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

Author: Jon Hays Phd.  /  Category: Science Global Warming

science global warming 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.

Duration : 0:52:14


Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Tags: , , , , ,

24 Responses to “Global Warming — The Current Status: The Science, the Scandal, the Prospects for a Treaty”

  1. AmericaSpeakOut1 Says:

    The problem with ” …
    The problem with “model experiments” is that they demonstrate the assumptions of those designing them. In recent years, quite a lot of “reality” has demonstrated that the models have been wrong.

    ACRIM is interesting when compared to PMOD, for example, which is the same data adjusted to “models” for sensor decay. PMOD, the basis for some climate alarmism, showed solar decline as the Earth warmed. It was later learned that the model, and assumptions, were simply wrong. Many “reports” later.

  2. AmericaSpeakOut1 Says:

    Sombre Lake, Signy …
    Sombre Lake, Signy Island, Antarctica

    Primarily summer climatic conditions were inferred from a record preserved in authigenic carbonate retrieved from sediments of Sombre Lake on Signy Island, maritime Antarctica. The Medieval Warm Period (AD 1130-1215) was warmer than the Current Warm Period. (The Holocene 13: 251-263)

    And so on.

  3. AmericaSpeakOut1 Says:

    That is not …
    That is not accurate. Recent studies of Antarctica show that the MCO was warmer than today.

    Antarctica

    “ice was at or behind its present position at ca. 700-970 cal. yr B.P,” implying that “the present state of reduced ice on the western Antarctic Peninsula is not unprecedented,” which means that this period was at least as warm as, or likely even warmer than, the peak warmth of the Current Warm Period. (Geology 38: 635-638)

  4. philfromearth Says:

    Cont.  This is a …
    Cont.  This is a quote from Moberg et al from the study in ’05. greater multicentennial variability could be due to natural (solar and volcanic) forcing larger than previously thought. However, model experiments indicate that the recent warming is unlikely to be due to natural forcing alone. As with the other reconstructions, regardless of the proxy data used, this reconstruction indicates that the temperatures of the last two decades are warmer than any other period in the past two millennia.

  5. philfromearth Says:

    I see that but, …
    I see that but, look at the NOAA Paleoclimatology temperature data. You can see the curve leading up to and leaving the MCO.is not as steep as the up hill climb after the start of the Industrial Revolution. Around 1970 it really took off steeply upward. The ACRIM data doesn’t go back far enough to get a pattern. I don’t deny that the data is sound, the hypothesis may prove out in time but I’m not sold. Cont.

  6. AmericaSpeakOut1 Says:

    Phil, here’s a …
    Phil, here’s a chart of ACRIM data:

    ACRIM Solar data shows mid-90s warming, recent solar cooling
    acrim . com/TSI%20Monitoring.htm

    Notice that the cooling cycle did not go as low in the 1990s as usual, so the Earth did not have a chance to cool as much. The overall increase in solar output is what brought an end to the Little Ice Age around 1880. The Earth is thawing but not yet as warm as it was during the Medieval Climate Optimum, about 1000 years ago.

  7. AmericaSpeakOut1 Says:

    The climate scam is …
    The climate scam is off scientists who have some integrity…

    Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society. Climate Science completely corrupted by money from joining the “warming” scam
    wattsupwiththat . com/2010/10/16/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society
    

  8. AmericaSpeakOut1 Says:

    Nobel laureate Ivar …
    Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever resigns from American Physical Society. Disgusted over the group’s promotion of man-made global warming fears
    climatedepot . com/a/12797/Exclusive-Nobel-PrizeWinning-Physicist-Who-Endorsed-Obama-Dissents-Resigns-from-American-Physical-Society-Over-Groups-Promotion-of-ManMade-Global-Warming

  9. seeheers Says:

    35:05
    35:05

  10. libalchris Says:

    Anyone else read …
    Anyone else read into Muller’s work on the astronomical theory for the cause of the regular-occurring glacial periods? Heck has anybody looked at the data on these regular-occurring glacial periods? I’d be scarred, but I’ll be dead by then anyways so it doesn’t really matter. wish I could be around to see it though… I’d love to see whether or not the human race will be able to deal with such a massive ice age that should come about in the next few thousand years.

  11. tarstarkusz Says:

    The upside to all …
    The upside to all this is that I don’t believe the Chinese can grow at 10% a year for then next 21 years.That would make it a 64T economy(In today’s dollars), the current GDP of the entire world. Exponential growth gets exponentially harder and harder and they are already having problems.

  12. mmille10 Says:

    Right. We’re not …
    Right. We’re not decreasing CO2 emissions. We’re just moving them out of sight and out of mind.

  13. tarstarkusz Says:

    Dr Muller really …
    Dr Muller really dodged that last question. The questioner was right, we have sent manufacturing to china, so they emit all the co2, but we are the ones using the end products that China created co2 to manufacture. SO when china makes cement and emits a ton of co2 and then sends the cement here, we are the ones responsible for that co2.

  14. Viracocha711 Says:

    NO, increasing …
    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!!

  15. Viracocha711 Says:

    Folks who deny …
    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!!!

  16. Mandems96 Says:

    those 14 dis-likes …
    those 14 dis-likes
    GO 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

  17. 1000frolly Says:

    After initializing …
    After initializing and parameterizing 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 averaged. We homogenized, adjusted and used the liberally unprincipled component method, and produced a new set of hockey sticks, giving a very robust prediction (95% confidence) that we are all being totally screwed

  18. evangrogers Says:

    I bet you could get …
    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.

  19. TheSnoopy1750 Says:

    So now let’s not do …
    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?

  20. evangrogers Says:

    He said it himself …
    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.

  21. evangrogers Says:

    The entire point …
    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.

  22. evangrogers Says:

    Whoa whoa whoa


    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”

  23. TheSnoopy1750 Says:

    So now that Muller …
    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.

  24. JonThm Says:

    Make water, save …
    Make water, save lives

Leave a Reply