Global Warming -- The Current Status: The Science, the Scandal, the Prospects for a Treaty

[Mandems96]

those 14 dis-likes

GO FUCKING RE-SEARCH AND STOP FALLING FOR MAIN-STREAM MEDIA OWNED BY THE ELITES WHO DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW THIS

30,000 SCIENTISTS ALONG WITH MANY UNIVERSITIES ALSO THINK IT IS A HOAX

NOW CARBON TAX ? COME ON GUYS

[Viracocha711]

@Mandems96 Folks who deny Anthropogenic Climate Change now are nothing but USEFUL IDIOTS for the Fossil Fuel Industry! The science has been settled for a decade if not longer!!!

[JonThm]

Make water, save lives

[JonThm]

Photosynthesis F limits global carbon dioxide to two parts per 1,000,000. A level it can rise beyond

[JonThm]

The climate is 100% nature. Carbon dioxide hasn't increased in two centuries-plants do photosynthesis with it. So no increase in the air is possible outside of an ice-age

[meghaljani]

@JonThm Actually, CO2 has increased and it increases by 2 ppm a year. However, its effect on the climate is negligible.

[evangrogers]

Wow, this guy should be on every TV show all the time.

[TheSnoopy1750]

@evangrogers So now that Muller has completely reversed his view and now says GW is happening, do you agree with him?

He wrote a great Wall Street Journal article this month on how he now believes in GW after analyzing his own independent data.

[evangrogers]

@TheSnoopy1750 Whoa whoa whoa

Muller never said that global warming wasn't happening. He said that those who argued that GW was happening used horrendous scientific methodology to get their results.

I remember him clearly stating in his lectures that GW IS happening, and that Humans ARE responsible for SOME of that heat.

And to go even further, I never claimed that GW is/wasn't happening.

Reading skills are important.

I agree with his statement: "it needs to be profitable"

[evangrogers]

@TheSnoopy1750 The entire point of PROPER science is to build a convincing case that WOULD reverse opinion.

The Earth used to be flat, now it isn't.

I think we need to figure out a profitable way to produce energy that doesn't wreck the environment. Humans used to use horses and other animals to get around - they produced much more pollution per mile traveled.

We're getting there, but it will take time.

Also - there are ways to COOL the earth, we don't simply need to reduce GHG production.

[TheSnoopy1750]

@evangrogers So now let's not do anything about GW unless it can be profitable? Are you kidding me?

We need to fund R&D for more research on wind, solar etc. to replace the negative impact of carbon-based fuels but they may cost more.  Eventually we will need them anyway when oil etc. becomes more scarce.

How much do you think it costs for military efforts in the Middle East? Add that to the cost of gas and it would be $10/gallon. How much cost is from increased hurricane damage from GW?

[evangrogers]

@TheSnoopy1750 I bet you could get a profitable company that earns money on donations if they find a way to lower the Earth's temperature through non-obtrusive methods.

GW isn't really a big deal - we just have to increase cloud cover by 3-4%. Find that out, and things will be ok.

[Viracocha711]

@evangrogers NO, increasing cloud cover is just masking the REAL problem & that is CO2! We need to reduce our use of Fossil Fuels & eventually stop using them altogether!!

[evangrogers]

@TheSnoopy1750 He said it himself in the first few minutes: If we can just increase cloud cover by a few percentage points, this whole problem would be moot.

Perhaps we should invest in this venture until solar/wind/geothermal/nuclear overtake fossil fuels.

[AmericaSpeakOut1]

The IPCC is a political body with a political, not scientific, agenda. It is to falsify justifications to seize and redistribute wealth.

IPCC Scientist Contributions were changed to be consistent with the 'Summary for Policymakers' rather than adjust the summary to fit the facts

warwickhughes. com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf

IPCC's Ben Santer Admits Fraud - Deleted Sections of IPCC Report that did not meet Policymaker's Agenda

larouchepac. com/node/12823

[Frumibandersnatch]

I remember a paper coming out of Berkeley that had two major points

1) That skeptics have some sort of normalcy bias that things will generally be the way they've been during their life experience.

2) That the early days of alarmism was too alarmist and the claims too exaggerated.

Then all of the sudden...Ta DA!!!..The Berkeley Project!! a newer toned down, more “rational” alarmism!!

Muller makes good points here, but overall; I smell a rat!!



[christo930]

To everyone watching this, muller has since retracted most of what he said about global warming and now believes it is a major problem.

[DKshad0w]

@christo930 Richard Muller has always believed Global Warming could be a major problem. What are you talking about?

[christo930]

@DKshad0w That is not true. Check potholer54's channel or greenman3610 for the background. He was giving speeches accusing the IPCC of cherry picking and even took part in the "hide the decline" climategate bs. He then started a program called BEST or something which all the deniers thought would prove AGW was a hoax, there is even an article about it on wattsupwiththat blog. For a brief period, he was the darling of the anti-science crowd of AGW deniers.

[DKshad0w]

@christo930 Richard Muller has always believe Global Warming could be a major problem. The results of his BEST study did not cause him to retract what he said about Climategate and "hide the decline". What the scientist did to the graph was deceptive, no matter what the current data slows.

[christo930]

@DKshad0w No it wasn't. Notice they said mike's nature trick of adding in the REAL TEMPS to "hide the decline". The decline they were hiding was the divergence of tree ring data which matched perfectly with the real temperatures up until the 80s or so when they diverged from the real temperature. So they were "hiding the decline" of a proxy and they didn't understand why the tree ring data suddenly diverged from t he real temps. Real temps are always preferential to proxy derived temps.

[oldspammer]

At 3:08 he says that the effect of cutting down the rainforest is estimated/guessed, later that cloud cover increase due to increased water evaporation is uncertain. He is just scratching the surface of the uncertainties involved. Volcanoes? Changes in solar activity? The effect of 1972 weather weaponry improvement? Google (NSDM 165, International Aspects of Weather Modification, May 2, 1972) Who was US president back then? Geoengineering?

Google ("direct radiative forcing of aerosols")

[Richard482]

A good response to this video is below. It also includes Richard Muller

watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us

[david222444]

Please forget about co2 emissions, they have nothing to do with global warming. The past Global Warming was caused by the Sun just as the coming abrupt cooling will be induced by the Grand Minimum.

[kingofthepaupers]

"used Michael Mann's trick to hide the decline"

32:00 I'm not worried about the word "trick," I'm worried about the word "decline."

Jct: I'm a scientist too and also not worried about the word "trick," I'm worried about the word "hide." Sadly, though there is admission there have been 13 years of "no increase," there was no mention of just how much of a decline they used Mike's trick to hide.

[leonid1995]

Did any of you people even watch and listen to this video?

Geez.

[darwinkilledgod]

I'm confused. At 26:00 or so, he says the IPCC predicted global warming would increase the ice in antarctica? but in reality the ice is reducing. Why would should global warming increase ice in antarctica but decrease it in the arctic?

Also, I thought antarctica was growing rather than shrinking. I heard that from some skeptics who used it as evidence that global warming wasn't happening. Here he says that it is shrinking, just like the arctic, though, right?

[w00tehpwn]

@darwinkilledgod warmer climate means more snowfall, just as it will lead to more rainfall. That's simply because warmer air can hold more water. The difference between arctic and antarctic might be due to a different balance in melt because of higher temperature, and more ice because of more snowfall (I don't know).

[Cancon2011]

Call me in another 50 years when all this garbage science is done with. They don't know anything, but they sure do have a bunch of stats that really mean little if anything. Not credible. Tree ring Horseshit. I mean really, what planet am I on?

[keithdow6]

@Cancon2011 What planet are you on you ask, certainly not earth. You might want to join the rest of us on earth.

[Cancon2011]

@keithdow6 Right pal, let me know when these brainiacs can pull off a 5 day forecast and I'll listen.

[keithdow6]

@Cancon2011

Dear Super Genius,

When you show some minimum brain activity, such as knowing the difference between a weatherman and a climatologist, you won't be treated like the idiot you are.

[Cancon2011]

@keithdow6 Spending too much time staring at those rings?,Shouldn't you be planning to dodge water canons at a G20 summit or something Watermellon?

[keithdow6]

@Cancon2011

Dear Super Genius,

Here is an update on Richard Muller's work.

"Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming"

===

But Muller told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."

===

The only way to fool you is to talk to you.

[Cancon2011]

@keithdow6 Hey its the Watermellon...,that is facinating stuff Mr Mann... Quit bothering me.I am still trying to get over Global Ice Age Doom forecasts and the 50 million UN climate refugees that landed here last week looking for a job.

[keithdow6]

@Cancon2011

Sorry kid, but global cooling hasn't been seriously talked about since before you were a teenager. Feel free to deal with reality.

[david222444]

@keithdow6 You had better start taking cooling seriously now. Abrupt Global Cooling is beginning due to the onset of a new Grand solar Minimum

[w00tehpwn]

@Cancon2011 by that argument, you can't trust economists because stock brokers cannot predict tomorrow's stock market.

Long-term and short-term predictions are different beasts, because short term variability (which makes predicting the weather hard) is smoothed out in the long-term, where the trend or average (climate) is actually easier to predict.

[dhergert]

What scientist uses comic sans? Just sayin.

[AmericaSpeakOut1]

GW Bush worked to get the USA converted to Hydrogen fuel and Geothermal electricity to produce it. That's when Democrats trotted out Al Gore's movie and frantically worked to derail the Hydrogen fuel economy. They realized it would SOLVE THE PROBLEM and deprive them of the Carbon Tax cash flow, which is what they really want.

The Left have been working hard to set up this system to seize your assets with Carbon as the excuse. They sure don't want the "problem" to get fixed!

[Olorinii]

This guy is going to get fired....

[ShadowSandy]

@Olorinii For?

[ddnguyen278]

Zzz... it's obvious the entrenched power structures won't make any substantial changes to their behavior because they see any major enabling technology as disruptive (ie cost them money or power). It will be the developing world which will develop the carbon neutral energy technology because it's cheaper (ie once oil hits 150 dollars barrel).. The projection on CO2 emission from the developing world is ludicrous, because the price of oil and gas will force a decline in consumption no matter..

[magnusea]

Nice lecture, but "cheap wind power" isn't correct language, because it isn't cheap. Because of this he don't understand that the best thing to do politically isn't to spend (stimulus) money on a grid enabling wind power. He talks about many energy solutions, and the market excludes the worst alternatives, both economically and in other respects, if politicians don't interfere.

[LuisManuelLealDias]

I'm in love with this guy right now, and I'm not even gay.

[johnnythelowery]

Question for Mr. MULLER: You mentioned that you have the original data. My understanding is that the myriad Freedom of Information requests for the CRU data have never been fullfilled. That they lost the 'hockey-stick' data, or destroyed it. DO YOU HAVE THE DATA requested under F.O.I. by McIntyre, et al???

[johnnythelowery]

Gavin Schmidt, Jim Hanson @ NASA, Michael 'Mikes Trick' Mann at/was Penn State,

all of CRU, London Met Office, IPCC....................... These are the unmentioned as publishers whose work are not worth reading. Chief architects of this AGW scam. Shame on you.

[johnnythelowery]

Giobal warming was incontrovertible.............u­ntil........ it stopped. Per Climactic Research Unit; the Vatican of Global Warming's Pointy Hat Panic schemes. It stopped in 1995. Dead. In it's tracks. Per the Global Temperature Anomaly. Just put it ALL on the table and lets look at ALL the data and theories; oh. then publish your findings if your theory survives the real peer review process. The AGW driven CO2 Global Warming scam was and is now D.O.A.

[Agatonsax76]

Forts.

Räkna på om halva månen vore som de hetaste punkten, andra halvan som den kallaste... vad får ni om ni inser attt utstrålad energi ökar med temperaturen upphöjt till fyra?

Typ 60C?

Hela växthuseffekten kan en bra fysiker spela bort med minskad temperaturskillnad..... kolla igen ytorna med +50C och -80C... medel är inte -15C uten +10C

[Agatonsax76]

Bra tal av Richard Muller, men han kunde lära alla småbarnsfysik...

Två likadana ytor, den ena med 50C den andra med -80C, strålar ut lika mycket energi som om bägge vore 10C inte medeltemperaturens -15C.'

Alla måste lära sig att jordytans medeltmperatur inte har något med jorden energistrålningsbalans att göra..

Bara den töghet vår atmosfär har, ökar kraftigt medeltemeparuren, utan att öka energiutstrålningen.

[citimeta]

if controlling the greenhouse gas is the goal for the whole humanity, it is strange to talk about profits and technology affordibility. I don't think american people would have a problem sharing clean energy at low cost with developing countries to control the climate. However, if it's just some people see profit in this whole business. Then don't use the climate as an excuse!

[arsjth]

@citimeta

al gore, an investment fund owner who invest in green technologies.

do you think he is talking up his own portfolio?

follow the money

[superstrain007]

@citimeta what some people ?? dont confuse US the public people with thoose (elite) illuminate aka free masons aka masonic BIATHES ! they use everything too make money dosetn matter .. Bye PEACE

[TinCanToNA]

@citimeta I don't think you're paying attention. No matter how you slice it, "clean" energy is more expensive than traditional energy sources. The only traditional energy source that actually is clean energy is nuclear power, but it's still more expensive than fossil fuel power. There is no such thing as "sharing clean energy at low cost with developing countries" because the cost is not low to begin with, even for the US. Dr. Muller's point is dead on--if it's not low cost then it's useless.

[nickiz1]

lol i anit no siencetest but did u notese the heat wave above the bp spill ? then all that funny weather ? ?? mabe thats a lill to much oil huh fellas

[wormite]

According to this talk, global warming is not a menace to human race, at least not an impending one. Is there anything bad that would come from global warming?

[Avram32]

Very good and realistic presentation! Thank you for the video. Every one who's worried about global warming should see this lecture.

[drkstrong]

There is soem slight of hand here. He says theer has been no warming for the last 13 years. Well that is odd because he is not allowing for the natural fluctuations. As he points out the start of his graph (1998) was one of the warmest years on record that was because it was an extreme El Nino (warming) year. 2005 was the the warmest year (according to NOAA) that was an average El Nino year. This year is on pace with 1998 and is a La Nina (cooling) year. That means the Earth is warming and fast.

[cthulhu11111111]

@drkstrong

even worse he doesn't seem to realize that James Hansen's GISS analysis source code is available online and Hansen doesn't control the data coming in. As such he can't fix the numbers for 2010 as is implied in the video. Besides as an expert in temperature why the hell can't he comment on where temperature is going in the next year? Hadley center do it. They all do it. It's what people want to know.

[drkstrong]

@cthulhu11111111 Absolitely. He seems to trying to look as though he is being fair but cant quite bring himself to be so. Interesting that he has been a consultant to the energy industry! However unlike most deniers he has a very high proportion of real science in his talk as well.

[prikhod]

@drkstrong: you along with the other lunatic (@cthulhu11111111) are fucking morons...

[drkstrong]

@prikhod Well that's a persuasive argument!

[prikhod]

@drkstrong: I'm not trying to persuade you... that's impossible. You're a true believer, you think the earth ought to be saved, that's your life purpose... DESPITE a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

I'm just pointing out the obvious fact that you're a fucking moron. That's all :)

[hydrashok33]

@drkstrong

There is no sleight of hand here. Many pro-AGW's admit there is no statistcal trend in warming for over 10 years, some say 15 years. CRU and NOAA reluctantly admit this. While this alone does not mean there is no AGW, it does point to a much lower sensitivity to CO2 than previously thought. It also demonstrates that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is a much more powerful climate driver. CO2 may just be along for the ride.

[drkstrong]

@hydrashok33 I do not know of a single climatologist (not inthe pay of the oil industry) that will say that. CRU actually said there was a warming trend but it was not significant above the 95% confidence level - that means that you have a 1 in 20 chance of being right whereas I have 19 in 20 chance of being correct in saying there has been significant warming.

Please explain why the 2000-9 decade was warmer then the 90s (v. significantly) & the 90s were significantly warmer than the 80s

[hydrashok33]

@drkstrong Search in google "BBC Phil Jones no warming" and you can read one of the worlds top pro-AGW climatologist admit to it. Now you know of one.

I am not saying there is no overall trend in warming....there is. I am not saying that CO2 does not affect the climate, it certainly should. What I am saying is there is a very strong case to be made that CO2 is a much smaller player in climate change than originally thought. The past 15 years of "flatness" seems to demonstrate that.

[drkstrong]

@hydrashok33 Exact quote of Jones from BBC website "I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods"

19 to 20 chance of their being warming even for a short period. You need to get your facts right

[hydrashok33]

@drkstrong No that is not the exact quote. Why do you keep omitting the part where Jones, when asked directly, answered in the affirmative that there has not been any statistically significant warming since 1995. He said YES not me. I did not extrapolate a YES statement from vague commentary, he said it himself. Jones is being intellectually honest, so should you.

I understand that he also qualifies his YES with the fact that it was really close. Close is not enough to change reality.

[drkstrong]

@hydrashok33 I copied it off the BBC website directly. There is no time where he says what you claim. Read to whole interview its there on the BBC.

If you do the analysis of that unrepresentatively short period of time, it is significant to just below the 95% confidence level. Thus there is a 19 out of 20 chance that there is warming and only a 1 in 20 chance that there is not.

Now that was in Feb - since then we have had a string of record global temperatures so the significance is >95%

[drkstrong]

@drkstrong I just redid Jones' calculation using the uptodate data including the last 6 months (unavailable to Jones at the time of the interview) abd the confidnece level is now 98%. So it is no only a 1 in 50 chnace of there being no warming since 1998.

PS they choose Jan 1998 as the peak of the El Nino warming - go a few months either side and the confidence level goes way up.

[magnusea]

@drkstrong You gotta be wrong. I doubt you have any advanced technical or natural science education, and even those who have no high school should understand you're wrong. If Phil Jones says the possibility it's warmer now than 1998 is 49 to 1 HadCRUT data shows a +0.01 C change:

tinyurl DOT com/5t3u7ke

Not significant! Also in 13 years natural temp changes may be 10 or 20 times larger. Many nut cases advocating the CAGW, no meaning to argue with'em. I'm glad the worst CAGW insanity is over.

[drkstrong]

@magnusea No science education, eh?: Google "The Many Faces of the Sun" and see who the lead author was. Better yet buy it (I get no royalties) and see how many of the chapters I contributed to. Its a bit technical but you'll get the message.

I suggest you see what Jones actually said during his BBC inview - it is on their website.

The odds are 49:1 on not 49:1 against and that was back in 2008 with 2 years more data the odds have shifted above 2 sigma. See watch?v=Ai6ju28nAyk

[prikhod]

@hydrashok33: "Jones is being intellectually honest, so should you"

Jones is being intellectually honest? LMAO That's the same guy who used "Mike's nature trick to hide the decline"... FUCK YOU greentards!

[hydrashok33]

@prikhod There are many approaches to persuasion, and name calling is the least effective.

You should avoid shooting at your allies my passionate friend.

[prikhod]

@hydrashok33: My bad :) i guess I haven't woken up fully then :)

Cheers!

P.S. You're correct that name calling is not effective. But what I've observed is rationing with the greens is just as pointless. When you make any points that contradict their worldview, they assume you 1) either don't understand the science of CO2 (which we do, but disagree), or 2) that you're some "big oil" shill

Hence name calling is just a fun way of keeping conversation to a minimum :)

[drkstrong]

@hydrashok33 Actuall I forgot to mentioned I followed your suggestion )ignoring the BBC sites which I assume you did) and went to the Daily Mail site which uses those exact words but nowhere in that article do they say Jones says them - it is an assertion. They then direct you to an analysis of the UAH data - the only thing that they fail to mention is that that analysis is for atmospheric temperatures only & at a very high altitude. It makes the 1998 bump even bigger & the rest smaller. A fraud

[hydrashok33]

@drkstrong So you went to another website that paraphrased the interview instead of going to the actual source? The BBC performed the interview, you should look at the BBC site. Do you still assert that Jones did not admit to the "no warming since 1995" claim?

BTW You continue to confuse probability with statistics. Your assertion of a 95% probability has nothing to do with Jones' qualification of not being statistically significant. Probability is not part of this discussion.

[drkstrong]

@hydrashok33 I said originally that I went to the BBC website and cut & pasted Jones' exact words into my message of two days ago. You can do the analysis yourself and check it as I did Jones is correct there is a positive trend and it was not quite at the 95% confidence level. But if you now add in the last few months it shoots up above 95%. If you choose 1997 or 1999 you also get amuch higher confidence level. 1998 is chosen specifically as it is the minimum iof the confidence level trend.

[drkstrong]

@hydrashok33 I said originally that I went to the BBC website and cut & pasted Jones' exact words into my message of two days ago. You can do the analysis yourself and check it as I did. Jones is correct there is a positive trend but it was not quite at the 95% confidence level. But if you now add in the last few months it shoots up above 95%. If you choose 1997 or 1999 you also get a much higher confidence level. 1998 is chosen specifically as it is the minimum of the confidence level trend.

[prikhod]

@drkstrong: "significant above the 95% confidence level - that means that you have a 1 in 20 chance of being right whereas I have 19 in 20 chance of being correct"

I take it you don't take statistics or econometrics... significance level (95%) has nothing to do with probabilities... you should consider educating yourself, otherwise you just look like... well, THIS! :)

[drkstrong]

@prikhod There is nothing so pathetic as someone who thinks they know something but does not. 2 sigma corresponds to about a 95% probability which means it is 95% of the time likely to be correct and only 5% of the time likely to be incorrect (relative areas under the Gaussain or bell curve - look it up)

Now the intersting thing is if you dont choose 1998 as your starting point but choose 1997, 1999 or 2000, then the significance goes over 3 sigma (99.7%) & the further back the bigger it gets

[prikhod]

@drkstrong: "95% probability which means it is 95% of the time likely to be correct and only 5%"

that's NONSENSE!!! It's nice you went out of your way to copy and paste the first thing you found... but again, you are showing complete lack of knowledge of statistics. This is not a stats class, but I suggest that you look into distribution of the mean, before you open your mouth on the subject.

[drkstrong]

@prikhod I have used statistics for the 40 years of my scientific career - do the analysis yourself if you dont believe me (oh that's right, it seems that the statistics lecturer doesnt know how).

[prikhod]

@drkstrong: sweetheart, i happen to co-found a successful company that *conveniently* specializes in statistics and data mining - expo-max, google it. Unless you have some sort of comparable credentials (which evidently you don't), I'm not interesting in listening to hot air from a fucking nobody.

[drkstrong]

@prikhod You CLAIM to have founded a business based on data mining - perhaps that doesnot mean you know anything about it. Lots of peopel start business and hire people to do the specialized work. My credentials: See "Many Faces of the Sun" and see who the lead author is.

[prikhod]

@drkstrong: I don't know how much you know about starting businesses, but I can tell you that 99% of the time you're end up doing 99% of the work yourself in your first year.

I looked at Mann's/CRU code from the emails. It stinks! We're running a large cluster processing terabytes of data in real time... compared to this, Mann's little "script" is a fucking joke tetris iPod app.

[drkstrong]

@prikhod I did look at the code - it was not Mann's BTW - I happen to have IDL on my home computer so I ran it - it does not work. It errored off so it was not operational code. Nice try but not even close, care to go for double or nothing?

[prikhod]

@drkstrong: "You CLAIM to have founded a business based... blah blah"

I sense some sort of doubt... Well my extension is 101, forwarded... so you can give me a call on my toll free line, JUST to settle this issue.

[drkstrong]

@prikhod Did you check out the book? Copncede that one?

[prikhod]

@drkstrong: You shouldn't be talking about stuff you don't understand...

[drkstrong]

@prikhod Again you need to show that you have the slightest inkling about physics, the Sun, statistics, ..... Just saying something is not so does not make it that way. You have to show proof.

Go analyze the dat like i just did and you'll see I (and Jones) is correct