Climate Change: Is the Science "Settled"?

(February 4, 2010) Stephen Schneider, professor of biology at Stanford and senior fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment, unpacks the political and scientific debates surrounding climate change.

This course was originally presented in Stanford's Continuing Studies program.

Stanford University:
http://www.stanford.edu/

Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford:
http://woods.stanford.edu/

Stanford Continuing Studies Program:
http://csp.stanford.edu/

Stanford University Channel on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/stanford

• Category

  Education

[cupera1]

look at the night shoot of North Korea and they have eartth hour every night 365

[Neal Kaye]

Everyone turn off the lights in your house for 1hr, 1 day per year. It won't actually do anything, but it will make sanctimonious liberals feel superior. And that's what it's all about.

[cupera1]

Are you referring to the lack of warming for the past 20 Years? The same lack of warming that will make 100% the AGW computer models fail

[baserocklove]

It sounds like you're talking about the "medieval warm period" from that stupid video that's going around.

Look up "positive feedback loop." There isn't a single scientist on earth that will claim that co2 is the only thing that effects surface temperature. Warming from natural causes releases co2 which creates a positive feedback loop that assists in the warming.

The current trend right now certainly does not show co2 lagging. This warming IS due to co2.

[cupera1]

Then why is the rise in CO2 lagging a few hundred years after the temperature starts to rise. We are seen the rising CO2 that accompanies the ending of the Little Ice age. We are still talking about a human hair or a sheet of paper on a mile long measuring stick.

[Anj Lawrence]

Water vapour however has a residence time of 9 days...and does not have a cooling effect.

Oddly enough, as temperature increases, the atmosphere can hold more water...but, it cannot start holding more water until the temperature increases...

With regard to clouds, the jury is still out on their cooling or warming effect, it largely depends on the type of cloud.

[cupera1]

Water vapor is the BIGGEST green house gas in the atmosphere Its affect is ~20X of CO2. Water Vapor has a wider absorbtion band, but not a higher absorbtion rate. There is so much more water vapor in the air that any other green house gas that it overwhelms any of CO2 or methane affects. With all that water in the air clouds have a greater affect and reflect the suns energy back into space cooling the planet.

[Jacob Slapinski]

It's not .0000000001%... Carbon Dioxide levels contribute to most natural warming effects. If you do the math on Carbon Dioxide's effect and the amount we are putting the the atmosphere compared to the amount in historic natural processes, you can see there's a 90% chance humans are causing most of the current trend.

[helltrackrider]

Exactly...

I think it is very narcissistic of any scientist to think that they can conclude, with accuracy, the amount of warming attributed to humans...then, it would have to be broken down to which humans - if this were the case, Governments would undoubtedly be the most abusive...not just in producing CO2 but in restricting the market place from innovation and progress towards a cleaner alternative.

[cupera1]

The big debate is: How much warming is due to humans VS natural forces. Is it a human hair, skeptics, or a sheet of paper, alarmists, on a mile long measuring stick? Is it worth spending 100 TRILLION over a over .000000001% or .0000000001% change due to humans