I don’t scare easily, especially on Halloween. But I swear, every time I narrate another episode of How the Universe Works, I become more and more certain that my pals at Science Channel are trying to give me a heart attack. Check out these lines from a pending episode I just read called “The Worst Places in the Universe.”
Over the years, I’ve learned many interesting things narrating this program, including the absolute certainty of my own demise at the hands of a cold and indifferent cosmos. The only uncertainty seems to revolve around the exact method of my annihilation. A super massive black hole? A collision of two Neutron stars? A supernova? A comet? An asteroid? Gamma rays? Today I learned about "strangelets," a new kind of horror that can "zombify" matter, and deadly strings the width of a proton, ten miles long, that weigh more than Earth. It's an endless parade of horribles, and today’s episode was another reminder that no one is getting out of this alive.
And yet – the show is oddly comforting as well. What we’ve learned about the Universe over the last twenty years is both staggering and humbling. And what I’ve learned narrating this program has made me feel much smarter than I really am. On the other hand, it’s also convinced me that I don’t know my ass from a hot rock.
Last week for instance, I learned that we’ve discovered another planet in our solar system, much bigger than Earth, orbiting around somewhere beyond Pluto. (Pluto, as I’m sure you’ve heard, lost its planetary status some time ago, when it was determined to be much smaller than many thousands of other asteroids flying around the Kuiper Belt. Awkward.) Anyway, this “new” planet has been in our own backyard for billions of years. It’s HUGE. And we’ve just discovered it.
Last month, I was asked to re-record a passage I had read the week before, which referenced the total number of galaxies in the cosmos. I had originally read that there were “100 billion galaxies in the universe.” Turns out, the number is closer to 2 trillion. http://theatln.tc/2dCKe9R In a week, another 2,000 billion galaxies turned up. Oops.
This weekend, in a bar called Grumpy’s, I listened as two professors from Berkeley discussed with great passion the inevitable consequences of ignoring climate change. When I was invited to share my opinion, I shrugged and said, “Beats me, fellas. Last week the smartest people on the planet thought there were 100 billion galaxies in the universe. They were off by a couple trillion. I’m not really sure what’s in store for planet earth.”
I was surprised by their response. One frowned real hard, and stared into his beer. The other asked if I was some kind of “Climate Denier.”
“Not at all,” I said. “Any fool can see there’s a climate.”
“You know what I mean,” he said. “Are you skeptical of the fact than man is destroying the planet by heating it up to an unnatural degree?”
“I’m skeptical of most things,” I said. “But who cares what I think? I’m just a narrator. You guys are the actual scientists, right?”
“We are,” said the one staring at his beer.
“Well then, tell me this. Isn’t skepticism at the very heart of scientific inquiry?”
“It is.”
“Then how come people who question the claims around global warming are called “Deniers?”
“Because Global Warming is real, and man is causing it. And our planet is in terrible trouble.”
Then the other one chimed in with this. “Right now, this planet is one of the worst places to be in the universe.”
I nodded. “I’m sure you’re right,” I said. “But if it turns out you’re not, and you need someone to walk it back for you – give me a call. I’m in the booth all the time.”
I’m not sure they got it.
Anyway, Boo.
Mike
PS. I’ll let you know when the new season starts. It’s a good one.
If it really is that bad here, I would kindly invite him to take up residence literally anywhere else in the universe and report back on the accuracy of his hypothesis.
But when logic is exercised it is perhaps the most elegant of mental processes: "Isn't skepticism at the very heart of scientific inquiry?"
"It is"
"Then how come people who question...be called deniers?"
I continue to believe the intelligence of a person is found in the questions he or she asks and not in the answers they parrot.
I also believe that when asking a question becomes forbidden, we enter the realm of dogma. Dogma leads to a thoughtless people.
I just need PROOF the Earth is in fact a globe like men claim. Because if they aren't lying, God did.
I have read evidence and believe that there is a large probability that Climate Change is happening. I have my doubts about it being created by people, but I don't think we're helping the situation any. Granted, if two professors asked me about it, my response might be like yours. "Gee, I was standing the grocery store yesterday trying to choose between Cinnamon Life and Frosted Mini Wheats.... and you want me to choose whether or not Global Warming is happening?" It would be fun just to mess with them.
Our most reliable idea of the future of the earth includes temperature rises at rates higher than seen before in Earth's history. While it is true that we don't know what tomorrow's best idea will be, we have to use the best current ideas to inform our decisions. It's not enough to effectively say that "scientists were wrong before and they'll be wrong again!" since they'll often be the first ones to tell you this.
It's really easy for average folk to understand things like, we can count rings in trees and then see years of draught by thinner rings.
It gets harder to explain how we KNOW certain particles in our atmosphere reflect sun, or store heat, or how we know what the atmosphere was like 10,000 years ago by taking core samples of artic or antarctic ice and counting the years through layers in the core samples.
Now, that doesn't mean I'm advocating for any given side to this arguement, but there ARE temperature and barometric readings dating back over a thousand years thanks to Japanese and Chinese culture among others.
And in fact it's accurate enough that they've done things like talked to American Native Indians and Eskimos about when say, Mount Ranier in Washington was surmised to have erupted in the 1400s or something. Then gone to look at barometric atmospheric readings around that time from Asian cultures and verified the time line.
So, again I'm not saying either way which direction to go, but I AM saying it's based partially on their understanding of science.
To refute this part of science when many of the tests and procedures are also applicable to other parts like medicine, technology, space exploration, and such seems kind of silly.
At the same time when we think we know what's up we find out the Earth is resilient and mangrove forests are storing tons of carbon. So who knows.
When smart people say such ignorant things, it just shows that their views are ideologies and not conclusions based on science.
1/. 93% of all CO2 in the biosphere is in the oceans. Only about 3% is in the air and of that about .03% is man made.
2/. Cold oceans hold more CO2 in solution than warm oceans.
3/. They have known for over 15 years that temperature variation PRECEDES CO2 aviation by 800-1000yrs.
This makes perfect sense - it's why sea breezes last into the night - the adjacent sea warms more slowly than the land and cools more slowly. The temperature difference between land and sea is what drives the sea/land breeze.
Now let's have a little thought experiment.
Millions of years ago the atmosphere held around 4000ppm CO2.
Why didn't earth become a lifeless rock back then instead of what actually was the case - that mega flora was so abundant the dinosaurs flourished without eating themselves into extinction in short order? If CO2 drives temperature there is no way back from 4000ppm...no ice age down the road a few million years - nada!
Now if, as we know, temperature variation precedes CO2 variation by 800-1000yrs with the oceans breathing in and out CO2 as their temperatures vary it all starts to make sense.
What warms or cools the oceans - well look up if it's daytime where you're at.
Solar Physicists have correlated sun spots to climate variation to about 75%...as opposed to 35%ish for CO2.
The Dalton and Maunder minimums correlate exactly with the coldest periods in modern European history - the little ice age and the winter that destroyed The Grande Armee in Russian in the early 1800s.
Physics 101 tells us the sun warms the earth's surface and the earth then warms the near atmosphere. It's not the other way around. Temperature lapses at approx -2c/1000' as you ascend. That slice of the atmosphere where I work is around -56 degrees C. It doesn't vary much.
Why has this scam lasted so long?
Love your work!!
Compared to just what we can scientifically determine here in our own tiny corner of the Milky Way, Earth is paradise, which is why, regardless of what we might think of "human caused climate change," we need to take care of this precious ball of rock floating in the cosmos.
