Carl Sagan A Glorious Dawn

[qweek]

Just wanted to share something I found out there, hope you like it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc

[ccbatson]

An interesting guy with unusual skeptical scientific background...I wonder how he would be received today in the global warming hoax

[rb336]

There is an additional factor that can alter the landscape and the climate of Earth: intelligent life, able to make major environmental changes. Like Venus, the Earth also has a greenhouse effect due to its carbon dioxide and water vapor. The global temperature of the Earth would be below the freezing point of water if not for the greenhouse effect. It keeps the ocean liquid and life possible. A little greenhouse is a good thing. Like Venus the Earth also has about 90 atmospheres of carbon dioxide but it resides in the crust as limestone and other carbonates, not in the atmosphere. If the Earth were moved only a little closer to the Sun, the temperature would increase slightly. This would drive some of the CO2 out of the surface rocks, generating a stronger greenhouse effect, which would in turn incremental heat the surface further. A hotter surface would vaporize still more carbonates into CO2 and there would be the possibility of a run-away greenhouse effect to very high temperatures. This is just what we think happened in the early history of Venus, because of Venus' proximity to the Sun. The surface environment of Venus is a warning: something disastrous can happen to a planet rather like our own. - Carl Sagan, Cosmos

Sagan, a rabid environmentalist, would rip you and yours a new one in his most congenial style

[ccbatson]

"a little greenhouse is good"...and the fact that manmade CO2 is insignificant as a greenhouse gas. It doesn't matter who is the alarmist...wrong is wrong.

[Diehard]

"a little greenhouse is good"...and the fact that manmade CO2 is insignificant as a greenhouse gas. It doesn't matter who is the alarmist...wrong is wrong.

"There is an additional factor that can alter the landscape and the climate of Earth: intelligent life, able to make major environmental changes."

Missed that part?

"A hotter surface would vaporize still more carbonates into CO2 and there would be the possibility of a run-away greenhouse effect to very high temperatures."

Missed that part, too, huh?

"The surface environment of Venus is a warning: something disastrous can happen to a planet rather like our own."

Aaaannd of course you jumped right over that part.

Typical wingnut - when you refuse to read, or simply dismiss, anything that doesn't confirm your small-minded preconceptions, then you can pretend that information doesn't exist. It doesn't exist because you refuse to read it. Circular ignorance. How convenient.

[ccbatson]

DId I say that I thought he was right about everything? No...he, in general, demonstrated good scientific skeptical critical thinking skills. Once in a while, he would tear off into some wild speculations that likely were false...this is an example.

[Diehard]

DId I say that I thought he was right about everything? No...he, in general, demonstrated good scientific skeptical critical thinking skills. Once in a while, he would tear off into some wild speculations that likely were false...this is an example.

What you said was... ahem...
"a little greenhouse is good"...and the fact that manmade CO2 is insignificant as a greenhouse gas. It doesn't matter who is the alarmist...wrong is wrong."

"Wrong is wrong" certainly sounds like you're dismissing him lock, stock and barrel. You didn't say "while he makes some valid points...etc." You also took the leap to inform us that "manmade CO2 is insignificant as a greenhouse gas," which didn't come from him, but from your own wild speculations... ooops... your own years of brilliant yet unpublished climatology studies. How did you fit all that into your busy days?

[Mikeg]

Carl Sagan [[along with George Mullen) identified the "Early Faint Sun Paradox" back in 1972. The paradox is that about 2.5 billion years ago, the sun was 20%-30% less bright than now and yet the evidence is that the oceans were unfrozen at the time, and that temperatures might not have been very different from today's.

The paradox cannot be explained away by higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, since the geologic record doesn't support that hypothesis.

The AGW skeptics in the climate research community suggest that it can be explained by changes in atmospheric cloud cover and water vapor [[possibly coupled with changes in the solar wind), but the AGW conspirators don't want to hear it.

[d.mcc]

Carl Sagan [[along with George Mullen) identified the "Early Faint Sun Paradox" back in 1972. The paradox is that about 2.5 billion years ago, the sun was 20%-30% less bright than now and yet the evidence is that the oceans were unfrozen at the time, and that temperatures might not have been very different from today's.

The paradox cannot be explained away by higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, since the geologic record doesn't support that hypothesis.

The AGW skeptics in the climate research community suggest that it can be explained by changes in atmospheric cloud cover and water vapor [[possibly coupled with changes in the solar wind), but the AGW conspirators don't want to hear it.

Here ya go

Ultraviolet radiation from the sun, they argue, would combine with existing methane to form solid hydrocarbons in the upper atmosphere. This in turn would shield ammonia [[otherwise broken up by the UV) long enough for the ammonia to produce a greenhouse warming adequate for liquid water. Sagan and his interest in life in extreme environments was the subject of a session yesterday at the meeting of the American Geophysical Union in Baltimore. According to David Morrison of NASA Ames, there are only two places on Earth where life has not been found---on the Antarctic ice sheet and in the upper atmosphere. Everywhere else, whether in hot springs [[even above boiling temperatures) or a kilometer below the surface, life seems to thrive. One speaker, Todd Stevens of the Pacific Northwest Lab, asserted that some subsurface "rock-eating" microbes constituted an ecosystem independent of photosynthesis and that their metabolism [[in some cases amounting to a biomass doubling time of millennia) was perhaps the slowest of all life forms.

Should it also be noted that for some reason, Creationists seem to cling to this hypothesis?

[ccbatson]

Also important is the relationship of CO2 too temperature is such that temperature goes up FIRST, then CO2...debunking correlative theory and the possibility of causality.

[East Detroit]

Also important is the relationship of CO2 too temperature is such that temperature goes up FIRST, then CO2...debunking correlative theory and the possibility of causality.

Gosh, how did you get to become an expert on everything?

[Mikeg]

Should it also be noted that for some reason, Creationists seem to cling to this hypothesis?

It's obvious that d.mcc has nothing to offer on this topic when he starts tossing out ad hominems.

[rb336]

Gosh, how did you get to become an expert on everything?

it is easy to be an expert when facts mean nothing to you, which Bats has shown innumerable times is his MO

[ccbatson]

How? reading works pretty well...libs should try it sometime. Chris Horner's 2 books on the subject make great starting points.

Libs can't muster the courage to read things that contradict their programming.

[rb336]

funny how you keep bringing up those books -- books which have been thoroughly debunked so many times it's laughable.

[d.mcc]

It's obvious that d.mcc has nothing to offer on this topic when he starts tossing out ad hominems.

Ad Hominems Mike? Do the research, In about 90% of all websites I read when directed to look at the topic, they were either funded, run, or touted by Creationists...

[Mikeg]

Ad Hominems Mike? Do the research, In about 90% of all websites I read when directed to look at the topic, they were either funded, run, or touted by Creationists.

What topic or hypothesis are you referring to?

I wrote about the faint sun paradox which deals with conditions on earth 2.5 billion years ago, which I think is about 2.499994 billion years earlier than the Creationists believe the earth was created. I then mentioned several hypotheses which have been advanced in an attempt to explain the paradox.

You then posted a three word reply followed by an unexplained cut and paste containing some more hypotheses and then attempted to discredit an unspecified hypothesis by simply linking it to Creationist beliefs.

As I said, it was an ad hominem.

[elganned]

You then posted a three word reply followed by an unexplained cut and paste containing some more hypotheses and then attempted to discredit an unspecified hypothesis by simply linking it to Creationist beliefs.

As I said, it was an ad hominem.

It's only an ad hominem if you think being called a Creationist is an insult.

Do you?

[d.mcc]

What topic or hypothesis are you referring to?

I wrote about the faint sun paradox which deals with conditions on earth 2.5 billion years ago, which I think is about 2.499994 billion years earlier than the Creationists believe the earth was created. I then mentioned several hypotheses which have been advanced in an attempt to explain the paradox.

You then posted a three word reply followed by an unexplained cut and paste containing some more hypotheses and then attempted to discredit an unspecified hypothesis by simply linking it to Creationist beliefs.

As I said, it was an ad hominem.

The very Early Faint Sun Paradox sir. It's not even an attack on you or the hypothesis in question. I am simply curious as to why Creationists have attached themselves to it so readily.

[ccbatson]

Debunked? The emails affirm them 100%. Rb...this issue is toast, you need to give it up...for me. Why? If you discredit yourself by going down with this ship, it will look like I am beating up on incompetents...no fun that.

[rb336]

Debunked? The emails affirm them 100%. Rb...this issue is toast, you need to give it up...for me. Why? If you discredit yourself by going down with this ship, it will look like I am beating up on incompetents...no fun that.

ah, it must be nice to live in a fantasy world, bats. real science magazines, both popular and scholarly, all refute your whacked out belief in what your new idol decides to feed you. If those guys told you cyanide was actually a tasty, very healthy treat, you'd take one without question.

[elganned]

If those guys told you cyanide was actually a tasty, very healthy treat, you'd take one without question.

Really?
Hmmm...Nah, it'd never work.

[ccbatson]

Proof of deception that corrupts the science is present in the emails. Therefore, the alarmist's credibility is lost/zero. Since it is their "hypothesis" [[a term generously applied to these con people), they must prove it. Since they have zero credibility now, their hypothesis is disproven. Pure logic.

[elganned]

If you took logic in school, Cc, your teacher would weep. Deriving the general from the specific is invalid, Cc.

This dataset by these scientists may be corrupt, but that does not therefore render all datasets by all scientists corrupt.

Sweeping conclusions based on a miniscule sample set makes for bad logic, even by your somewhat elastic standards.

[rb336]

actually, there is nothing wrong with the data set in the first place, as anyone who actually understand science could tell you