Climate Change 1of12: The IPCC and Prior Climate Predictions

[mphello]

Keep in mind: there is an ENORMOUS difference between a scientist who examines all evidence, makes a prediction based on that evidence, and asserts it with a conviction proportional to its probability - then later, as more evidence comes in, changes or modifies their prediction

versus cherrypicking politically-driven deniers who scream absolute certainty for their beliefs (including beliefs re: political conspiracies) based on ZERO evidence, and who CONTINUE to deny even as more data rolls in

[mphello]

@mphello .. that destroys the deniers' original beliefs.

Science and real serious scientists are self-correcting. Deniers are not.

Muller has been a denier too long, falsely attacking other scientists who had already done all the objective analysis long ago and proved AGW ten times over.

It's too late for him to make amends.

[1000frolly]

@mphello After initializing and parametrizing hundreds of unknown factors,inserting divergent proxy data and ignoring any difficult natural forcing factors,we ran hundreds of simulations until we obtained the results we wanted–an ensemble of meaningless projected results,which we then averagedWe utilized the liberally unprincipled component method to homogenize and sensitize it to produce a new hockey stick,which gave a prediction 95% probability that we are totally screwing all of you

[mphello]

@1000frolly Obviously you don't know shit about how true computer modeling is done. You just make up lies.

By contrast, the deniers use circular reasoning by assuming everything the coal-oil billionaires tell them is absolute truth and then concluding that it is.

I hope you support freeing every single prisoner in the USA because there is ZERO proof ANYone held hostage in prison has ever committed a crime.

[1000frolly]

@mphello

Ýou are right, I don't know a lot about computer models, but I do know when I'm being screwed.

[luvbotany]

I guess Dr Muller changed his mind. So... who is left that doubts man made climate change????

[warrenichols]

wind goes thru CO2, it doesn't thru Seran wrap. Bad comparison.

[david222444]

The theory that man changes the climate is laughable nonsense.

[klnine]

crap !! Missed the plot !

[1voice1man]

More Richard Muller lectures!! Please! I've seen all his stuff and I need more, thanks Inquisitor!

[david222444]

@1voice1man see climategate hide the decline explained by richard muller on youtube.

[klnine]

compltee bozo needs to have the you tube police lock him up !

[tubercoloris]

Who is this bozo? He does not know shit about climate so who is he lecturing to?

Climatic GH effect is based on blocking out-going long wave radiation not preventing hot air rising.

This is either gross INCOMPETENCE or plain LIES. Make up your own mind.

[theinquisitor]

Or it could be you're misunderstanding the point of the demonstration.

I don't think it's intended to be an accurate model of the climate, it's just an analogy. Just as the term "greenhouse effect" is used to describe a mechanism that is actually quite different from the way that greenhouses retain their heat. He knows this, he's a bloody physicist.

If I'd known so many people would miss the point and use it as an excuse to dismiss 2 hours of material, I'd have left it out.

[tubercoloris]

The point is quite clear. The first thing he says is "we have climate change right here" and then shows something which has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. It's a deception.

Since I'm also a "bloody physicist" I know this is a deception. But most of his untrained audience and your audience here don't.

Sadly there now seems to be a significant number of scientists who seems to think lying is acceptable.

This is not science it's politics.

[theinquisitor]

If you'd watched the rest of the lecture, you'd know that he goes on to describe the mechanism of greenhouse warming in detail.

If his intent was to deceive with this demonstration, then why would he go on to give his students everything they need in order to show that the demonstration is not an accurate model?

Kind of a stupid way to deceive people isn't it? Lie to them and then explain how to see through the lie.

[inbornFiction]

@theinquisitor nevermind the unfounded critics.. i'm sure something got through their thickboned skulls and the tendency for distrust may as well become a healthy skepticism gowing into a greater insight in the imperfection of all mankind in explaining the workings of climate or whatever else us siblings of the earth may come up with..

[tubercoloris]

Stopping hot air convection is not the base of climatic greenhouse effect . This is bullshit.

[EC0N0MY7]

A more valid experiment would be to get 2 very large aquariums. Put an equal amount of soil and plants in each one. In tank 1, put an atmosphere containing 0.038% CO2 (todays level). In the other put a 0.033% concentration (pre industrial). Seal both and put them in the garden for a week. Then take a temperature reading to see if there is any difference between the 2.

[EC0N0MY7]

Are the other 11 parts as boring as this?

[QuantumLeap365]

The IPCCs controversial chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, described as "the worlds top climate scientist", is a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics and no formal climate science qualifications...

[theinquisitor]

Who describes him as that?

Anyway, the conclusions of the IPCC don't rest on the opinions of the chairman. He's just an administrator. So what?

As I understand it, the IPCC doesn't do it's own research, it merely reports on the conclusions of the scientific community.

Your implication is that we should listen to the scientists, not non-experts. I would agree with that. And the opinion of the scientific community leans heavily in the direction that the IPCC advocates. Doesn't it?

[cthulhu11111111]

the saran wrap would become all sticky and full of rockets

[giptonsilly]

Thats what is known as bullshit

[Plectognath]

Obviously an open aquarium compared to a closed one will be substantially warmer. In order to be fair, he should cover one with plastic wrap and the other with plastic wrap that is 5% thicker.

[TheMarkNessMonster]

This doesn't prove that global warming exists. This only proves that you can make a glass tank warmer by covering it with saran wrap. To the professor's credit, if we covered the entire Earth in a film of saran wrap, we certainly would be getting warmer. We would also all die eventually because there wouldn't be any renewable oxygen resources left to circulate around the globe. This guy is a fraud. You can't prove global warming by making a snake's tank hotter with a 'simulated sun'.

[theinquisitor]

TheMarkNessMonster, are you saying that you don't think CO2 is a greenhouse gas? I'm not sure what your criticism is. Are you denying the greenhouse effect?

If it weren't for the greenhouse effect, then temperature of most of the Earth's surface would be below freezing, and it isn't. The plastic is supposed to represent the way that CO2 reflects the sunlight back into the atmosphere after it bounces from the surface. More CO2 means more trapped heat. Where do you get your information?

[TheMarkNessMonster]

Not at all, OP. I'm simply stating that you can't label CO2 as something that's going to destroy the inhabitants of the earth when there is no evidence to show that humans ALONE (which is what is claimed in your arguments and this professors, I've read up on him)are the cause of the earth warming. Also, you know where these scientists take their measurements of temperature? At the bottom of the ocean, near areas where volcanic activity takes place...making the water warmer than other places.

[TheMarkNessMonster]

Which means that according to these scientists research, the evidence that supports our global climate change that humans caused is located at the bottom of the ocean? How does that make sense? The truth is, it doesn't. And I know it's more complicated a process than licking your finger and sticking it in the air. If you study meterological history, the studies(which can date back as far as the late 1800's)are contrary IN ALL aspects to the global warming research done in the past 10 years.

[TheMarkNessMonster]

Furthermore, if you read up on your political and cultural history of the past 60-80 years, you'll find in Time Magazine in an April 1964 issue(which I found and purchased to validate this argument years ago)that there was the same amount of pandemonium caused by scientists finding 'evidence' of a global 'cooling' that is taking place, and were afraid we were headed to a new ice age. So we're to believe that 50 years later, the globe warmed up that much that quickly? This planet has been ---

[TheMarkNessMonster]

---changing climates over it's already 65+billion year old existence, and humans have been on the earth for what, only 100,000 years? Not even that much? How is it, that with all the other animal and plant population, WE are the SOLE cause of global warming when 50-60 years ago we thought we were the SOLE cause of just the exact opposite? Go ask your professor, I'm sure he has some sort of tank experiment to explain his 'scientific' contradictions away.

[theinquisitor]

What is your source for the claim that temperature readings were all taken near undersea volcanoes? I've never heard that. My understanding was that they measured sea surface temperature as well as atmospheric temperature. Back up your claims please.

The reason that our release of CO2 is a plausible cause for warming, is that it took millions of years for the carbon in fossil fuels to accumulate from the CO2 in the air, and we're now releasing much of that back in mere decades.

[theinquisitor]

Regarding the earlier predictions about global cooling, that was at a time when our climate models were more primitive and we had less data. Science gets better as more data comes in so it's inevitably going to be less accurate the further back you go.

You might as well argue that the big bang is wrong because scientists used to accept the steady state theory. Muller discusses this later in the lecture, which I recommend you watch in full before dismissing it out of hand.

[theinquisitor]

What I want to know is, do you dispute the claim that the majority of climate scientists agree on the causes of global warming?

I'm not a climate scientist, and I'm guessing you're not either. Given that, we're not qualified to interpret the vast amounts of data that have been generated.

Call me an elitist if you want, but you don't ask 100 mechanics what's wrong with your car, hear 99 of them tell you the same thing, and then listen to the one guy who says something different.

[lemdixon01]

1 guy (Micheal Man and bribed bureaucrats of the IPCC) and 99 men say climate change is a fraud (30,000 climate scientist who sign petition). Computer models don't prove anything so shut up with this religious, political ideology that man made climate change has been revealed as a hoax.

[360pi]

@TheMarkNessMonster

"You can't prove global warming by making a snake's tank hotter with a 'simulated sun'"

You're right, this is not even close to a scientific proof. But this isn't a scientific class. If you click on the OP's link, you can find a course description: "The most interesting and important topics in physics, stressing conceptual understanding rather than math, with applications to current events."

[360pi]

In other words, this is an undergraduate-level survey course for people without mathematical backgrounds. And I'm sorry to say, but a strong grounding in mathematics really is necessary to understand the science behind the arguments for (and against!) climate change. Without the math, you must rely on these kinds of weak analogies that the general lay-public is unfortunately always exposed to.

[360pi]

@TheMarkNessMonster

"if we covered the entire Earth in a film of saran wrap, we certainly would be getting warmer. We would also all die eventually because there wouldn't be any renewable oxygen resources left to circulate around the globe."

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Even if the Earth was surrounded by a layer of saran wrap, plants would still continue to convert CO2 into O2 for us to breathe.

[acr08807]

The Saran Wrap would eventually melt.

[FreeAgain2]

How do gases handle heat?

[theboombody]

I'd flunk any assignment on global warming, but I don't care. Global warming means nothing to me. Real or fake, big deal. Got other things to worry about, like making bean cartoons no one watches.

[theinquisitor]

"Global warming means nothing to me. Real or fake, big deal"

Big deal? Assuming that your age on your profile is accurate and you intend to live a few more decades, you should be worried if it is real and the more dire predictions turn out correct. If coastal cities are flooded and the temperate areas become deserts, I think you'll care then. If you have kids or plan to, then you owe it to them to at least know what kind of world they're likely to grow up in because of apathetic twats.

[theboombody]

I have at least a hint of nihilism in me. Plus a better species will evolve to replace ours anyway. No big deal. I'd prefer to live without discomfort, but, oh well...No big deal in the big picture.

[TheMarkNessMonster]

Sorry OP, it just doesn't appear that you are making a credible argument, just regurgitating someone else's opinion and mock-science evidence to illustrate a rather exaggerated theory that ends up costing taxpayers billions of dollars every when there is no solid scientific unbiased documented evidence to agreeably support these theories. Even the IPCC was audited and proved to be wrong in their claims of the numbers of agreeing scientists, which was a GROSS exaggeration in order to get votes.

[theinquisitor]

"the IPCC was audited and proved to be wrong in their claims of the numbers of agreeing scientists"

Source please?

Also, why not watch the whole lecture rather than dismiss it after the first 10 minutes, if you even got that far?

Forget the example with the tank. If I thought people would assume that was an attempt to accurately model the climate, then I would have left it out. It's not.

Criticise the actual substance of the arguments and evidence given in the 2 hour lecture.

[bluegsp]

sounds like a third grade teacher, guess the students of Burkley are pretty stupid. But then they would have to be to buy this crap

[theinquisitor]

This "third grade teacher" is an award winning physicist. I notice you don't even bother to watch any more than the first part (if that) before making a comment that has all the intellectual content of "nuh uh". Care to make an actual critique of the evidence being presented?

[bluegsp]

Yeah, yeah, Algore and Yassar Arafat won awards too, so did sean penn for milk, that nobody watched. Awards don't impress me. An incovienent truth was a pack of lies, Arafat was a terrorist, and penn is an angry liberal(he does play a good retard though) No, after his "barbie doll theory of global warming" I recognised the crap and stepped around it

[theinquisitor]

bluegsp, if you would actually watch the lecture, you'd find out that Professor Muller actually criticises Al Gore for exaggerating the problem. Gore has done significant damage to the argument in this way, giving deniers the ability to point at that movie and deny the whole thing because of the actions of one politician. Your comments are a perfect example of the damage he has done. Forget Gore, listen to the scientists. What expertise do you have that allows you to dismiss them so readily?

[yuothineyesasian]

Wow excellent refutation. Maybe I'll listen to you. You seem to have tons of facts, evidence, and sound logical footing in your argument.

Not to mention all of your illustrious awards and Phd's and degrees from ivy league universities. I don't know why I ever believed what these eneducated, liars had to say. They aren't even distinguished scientists such as yourself.

I'd bet their IQ isn't even half of what yours is.

Yes sir you've made a skeptic out of me...

[bluegsp]

I'm glad I could help. by the way, "uneducated" begins with the letter "U", not "E". easy mistake to make though. isn't learning fun?

[EC0N0MY7]

LOL !

[JonThm]

On suns nuclear fusion happesn on the surface, where turbeulnce is maximised, not in the core, at highest pressure.

[JonThm]

The deep sea produces light flashes, as it does a little molecular nuclear fusion QED.

[theinquisitor]

Jon, this is utterly ridiculous. Fusion is an extremely energetic process. If the pressure in the deep sea was sufficient to induce fusion, it would be like setting off a million H bombs all over the sea floor.

The reason the sun shines is because it's gravity is strong enough to induce nuclear fusion. If the pressures at the sea floor were sufficent to do this, every planet in the solar system would be a star. You're amazingly wrong. Stop repeating yourself or I'll block you. I don't like spam

[JonThm]

The energy to overcome to get over the stroing atomic force is large! So we need hgih pressure water or steam in turbuelnt flow. THe simplest way on Earth, is burn gas. THe turbuelnce of teh flame does it for one atom in a million, which is still huge! This is my PhD area. It took me three yearts to accept molecular nuclear fusion is al laround us, and in us, as our hearts beat. You can take you pulse with a GEiger counter.

[conielo]

his demonstration isn't really great... putting a cover on that tank prevents the hot air from physically moving out of the tank making it heat up.... it doesn't act like GHGs which absorb the energy radiated back off the earth....

[citimeta]

That's right. The lid was put on to prevent CONVECTION that is releasing heat to the surroundings. It has nothing to do with the greenhouse gas effect produced by CO2. It's a shame that a professor took a convenient but scientifically incorrect experiment to demonstrate the GHG effect.

[theinquisitor]

Indeed. It's the same effect with a different cause. The term greenhouse effect itself can be misleading.

I doubt it would be possible to create a demonstration that used the same methods as the real atmosphere, so the only alternative would have been to have no demonstration at all.

I hope this hasn't given anyone the idea that he doesn't know what he's talking about. This wasn't part of the formal lecture, but the pre-lecture warmup (no pun intended). Perhaps I should have left it out.

[JonThm]

The sea does nuclear fusion from high pressure water - hence its production of He, O and gamam rays: Without it, there would be no life on Earth. But I thought only idiots didn't know that!

[theinquisitor]

"The sea does nuclear fusion from high pressure water"

Riiiight. That's why the sea floor glows as bright as the sun isn't it? I rest my case.

[JonThm]

THe sea gives out He, O and gamma waves, and 25% of the heat the Earth gets. The deep does produce light flashes! Like sono luminescence.

[JonThm]

The world started cooling in 2005.

[theinquisitor]

"The world started cooling in 2005"

There are always small fluctuations. You have to look at the long-term trend. Never mind the fact that all the national academies of science of the major industrialised countries have a peer-reviewed consensus on this.

I don't know where you get your information from Jon, but since you are under the impression that boiling water can induce nuclear fusion I have serious doubts about your scientific literacy.

[JonThm]

The world has been cooling for 4 years: This is no perbation! The world weather has 28 year cycles. Nuclear Power treid to use this fact to get new plants. Didn't work. Onyl theri stooges try to pretend GW was ever real!

[JonThm]

Totally wrong.

[JonThm]

Scientists predicted an ice age in the 70s, and only pushed News Weeks 'Global Warming' as the money dried up!

[Henrin]

this is a really good lecture, will watch it all.

just want to point out that to the left of IPCC it looks like the phrase "cherry fucking" is written :P

( I realize it might be something else)

[Guncriminal]

Haha. I noticed that too. Good lecture though- science-based and unbiased.