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

Global Warming -- The Current Status: The Science, the Scandal, the Prospects for a Treaty
Speaker/Performer: Richard Muller, Professor, Dept. of Physics, UC Berkeley
Abstract:
Recent events in the field of climate change have confused both the public and many "experts." I will try to elucidate what has been happening. Two out of three climate groups show no global warming for the past 13 years. What does that mean? Why does the third group (led by Jim Hansen) disagree? Why was there no treaty at Copenhagen? (It wasn't political, but technical!) Why do we hear so little about the Copenhagen follow-up meeting, this December in Cancun? What really happened in the Climategate scandal? How serious are the mistakes that embarrassed the IPCC (e.g. their claim that the Himalayas might melt in a few decades, subsequently retracted)? How reliable are the predictions of future global warming? (Pretty reliable, in my opinion.) I will attempt to give a non-partisan analysis.

------
Richard A. Muller began his career as a graduate student under Nobel laureate Luis Alvarez doing particle
physics experiments and working with bubble chambers. His work has included attempting to understand the ice ages, dynamics at the core-mantle boundary, patterns of extinction and biodiversity through time, and the processes associated with impact cratering. "His "Physics for Future Presidents" series of lectures, in which Muller teaches a synopsis of modern qualitative (i.e. without resorting to complicated math) physics, has been published in book form.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• CITRIS
• i4energy
• Research
• Science
• Technology
• Global Warming

[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!!

[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!!!

[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

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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"

[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.

[JonThm]

Make water, save lives