Climate Change 1of12: The IPCC and Prior Climate Predictions

Playlist for this lecture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyuKOtIryis&feature=PlayList&p=0C2FA8A...

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:

• physics
• temperature
• greenhouse
• effect
• global
• warming
• carbon
• dioxide
• co2
• ipcc
• charles
• keeling

[Frankieboy2008]

Here are some FACTS about CO2.

CO2 has a high density compared to other gases in our atmosphere, this is very important and good because it makes it possible for grass and plants, which needs co2 for it's photosynthesis, to grow. (so not a lid) Our atmosphere consist of 78% Nitrogen 21% Oxygene and about 0.036-0.039% CO2. It is actually quite simple to setup an experiment to show the impact CO2 has on heat. The thermal conductivity of CO2 is about 0.016 W / mol x K. N2 and O2 has about 0.026.

[theinquisitor]

@Frankieboy2008 it's not about thermal conductivity. There's a whole lot of empty SPACE between Earth and the Sun so it's not like the Sun heats us by conduction dumbass. It's the way CO2 reflects infra-red light that's the problem. It's called the greenhouse effect and I learned about it in school. It's not hard to understand. Read up and then be embarrassed.

[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.

[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)

[1000frolly]

@mphello

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

[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 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]

@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.

[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