Sigh, the usual suspects get another mouthpiece media outlet to blame severe weather on, complete with scary videos of weather, musical score, and wild claims. video trailer follows. h/t to Russ Steele
NOVA: DECODING THE WEATHER MACHINE
Two-Hour Special Premieres Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 8PM/7C on PBS
(check local listings)
BOSTON, MA Disastrous hurricanes. Widespread droughts and wildfires. Pervasive heat. Extreme rainfall. Something is up with the weather, and scientists agree the trend is not just a coincidence. Its the result of the weather machine itselfour climatewhich is changing, becoming hotter and more erratic. But some people are skeptical of global warming, and one-third of Americans doubt humans are changing the climate. NOVA, a production of WGBH Boston, cuts through the confusion and helps define the way forward in a special two-hour documentary: DECODING THE WEATHER MACHINE. Why do scientists overwhelmingly agree that our climate is changing, and that human activity is causing it? How will it affect us through the weather we experience, and when? And what will it take to bend the trajectory of planetary warming toward more benign outcomes? Join scientists around the globe as they explore the dynamics of the air, land, sea, and icethe major components of Earths weather and climate machineand follow the innovators developing new ways to be resilient, and even thrive, in the face of enormous change.
NOVA DECODING THE WEATHER MACHINE, a two-hour special presentation, premieres Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 8PM ET/7C on PBS (check local listings).
Climate change is one of the defining public issues of our times, yet public uncertainty about the science still abounds, said Paula S. Apsell, Senior Executive Producer of NOVA. DECODING THE WEATHER MACHINE takes viewers on one of the greatest scientific adventures of all time to understand the workings of our planet, what to expect in the future, and what we can do about it.
NOVAs investigation of our changing climate starts with how it affects us most directly: our weather. Are we actually noticing a change in the weather due to climate change? Charismatic career meteorologist Paul Douglas, of Minnesota, thinks so. Once skeptical, he started to detect a pattern over the years that was undeniable: bigger storms in his home state. But how are climate and weather related? And havent both always been changing? What is the evidence that our climate is actually changing and influencing our weather? These are the big questions that launch NOVAs grand exploration of how the weather and climate machine actually worksand why scientists are convinced the planet is warming.
DECODING THE WEATHER MACHINE examines why this latest trend is different from other cycles in Earths history and shows the evidence that we are the culprit. The film traces the pioneering explorations to understand our changing climate, which began more than 200 years ago, and reveals how scientists established carbon dioxide levels in the air as a major driver of climate and a key factor in regulating Earths thermostat. By burning fossil fuels, we humans have changed the composition of the atmosphere, which is now trapping more heat. The documentary then analyzes how the other key parts of the climate system-the land, sea, icewill respond, which will determine how much our climate will change, and the impacts. NOVA takes viewers under the hood of Earths climate machine, following geologists, ecologists, polar scientists, marine biologists, and other researchers around the globe who are delving deep into our natural world at a scale never before possible. Leading climate scientists and experts also offer candid insights throughoutincluding John Holdren, of Harvard University (and former White House science advisor), Katharine Hayhoe, of Texas Tech University, and Princetons Stephen Pacala. Ultimately, the film explores what humanity can do to avoid the suffering that climate change might bringboth by adapting to the changes already underway, and by using technology to mitigate the worst outcomes.
With Holdren and Hayhoe involved, one can be sure it is propaganda, all the way down.
From my tag lines and smart remarks file:
Hayhoe is a pathological liar who hies behind block like Mann et al
Another reason to defund these bastards.
These people should goosestep wherever they go and all clap wildly in unison at every utterance each one of them makes just so it is plain as day they are ideological loons of the first order.
Those people do goosestep wherever they go.
I see the makings of a great Monty Python skit there!
HEY!!!
Am I the only one that cannot tell when the poster is quoting someone or speaking on their own?
This thread is extremely puzzling because of that.
Seems to me that a “quote” box option would help, or basic quote characters or some seperation lines or…..
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Just listen to the U.S. NPR and whoever other radio net calls their show “Science Friday”. Climate catastrophe all due to we humans, and little mention of the extreme changes in sea level, temperature, rainfall, drought, and such that has been documented for the last 10,000 or 12,000 years. All without a single barrel of oil being burned or refined for other uses. Least we saved the whales when those folks found a good source of oil to burn in lanterns, then refine to kerosene, then to gasoline, then to….
Gums sends…
You can use the HTML blockquote tags:
Don’t include the #s. They’re so that these tags show up in this comment.
I’ll try again. [less than symbol]blockquote[greater than symbol][less than symbol/]blockquote[greater than symbol]
Gums:
-you can generally use most html tags in a comment. To quote something, use:
<blockquote> at the start of the text you’re quoting, and </blockquote> at the end which will give
this effect:
Some commenters do use their own quote delineations, so whichever route you take is up to you.
Whatever you do, do not do as I have done and forget the closing tag! Be careful.
One way to avoid this eyesore is to create the two tags as a pair together, then put the text they affect between them.
If you don’t know HTML markup, there are heaps of helpful pages out there, Most people on this site are well mannered and tolerate the odd stuff-ups remarkably well.
Go for it.
Canman:
I hope you don’t mind my interfering… thanks.
hey Nova it is partiality funded by the Koch boys soi maybe thet are finally coming around to the truth…
“the film explores what humanity can do to avoid the suffering that climate change might bringboth”…..
Might bring???…..weather science has become a sick propaganda tool
Propanda on climate change has been the staple of Nova. I rarely can watch it because if they can tie anything to climate change, they do (Nature does the same thing.). The problem is our people are so poorly educated that they believe the lies. You can only stop PBS if you stop the schools and universities. Otherwise, it’s lost.
That is at the root of the problem. Government has been playing the long game. since the early fifties they set up HEW to study and organize a propaganda campaign to dumb down the populous so they could bend us over on command. It took them about 20 years to hone their craft and around the Carter administration they had perfected their technique polishing it along the way in league with the Propaganda Ministry known as the Mainstream Media. Fast forward to the 21st century and they are churning out bots from public schools that are so volatile that they needed to construct safe zones to store them in. Unfortunately in the private schools they are educating propagandists to control the bots. Half the population salivates at the ringing of the CAGW bell. That population grows with every baby boomer funeral. Soon it will be too late to save mankind. Forget about the climate.
What is HEW?
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
HEW = Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
You reminded me of a premonition in Ben Franklin’s purported writings to Adams which goes-
“Sir, I agree to this constitution, with all its faults if they are such, because I think a general government is necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and I believe further that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.”
Pop Piasa – April 15, 2018 at 3:29 pm
Flavius Josephus predicted the same …… like 2,000 years ago, to wit:
I can think of another way to stop PBS…
Ir’s the same way to stop the UN and the EU.
If the U. S. Federal Reserve is stopped then with that same stroke all of the rest of the alphabet soup of parasitoidic agencies will have been stopped.
Defund, big time defund.
Sheri,
“The problem is our people are so poorly educated that they believe the lies. You can only stop PBS if you stop the schools and universities. ”
I am afraid that conservatives will say this so often it will discourage their kids from attending college, and there will be an increasing disparity in education rates between conservatives and liberals (among whites, anyway). It’s very important for conservatives to go into academia for the good of the country – their views are desperately needed, discussion between young conservative and liberal students essential. Divided we accomplish little. Large ideological changes from election to election are socially disruptive, expensive when they lead to large turnover, reversal of directives, abandoned programs that are just restarted in 4 or 8 years. We as a nation must try to cooperate, and that starts with ending the hate and blame and endless complaints about the Other. It’s hard to understand the Other, but it’s not impossible if one can accept that the Other has a cohesive set of values that is different, yes, but not immoral or without reason.
My best friend is a staunch Trumpist conservative, and I admire him tremendously for his morality and the way he strives for goodness, honor and integrity. We still fight over politics, and being able to do so is something we value.
Is that off-topic? No, I don’t think so. Young people need to be able to discuss these things without it leading to animosity. Older people should be better role models. The media have a lot to answer for (it doesn’t take a degree to be conditioned), but that’s part of a free market economy – wealth means power, and the pursuit of wealth means supplying the demand. Alarmism pays, and so does the battle against AGW. Look at all the blogs devoted to CAGW skepticism! Breitbart pays a guy to specialize in AGW denial. (“Denial” has nothing to do with the Holocaust.) …Now I am off-topic.
Krisit, you assume that people come out of liberal arts colleges more educated than when they went in.
MarkW, I was about to post a similar comment in response to Kristi’s miseducated opinion.
A researcher being interviewed on TV several days ago stated that ….. “present day college students only spend an average two (2) hours per day on their academic studies”.
And he followed up by saying ….. “now that is an expensive 4-year vacation those students are enjoying”.
Kristi, sorry about messing up your name. Fingers getting ahead of brain.
“Krisit, you assume that people come out of liberal arts colleges more educated than when they went in.”
Whether they do or don’t is not part of my argument. My argument is that young people need to see different sides of the issues. They need to discuss them directly with people who believe them, and learn how to do so in a structured setting like one offered in a classroom amenable to it, or it devolves into insults and misunderstanding. There need to be more conservative professors.
But in any case, yes, America needs people who are highly educated in their fields, and in many cases that means going to college first. I fully appreciate the value of experience, but without the fundamental knowledge, experience can only go so far. Modern science can rarely be done well without an appropriate, rigorous, structured education. Would you want your doctor to have learned his trade through experience and self-teaching, skipping post-secondary education? Why should we believe that laymen can practice science as well as those who’ve earned a PhD? There have been so many dramatic advancements, the amount of learning necessary to be adept in one’s field is phenomenal.
College is not for everyone, though, and I believe it’s too highly stressed, when other forms of education (tech schools, etc.) would be more appropriate for many people. Academia has some problems to deal with. However, I also believe that a liberal arts education can offer much to people who are of a mind to take advantage of it. The good schools can help people learn to reason better, especially if they stress a classical education, including philosophy and rhetoric. I value my liberal arts education more now than when I got it decades ago, and wish I’d taken greater advantage of what was offered.
Kristi Silber – April 16, 2018 at 5:46 pm
Kristi, GETTA CLUE, regardless of whether one “earns” or ”purchases” their AB, BS, MS or PhD Degree, ….. it does not come with a money back ”guarantee” that the recipient of said Degree is capable of performing “useful” work associated with said Degree status. There are literally thousands of PhD holding college professors and climate scientists that are testimony to that fact.
Kristi Silber
Give us a break, Kristi, …. Medical Doctors must satisfactorily complete an “internship” before they are awarded their License to practice medicine.
So tell us, Kristi, just how many of your beloved PhDs have to “satisfactorily complete an internship” before their PhD Degree is officially recognized by the consumer popula?
Sheri – April 15, 2018 at 10:15 am
Don’t forget National Geographic, they have also morphed into a purveyor of Politically Correct “junk science” ……. because that is where a large portion of the advertising dollars are being expended …… as well as “tax free” private donation$, endowment$ and trust fund expenditures.
Fodder for the foolish. Let’s hope this does not make more people burn themselves to death.
So NOVA is moving into the comedy arena???
No Science Fiction. Next season they will be exploring the origins of the endoparasitoid extraterrestial species “xenomorph” a.k.a. “Alien” they have already signed on Sigourney Weaver To narrate the series.
Bill Powers said:
I beg to differ, Bill, the prospects for the finest Science Fiction money can buy are looking pretty good, with all fiction and no science, at least little science. Holdren and Hayhoe are involved after all.
But let’s be generous and give it three issues before tossing it into the Internet composter. shall we?
NOVA became boring and irrelevant about a year before my TV burned itself out. I quit watching and and watched the military channel instead, and DVDs I’ve had for a while.
NOVA = no real relevance. Now, they’re worse than ever, huh? Well, good. They’ll become increasingly irrelevant and at some point PBS will decide that audience is gone and then zappo! No NOVA.
But according to Al Gore we should be underwater and holidaying in Greenland by now ?
Right?! Vic. Don’t you miss the good old days of plain old Global Warming and droughts when dolts like us were admonished for pushing back by pointing out that last winter was colder and snowier than usual or last summer was milder and wetter than it had been in years. The alarmist reaction was “IDIOT! we are talking about climate. Everybody knows you can’t conflate weather and climate. You don’t know nuthin bout science. Or when a physicist pushed back and was told to shut up because they weren’t CLIMATE scientists they were only lowly physicists. .Yeah I miss the days of ALGORE and the oxymoron that was his inconvenient fictional documentary.
I can’t even stand to read this s*** anymore. Is there a Cliff’s Notes version?
Edmonton Alberta, Canada has just had a severely cold start to April. There is still lots of snow on the ground. Here are the rankings of the average highs for the first 14 days of April. The data goes back to 1880.
Year Mean Max
1 1948 -4.7
2 1920 -1.9
3 1935 -1.3
4 2018 -0.5
But then this is only weather, not climate.
” premieres Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 8PM ET”
“Pervasive heat. …………our climate which is changing, becoming hotter ”
….and most of their target audience will be sitting inside with the heat on
look at the weather forecast
It will be nice to see the total reduction in anual insolation absorption, due to the extra albedo of this late snow-cover.
R
even if it is climate I would say improving
I’m confused. I watched this well-done documentary supporting anthropogenic contribution to global warming funded by one of the two most notorious funders of global warming denial propaganda. What’s up?
I thought, weather history of 30 years is climate, not vice versa ?!
When the climate shifts from one phase to another that changes weather patterns.
climate “follows” weather, by definition. You may have changing general weather conditions, that define later the climate.
Yes that is right, first weather then climate; but only up to the point when one of the many quasi cyclical influences changes the trend. Then the weather reacts to the changed trend.
A changing trend isn’t climate, but generals weather conditions
Translation?
Ok, I see now. Drop the s off of generals. Still, I disagree with your thought.
Has this pseudoscience program been pal reviewed yet by El Gordo and Lenny DeCrapio? Looks about their style.
You mean they don’t have them featured (along with Nye) as commenters during this Hollywood-style extravaganza of circular group-think? I’m quite surprised! Maybe Will Smith got the job.
“Join scientists around the globe as they explore the dynamics of the air, land, sea, and ice; the major components of Earth’s weather and climate machine.”
What? No sun? No surprise.
They
sorry – accidental click
Here’s one that I just pulled out of “The bit bucket.” with an internet search. Apparently there’s a war on over who gets to waste how much money on PBS programming.
“https://pando.com/2014/03/03/more-pbs-conflict-woes-as-activists-move-to-eject-david-koch-from-board-of-nova-station/”
I noticed that as of the 3/15/2018 broadcast, Nova still receives funding from the “David H. Koch fund for science”.
We to remember that during most of history, everywhere was
….”..a hellhole of filth, stench, cultural chaos and casual cruelty.
…..Most people were crammed into rickety tenements that were
….. breeding grounds for disease…”
except for the “big bosses” in the “mansions” using slave labor.
We now have the “Great Oz” folk in concrete condos,
….especially the “grasshoppers” singing and dancing in HaveyWood and California,
who “know how to spend” $$$.
I would naturally trust what a “charismatic career climate meteorologist” says. The very fact that he’s charismatic would be the proof.
One more show I can’t watch now. It’s getting whittled down to very very few. Damn these fools infuriate me.
The only program on pbs that I like is Antiques Road Show 😉
tom,
I generally watch only live rugby.
Even that can elevate my blood pressure.
So much of the rest [not least the BBC]is life-threatening bilge.
Auto
If Nova doesn’t acknowledge that CO2 levels during the ice ages the last 2.6 million years is near plant life extinction levels at a low of 180 ppmv in deep icehouse conditions for the majority of the time, then it is disingenuous with the truth at best, or incredibly and deliberately misinformed at worst. The failure of scientists everywhere to ignore this basic truth is telling that not only do they ignore simple facts, but that they conspire to mislead billions of people and the scientific community down a dangerous path of deliberate deception.
What does that have to do with anything?. It’s like saying, this show is lying because it doesn’t tell me why my dog has a rash on his paw.
“CO2 levels during the ice ages the last 2.6 million years is near plant life extinction levels at a low of 180 ppmv ” Yes, the CO2 levels have oscillated up and down many times over millions of years, but that doesn’t mean 180 ppm was “near” extinction levels; either there would be ample fossil record of it or “near” is meaningless. Is there fossil evidence for such regular plant extinctions? There could be a shift in ranges, of course, but altitude changes could also be due to temperature. Plant adaptation can’t be ruled out. This is different from sudden events, like asteroid impacts or volcanic eruptions that block out the sun and shower the earth with dust, or the rapid colonization of a continent by humans, or climate change due to land use change and the intentional burning of fossil fuels. There are many reasons ecosystems may not be as able to adapt now as they have been in the past, mostly due to human interference.
Humans have had a phenomenal effect on the land. Even the sea has been at our mercy – over fishing, toxic algal blooms, drifts of trash miles wide. It’s not surprising to me at all that we could affect our climate as well. Heck, look at the ozone hole: we made it, then we consciously reversed the process. Humans can do amazing things when they cooperate.
” Heck, look at the ozone hole, we made it, then we consciously reversed the process.”
Is that true? What proof do you have? I read that the “hole” is really a lesser level of ozone, which happens naturally in winter, and there is no trend. It looks like a false alarm and we wasted our money. The science was not even established when we panicked.
Sailboarder,
Funny you should say that. My uncle, an atmospheric physicist with NOAA, recommended a movie to me a couple days ago that was about the ozone hole and how the world cooperated to fix it. I thought I might use it as an analogy for AGW sometimes, but added that there were those who didn’t even believe in the O3 hole – and lo and behold, here’s one now! I’m sorry, but in spite of what you read, the “hole” was real and anthropogenic. The Montreal Protocol stopped it’s expansion, and now it is starting to shrink.
“What does that have to do with anything? It’s like saying, this show is lying because it doesn’t tell me why my dog has a rash on his paw.”
I notice you don’t have any real counter to my main point of my comment of historic CO2 depravation, and deflect to your dog having a rash on its paw. And then some lame excuse about asteroid impacts, volcanoes and dust. Or maybe altitude changes, shifts in ranges or ‘plant adaptation can’t be ruled out’. Really?
If your comment had any actual credibility at all, you confuse pollution with total planetary CO2 deprivation for the majority of the time the last 2.6 million years and confuse CO2 now at 407 ppmv with the effect that humans have had on fishing, toxic algae blooms, “or drifts of trash miles wide.” I didn’t say that humans have not had a significant impact on the planet and ecosystem for dozen’s of other reasons, only that the norm now in planet Earth’s history is CO2 at near plant life extinction levels during long cyclic periods of ice ages. And if I have to explain that to you, then you are way out of your league commenting on anything here. But you do know that C3, C4 and CAM plants are severely stunted at 180 ppmv, especially C3 plant life that humans mainly eat, and literally can’t survive below 150 ppmv. This is a scientific fact, which you seem to try avoid admitting.
When the world was on average 4-5 degrees colder in a full blown ice age for tens of thousands of years, the good Earth was definitely not what we see today. Where it wasn’t covered in multi Km thick ice sheets, it was pure desert or tundra, and marginal stunted Savannah grasslands closer to the equatorial regions. Indeed, many Megafauna species did go extinct the last 20,000 years, although there is rigorous debate whether they were killed by human hunters, or a food chain collapse due to inclement ice age weather and CO2 starvation with competition for scarce food resources by all animals. It appears to be a mix of both, since there is some evidence for megafauna being extremely stressed but going extinct while humans were advancing through north east Asia, through Beringia to North America.
Grow up Kristi, you are now acting like a SJW concern troll, parroting your lame groupthink education, thinking you have some moral high ground to preach at us all here now. You confuse CO2 with pollution. I thought a few months ago you might have some promise with intelligent discourse here and I even encouraged you to write more but I see that has morphed into more of a SJW indignant rant than actual intelligent scientific discourse.
Kristi, the ozone hole is shrinking because the sun just went through a solar maxima, now that it’s entering a minima, it will grow again.
It’s been 40 years since the world stupidly banned the most efficient refrigerant out there. If things haven’t improved long before now, CFCs were never the problem.
Earthling2, she’s got a degree in environment and ecology, which makes her an expert in anything to do with climate and the environment.
She doesn’t seem to know that plants need CO2, but what the heck, an expert can’t know everything.
Kristi Silber – April 15, 2018 at 2:42 pm
Kristi, there is more than ample fossil record for said “CO2 caused extinction(s)” … and dinosaur fossils are a prime example of said. The “age of dinosaurs” was about 252 million years ago to about 66 million years ago when atmospheric CO2 ppm ranged between 1,800 to 2,500 ppm before it started its steady decline at 140 MY ago and ending up at about 180 ppm which caused a slow starvation of the dinosaurs because there was not sufficient green-growing biomass to feed them. To wit:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
Kristi, there is no way in ell one can “blame” the extinction of the dinosaurs on an asteroid striking the earth simply because their demise occurred over a 50+- million year time period. When atmospheric CO2 started decreasing (see above graph) the food supply also started decreasing and the larges herbivores and carnivores (all dinosaurs) died off first …. and the rest followed suite.
Kristi, plant fossils far, far, far outnumber animal fossils. There are not very many “missing links” in plant taxonomy.
Kristi, ignorance can be fixed but stupidity is permanent.
The per se “ozone hole” has been a “standard feature” of the Antarctic atmosphere ever since plant biomass outgassed sufficient amounts of O2 into the atmosphere for the ultraviolet (UV) radiation in sunlight to create large quantities of ozone in earth’s atmosphere. GETTA clue, Kristi, the per se “ozone hole” in the Antarctica atmosphere is the result of “6 moths of darkness”, whereby, no UV radiation for 6 months = 6 months of no ozone production.
Earthling2
“I notice you don’t have any real counter to my main point of my comment of historic CO2 depravation”
That’s because it’s a moot point when it comes to current climate change. That was my point – there’s no reason Nova should discuss it.
The reference to human-caused problems was actually a response to another comment, I should have made that clear.
“Or maybe altitude changes, shifts in ranges or ‘plant adaptation can’t be ruled out’.”
This is about the changes in CO2 levels in the past, and plant response in terms of range and evolution.
“I didn’t say that humans have not had a significant impact on the planet and ecosystem for dozen’s of other reasons, only that the norm now in planet Earth’s history is CO2 at near plant life extinction levels during long cyclic periods of ice ages.”
I don’t understand your point. CO2 has been low in the past. I agree. In the past 800,000 years it has dipped to low levels several times, on a cyclic basis. There may have been extinctions, but not mass extinctions each time.
“But you do know that C3, C4 and CAM plants are severely stunted at 180 ppmv, especially C3 plant life that humans mainly eat, and literally can’t survive below 150 ppmv. This is a scientific fact, which you seem to try avoid admitting.”
I know this, and I also know that plants can evolve and that there are plenty of taxa that survived, both of plants and the organisms that ate them. It’s not that I’m not admitting anything, I just don’t see your point.
You want to argue that the dinosaurs went extinct because of plant CO2 deprivation? 1000 ppm wasn’t enough?
Oh, I just saw this: ”Kristi, ignorance can be fixed but stupidity is permanent.” I assume that was meant for me. End of conversation. It’s no loss, that’s for sure.
Oops, that statement about ignorance and stupidity came from a different comment, not from Earthling2. However, “Grow up Kristi, you are now acting like a SJW concern troll, parroting your lame groupthink education, thinking you have some moral high ground to preach at us all here now” is just a bad.
Parroting my lame groupthink education! That’s rich. What a dumb comment, full of baseless assumption.
One can only offer the Kristi Silber et els the opportunity to drink from the cool waters of the “Spring of Factual Science”, …… but they will, more often than not, reject all offers because of their nurtured desire and fondness of the “AGW Kool Aide” that they have been “drinking” all during their formal education years.
Religious beliefs of all “flavors” that are/were forcibly nurtured during one’s adolescent “formative” years, ….. pretty much dictates many aspects of the child’s personality for the remainder of their life. That is the reason for the ole saying of …… “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks”.
180ppm is near extinction level for plants, because they start dying at that level.
It’s a scientific fact.
As to the ozone hole, that was never our fault in the first place, it’s existed forever and is as big today as it was during the heights of the manufactured ozone scares.
Ha! What do you care about scientific fact?
Or you can take a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.
I have been binge watching the TV series ‘One Strange Rock’ today. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt7651892/
After three episodes in a row I have found absolutely nothing to be critical of. No warmists propaganda in evidence so far. Really enjoyable so far.
Well RAH, I hate to tell you this but I just watched an episode of “One Strange Rock” not an hour ago, I even recorded it, where they talked about how humans had created the Ozone hole and how humans had fixed the Ozone hole and now humans need to fix the CO2 problem, and talked about how how the CO2 coming out of a volcano was extremely hot (presumably from CO2’s inherent nature), and then moved on to why Venus was so much hotter than Earth: because of CO2, naturally.
It was hard to listen to. Especially having to listen to a couple of retired astronauts parroting this CO2 propaganda.
It’s not a surprise millions of people believe this BS. They are bombarded by it from every direction. The Left has full control of society’s means of communications. Which means we are in trouble.
Crap! And I had high hopes for it being an honest attempt at presenting the natural history of this earth based on the three episodes I had watched.
As a person sitting in day 2 of a mid April blizzard, all I can say is F&$%#$@ur momisugly You, Nova.
Hear hear! 15″ on the ground here and all the recently arrived song-birds are generally silent. Sucks.
With support from/funded by… who?????
The wealthy leftists and the government.
Nova has been a really good science program and many of the programs I watched last year were underwritten by the David H Koch (yes that Koch brother) Foundation, leading to apoplectic meltdown with outraged Climateers demanding that PBS renounce their support.
Apparently the idea of Koch sponsorship of a respected science program was at odds with the anti-science denier smearing campaign and conferred legitimacy.
Why is everybody pecking at Nova? Peck at PBS. Or support them wit taxpayer’s money.
PBS is supported by taxpayer money. (Or were you being sarcastic?)
I’m willing to bet there will be no mention of the Adiabatic L:apse Rate – the single most influential factor in atmospheric temperature distribution and the driver of the convection process that is universally OMITTED from global atmospheric circulation models.
Probably no mention of the supposed positive feedback from water vapor (a weak link in their chain of evidence) and no mention of the associated upper tropical tropospheric hot spot.
Probably no mention of the rate of decomposition of deciduous tree leaves and its effect on the CO2 budget. Probably no discussion of the amount of carbon dioxide contributed to the atmosphere from the burning of Amazonian rainforest, or the diversity of definitions of “sustainable development.” There are probably quite a few things they aren’t including in the 2 hours. Naturally, they are proceeding under the assumption that AGW is true and a threat. That doesn’t mean all the science is “settled,” it means that it’s adequate to draw some useful conclusions and influence policy.
Kristi Silber says:
But, as I said above, “the supposed positive feedback from water vapor [is] a weak link in their chain of evidence ….” IOW, it’s the key to the whole climate controversy:
Kristi Silber says:
OTC, that’s just the sort of alarmist sideshow that they might well include.
Kristi Silber says:
Of course, but they’re pretending they aren’t—they are pretending that they’re objectively, without presuppositions, examining the mechanics of the “weather machine.”
There’s a big difference between not covering minor sources of CO2, vs not covering the big kahuna in GWG’s.
Can you give the Cliff Notes version or a link that explains this?; not the details of how the Adiabatic Lapse Rate works, but how effect of the ALR makes CAGW “proofs” irrelevant.
It has very little to do with climate concerns and much to do with raising money and obtaining power. Scare the poor critters into giving their money so they can be saved from the warming bogeyman.
“Scare the poor critters into giving their money so they can be saved from the
warmingcapitalist bogeyman.”A little more accurate I think.
Let me guess: we have thrown a monkey wrench into the weather/climate “machine” with all our nasty, dirty CO2, and that is why we have “weird” and “extreme” and “unprecedented” weather. They do love to ascribe magical powers to CO2, but the only real “magic” it does is green the earth.
The propagandists strike back! It is after all about the message and not the reality or even science. It’s about “communications” and since they lack the political power to force their agenda right now, they must rely primarily on other means. They are selling but how many are really buying?
Many years ago, NOVA broadcast a show on Global Warming where they panned the science and the scientists promoting it. It was a real keeper but I didn’t tape it. Surely someone must have.
You will die of shock when you see how harsh they were on the promoters of CAGW. It showed a graphic of “The Three Pillars” of the theory and showed each one being toppled.
Do you happen to know the name of that program? It would be interesting to google it to see if there is any information available for the program.
I don’t remember the episode name. I think it was broadcast in the 1980s or early 90s.
The best I can tell from looking thru a listing of all NOVA programs is this one:
I does not sound promising about being anti-CAGW, but maybe I should withhold judgement without seeing it first.
I love how it takes so much fossil fuels to do all this in order to tell us to stop using fossil fuels, sort of self defeating in a poetic sense. Do they yet realize that no one cares any more? The BIGGEST difference nowadays is the faster growth rates due to 400 ppm.