xeni — 2014-05-30T16:32:53-04:00 — #1
pixelcowboy79 — 2014-05-30T18:04:03-04:00 — #2
I love the Jesus-like aureola at the end of the clip.
brian_carnell — 2014-05-30T18:41:46-04:00 — #3
If only we could hire more dog trainers, we could whip global climate change.
catgrin — 2014-05-30T18:44:25-04:00 — #4
I will happily say it every time a clip is posted.
Love the Cosmos reboot. So glad they bothered.
crenquis — 2014-05-30T19:22:52-04:00 — #5
You almost got me there, Tyson... Nothing to see here! Just a classic wag the dog distraction technique.
edit: was just thinking... I guess the modern version of "wag the dog" is when a story gets "Foxed" (Fox News) -- at least it is still in the canid family.
acerplatanoides — 2014-05-31T02:47:49-04:00 — #6
So, the answer is for NDT to walk into the sea?
pieromatarasso — 2014-05-31T04:40:52-04:00 — #7
Neil De Grace Tyson ......is very clear in its explanation....but I think two things must be explained to render this more understadable. There are at least two major process which have a strong influence on climate:
1-The mouvement of the earth around the sun are not regular and results of the composition of THREE MOVEMENTS (in simplifying): the earth moves elliptically during the year around the sun and also the rotation axis of the movement of the earth aroud which the earth revolves herself dayly is inclined on the plane of the ellipse....but there is more..... the axis around which the earth revolve herself dayly has also a motion. Thes three movements of astronomical origins compose themselves to produce climate cycles like ice ages and more warm climates between ice ages.....These are the Milankovitch cycles of astronomical origin which explains the climate sequences on the very long time. Obviously....volcanoes and meteors migth add a certain irregularity. This is also the case for the variations of solar activity
2-Now we change of perpective for the sake of simplicity. Just let's imagine a earth which is a perfect sphere moving around a perferct star with a perfectly stable activity......more the axis of rotation of the earth around herself is perfectly perpendicular to the yearly movement aroun the star..... I suppose also no volcano, no meteor. This perfect and homogeneous planet around a perfect star has no season, no periodic climate cycles. Now just imagine a galactic civilisation which wants to prepare this planet for further colonisation....with huge spaceship..... they imports trmendous quantities of gases with.the property of having a greenhouse effect. Let's suppose in this ideal world these gases stay in the atmosphere of the planet...do not react with the soil of the planet etc....This situation can be summarized...by a very simple...very robust physical model of the equilibrium temperature of the simplified planetary model.The temperature rise till an equilibrium is reached. The physical laws which allow the computation of the equilibrium are known since the nineteen century and have been used countless times by countless physicist (Fourrier, Arrhenius, Von Neumann......) to accurately calculate the equilbrium temperature of planets of the solar system....That is why elevation of the earth temperature is a consequence of very well known physical phenomenon which cannot be denied on the basis of past climate changes ( imputed mainly to Milankovitch cycles)
And...ho.... by the way....we ARE that galactic civilisation which tranforms a planet mean temperature....but this time its happens not to render the planet more convenient....but exactly as if we wanted to extinct all the living creatures ( and ourselves) and give birth to a new evolutionnary process of life....without us
A bit lengthy...but a necessory explanation....I would be glad....if Neil De grasse Tyson or some climatologist more competent than myself gives an opiniun on such demonstration!
gatto — 2014-05-31T06:28:20-04:00 — #8
when neil looked back at the video, he saw, at times, there were only one set of footprints on the sand: "dog," he asked. "why did you abandon me during my most difficult lines?"
antdude — 2014-05-31T10:22:36-04:00 — #9
Yeah, but only two/2 episodes left. Will it be renewed for more episodes?
moe — 2014-05-31T10:28:45-04:00 — #10
chgoliz — 2014-05-31T11:12:12-04:00 — #11
Waiting with bated breath for the video of that dog carrying that man.
jewels_vern — 2014-05-31T11:52:17-04:00 — #12
The major difference is that weather is a natural phenomenon and climate change is a political code for "Let's make up some new taxes and pass a bunch of stupid laws!"
catgrin — 2014-05-31T15:04:13-04:00 — #13
The original Carl Sagan series also had 13 episodes.
From my understanding this reboot was also intended as a standalone miniseries. It was paid for in-advance to ensure the entire series was shown regardless of ratings. Ratings have dropped during the season, and Fox isn't known for its support of shows.
antdude — 2014-05-31T15:26:22-04:00 — #14
Thanks. Oh well. I am just glad that Seth pushed this to FOX to show to everyone regardless if they have paid TV services!
crenquis — 2014-05-31T18:20:00-04:00 — #15
There were enough episodes to get grade school crenquis to declare that he wanted to be an astronomer when all of his male classmates wanted to be policemen or firemen... Don't hate the STEM life...
brainspore — 2014-05-31T18:44:30-04:00 — #16
Just like "pollution" and "environmental impact" and "conservation." Stupid hippy-dippy liberals, trying to tell me what kind of toxic chemicals I am or am not allowed to dump into the water supply or what kinds of rhinoceroses I am or am not allowed to shoot.
immutable_mike — 2014-06-01T07:51:47-04:00 — #17
Welcome. You'll need to troll harder, but it's a good start.
jsroberts — 2014-06-01T08:47:43-04:00 — #18
Another good analogy for the difference between weather and climate is looking at climate change deniers. Nowadays they argue that action is too expensive or restrictive, that they aren't denying climate change in principle or people's influence on it, but rather the extent of that influence, that the science is too complex and the jury is still out on some issues that could affect the whole model, that anything we do now could have unseen and damaging effects in the future... it's sometimes difficult to predict what arguments they'll come up with next, or whether the latest argument is proof in itself that they are denialists and not just skeptical. On the other hand, when you look at their arguments over a long time, you see the development from "human influenced climate change isn't happening" to arguing about the details. You also see continuity in the methods, from using discredited studies or outlying results to quoting people who are known to be paid by companies that benefit from denialism. There's a lot of benefit to be gained from occasionally standing back and seeing the long term development rather than being caught up in the details.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair
awjt — 2014-06-01T09:23:48-04:00 — #19
Very, funny, Gatto... for a CAT.
robcruickshank — 2014-06-01T12:09:40-04:00 — #20
This clip makes it clear that a scientists can recreate climate change in a Lab.
next page →