How Do We Know? Physics, Forcings, and Fingerprints

The National Science Foundation asks: How do we know the climate is changing? Is it just part of a natural cycle, or are humans driving the change? Richard Alley, glaciologist and professor of geosciences at Pennsylvania State University, leads a discussion with some of the worlds leading climate scientists. Join Alley and his panel as they explore these questions, laying out the line of reasoning that has led the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and many other scientific groups to conclude that humans are very likely the cause of the majority of current warming. This lively exploration into the fundamentals of climate change gives us a glimpse into the treasure trove of the deep past to see what might lie ahead in a warmer world.

Category:

Education

[jq747]

...And now looking at the vid, I see Richard Alley is even goofier looking than Roger XD But I guess climate change must be right, since they use funny sound effects.

[jq747]

The first time I viewed this vid, I actually listened to it while looking at something else. I fully thought the guy speaking was Roger from "American Dad". LOL

[starrdreams]

@rusty1491

NAS said about some uncertainties. But NAS didn't say this graph is wrong.

They note, that despite those uncertainties, the key conclusions reached by those studies (i.e., that hemispheric-scale warmth in recent decades is likely unprecedented over at last the past millennium) have been substantiated by many other studies, and the confidence in those conclusions appears greater after nearly an additional decade of research.

For more. Google "National Academies Synthesis Report"

[rusty1491]

@starrdreams I've have and the NAS even states Michael Mann understates the uncertainties and his methods were flawed when creating the graph. I'm curious what charges will be filed against Prof Jones after next month's independent review. I personally think they'll pity him and only fine him and ask him to permanently step down.

[starrdreams]

@rusty1491 Chart @10:58 is not a fabrication. Really - do your research.

[BeondaPale]

Both are in the graph - LOOK!! You can pretend not to see them if you want, it wont change the FACT that they are represented.

You (an anonymous youtube poster) say unequiviically that there will be "at worst" a 0.5 degree increase and expect to be taken seriously. Unequivical knowlege in science is pretty hard to come by. On what do you base such certainty

You lied when you said the graph was fabricated - it was not

You lied when you said it was debunked - it was not

[rusty1491]

Where's the little ice-age, where's the medieval warm period in this validated graph? There has been push to overblow data by a small group of environmental extremists in climatology. There will be at worst a 0.5 degree C increase in temperature if CO2 were doubled right now. Even this figure may be too high. What have I lied about and what ignorance am I pushing?

[BeondaPale]

Liar, pusher of ignorance - the national research council validated it.

[deprofundis442]

@rusty1491

The graph has been reafirmed by NAS with more recent and corrected data, IIRC (might have been AAAS). Look up greenman's climate crock video series on youtube. I believe he has a video about it with links to the published update.

[rusty1491]

I misspoke in my last reply thinking it was you who posted the video. I apologize about that, but really do you think the chart @10:58 is not a fabrication? Did it ever dawn on you that it is really you being political and unthinking? You accepted a falsified chart as truth without even doing an internet search of the true temperature data.

I agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, I'm just pointig out the chicken little antics.