Climate Change 2of12: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Data

Lecture by Professor Richard Muller of the University California, Berkeley. Taken from Lectures 20 and 21 of the spring 2008 webcasts of Physics For Future Presidents. Also known as Descriptive Introduction to Physics. Emphasis is on conceptual understanding, rather than mathematics.

This lecture deals with the physics of climate change, the data on global temperature and carbon dioxide changes, and some potential solutions. Also covered are the many mistakes that can be made, including the trap of exaggeration. He warns against the danger of cherry picking and overstating the case. When people discover that the exaggerated case is not valid, they may dismiss the problem altogether. Professor Muller has researched this topic for many years and has co-authored a book with Gordon MacDonald called "Ice Ages and Astronomical Causes".

The reports of the IPCC are referenced much during this lecture. The full IPCC reports can be found here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm


This lecture can also be found here, along with many other lectures:
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978515

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• co2
• carbon
• dioxide
• atmosphere
• concentration
• ppm
• ipcc
• hockeystick

[InquiringMind63]

One thing not mentioned here is how can we be certain that this very small percentage of our atmosphere (CO2) is actually causing global warming. The truth is we don't know. These scientists are only speculating that it's true. There is no model in existence that proves this. (Venus is a extreme case. How much of it's atmosphere is CO2?) This is paving the way for a new economy called Carbon Trading. An economy for the rich. It will skyrocket our utility bills.

[theinquisitor]

This is covered later in the lecture. It's not speculation, it's physics. Without greenhouse gases, the planet would be too cold for life. The temperature that the Earth should be based on the distance from the Sun with no greenhouse warming does not match our actual temperature range. Even those who argue against the idea that global warming is a problem don't dispute the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

[InquiringMind63]

I see comments not proof. "It's physics"; "CO2 is a greenhouse gas"; "The temperature that the Earth should be based on the distance from the Sun with no greenhouse warming does not match our actual temperature range", where's your data to support these..."facts" of yours.

You're just making comments here. Besides isn't it more likely that nitrogen plays a bigger part in how comfortable the Earth is? I mean it makes up 70% of the atmosphere in stead of a tiny fraction of 1%. Come on....

[theinquisitor]

Yes comments are pretty much all I can make in a comment box. The data is being collected and analysed by scientists all over the world. Unless you want to set up your own global temperature measurement experiments then you really can't get the information first hand.

Regarding nitrogen, it's not a greenhouse gas. Yeah there's a lot more of it, but you might as well argue that the water in a pint of beer is what gets you drunk because most of the content of the drink isn't alcohol, but water.

[InquiringMind63]

You can show your references about the claims of CO2 being a greenhouse gas. That's what I want to see. NOT theories & conjecture on your part but cold scientific facts. I don't dispute the fact the world has been getting warmer. My problem is with the alleged cause being man made. IF global warming is caused by CO2 then explain how the Martian polar caps were receding at the same time ours were. Does our"greenhouse" gasses affect Mars too?

[theinquisitor]

Google: greenhouse effect demonstration, and you'll see from many of the results that the fact that CO2 has this effect on infrared radiation is even demonstrated by university students studying physics.

It's also necessary to explain why the Earth is the temperature that it is. The Earth's average temperature should be well below zero based on the incoming light and the reflectivity of the surface. Learn the physics and do the maths, and you'll win a nobel prize if you can show otherwise.

[anything4ai]

This guy explains GW as well as anyone I've yet heard. A big thanks for uploading all these great educational vids.

[kingmike40]

"Ever try to grow crops in the desert?"

Happens all of the time. I live in west Texas. Less than 10" of rain a year on average. We are one of the largest cotton growers on the earth. Crops grow in arizona, california, as long as they can get water. We can move food and people will move to where the food is. That happened in the dust bowl in the '30's.

[kingmike40]

China isn't poor with their 2 trillion in reserves and with their booming economy. India bought 200 tons of gold for 6.7 billion so they could afford to pay for the technology. I wasn't giving my opinion about climatology. I was referring to a comment the professor made about the US cutting back but the "poor" countries couldn't or won't. I think you missed my point. If the world is ending as we know it it would be a duty to every person on earth to cut back on co2.

[ronpaulbot]

If the US has technology to reduce CO2 emissions, but will not give it to China for free, is that ok?

I'm sure you know WAY more about global warming than this simpleton prof. I am waiting for your 12 part lecture series on climatology.

[gertomaniac]

Drastic? Rapid? Science is not saying this. Get the facts straights you alarmist.