
But the researchers found far more cold gas than they expected based on computer simulations of the cosmic web, suggesting the web’s structure could differ from theoretical predictions.
Most of the universe’s mass seems to reside in slender interconnected filaments, which are primarily made of dark matter with smaller amounts of gas. Cosmologists’ theories suggest that gas collects at filament intersections and becomes dense enough to form luminous galaxies. But because the filaments’ dark matter is invisible and their sparse gas emits little light, the threads connecting galaxies have remained mostly hidden.
Astronomers have recently begun to spot filaments backlit from a distance by extremely bright galactic nuclei called quasars. But researchers could gain far more information about the web’s structure from a quasar shining onto a nearby filament, which would then emit its own light, says Michael Rauch, an astronomer at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Pasadena, Calif. “To see the cosmic web in emission is the holy grail.”
Seeking it, Sebastiano Cantalupo of the University of California, Santa Cruz and his colleagues tried a clever technique. They put a filter on the Keck I telescope in Mauna Kea, Hawaii, to block all wavelengths except the one at which illuminated hydrogen gas in filaments should glow. Through this filter, they took a 10-hour image of a distant quasar and its surroundings. They found a large, outstretched cloud of quasar-lit hydrogen well outside the radius of the halo of gas and dark matter that surrounds quasars. Because no other structures are known to exist so far from galaxies, Cantalupo and his colleagues conclude January 19 in Nature that the cloud is a cosmic web filament.
Making such a finding is difficult because quasars shine only in specific directions like a flashlight beam, says Cantalupo. He calls the discovery “a lucky cosmic coincidence.” He and his colleagues say that the surprisingly large amount of gas they found — more than 10 times as much as simulations predict — could force cosmologists to revise their theories.
“It’s scientifically highly exciting to find an object like this,” says Rauch. But he is not convinced the structure is a cosmic filament. He notes that Cantalupo’s imaged quasar and a second quasar the team found in the neighborhood could have merged halos in a way that looks like a web filament. Such a scenario could explain the cloud’s high gas content.
But Cantalupo’s team argues that the cloud’s wispy, asymmetrical shape and the large distance between the quasars make such an explanation unlikely. Rather, the researchers suspect that current simulations are too imprecise to estimate filaments’ gas content correctly.
The Cantalupo team’s finding may require revisions to theories, says Volker Springel, a cosmologist at Heidelberg University in Germany. Other astronomers will probably emulate the researchers’ technique; if they find similar results, “then I think it would really convince all the skeptics.”
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/filament-cosmic-web-set-aglow
cosmos is dynamic and there are so many things we're yet to be aware of.
Where do you get the number of "2000 climate scientists?" I've never seen such a number. I bet if you can post a link for this number of 2000 it will be another of those very questionable links you frequently post from.
Here are some links that support the real climate change consensus (I'll save everybody's eyes from having to look at dozens of paragraphs of information and just paste the links here...)
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Here is the first sentence from the above Wikipedia page: "The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.
From that same Wikipedia page, here is the list of organizations that either agree with that statement, or disagree (note the names of, and affiliations of, the organizations in the list, especially those listed under the "disagree" section).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...zations_of_national_or_international_standing
Ozone, while acting in a minor way as a green house gas, is not considered to be one of major impact due to it's shorter life span compared to others like carbon dioxide and methane. It also has been getting DEPLETED over the previous few decades due to human intervention, not increasing...so if anything the ozone green house effect would be diminishing.
Regarding the variation in the ice melting in the northern and southern ice caps, which has nothing to do with ozone, here is a link that describes what is going on:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
.
Last edited:
double post, apologies...
Last edited:
Cosmos, which this thread was intended to be about, is a good show. I admit the cartoon thing has me changing channels at times and maybe it's dumbed down a little too much, but all in all a good show.
And he was spot on about global warming (to hell with the deniers who got dropped on their head one too many times as a baby to be able to understand science enough to realize opinion doesn't trump fact EVER. THEY favor the term "climate change" in an attempt to water down the seriousness of the matter or mislead or sidetrack reason and common sense).
retrogrow and dannyboy are also spot on, the rest are just too immersed in a nonsense fantasy world to care that opinion doesn't change the facts no matter how much long-winded nonsense they post!
And he was spot on about global warming (to hell with the deniers who got dropped on their head one too many times as a baby to be able to understand science enough to realize opinion doesn't trump fact EVER. THEY favor the term "climate change" in an attempt to water down the seriousness of the matter or mislead or sidetrack reason and common sense).
retrogrow and dannyboy are also spot on, the rest are just too immersed in a nonsense fantasy world to care that opinion doesn't change the facts no matter how much long-winded nonsense they post!
