Climate Change YouTube video

[seayakin]

This video seemed pretty balanced and focused on the science. I've thought about using it to direct undergraduate students to some of the basic science related to climate change. I don't know what others think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo

[TShaitanaku]

Though the presentation is fairly representative of some of the most predominant scientific arguments. The primary flaw I see is that it tries a bit too hard to portray the arguments as roughly equivilant in terms of support and weight of both relevent field scientists and the weight of evidence.

[shadron]

It might be important to note that potholer54's video doesn't stand alone - it is one of a series of videos on climate, currently numbering four.

2. Climate Change -- the objections: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSVoxwYrKI

3 - Climate Change anatomy of a myth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms

4 - Climate Change: Gore vs. Durkin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2B34sO7HPM

Another source of climate change videos is greenman3610's series called the Climate Denial Crock of the Week: http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

[macdoc]

The first one in particular should be useful to you and is very up to date

These are all mainstream climate science sources*

Climate book - new and very up to date - worth the time
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf

Background
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

Good explanation carbon cycle and atmosphere
http://wufs.wustl.edu/pathfinder/path201_07/notes/notes_11_13_07.htm

Basics for atmosphere
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7o.html

Greenhouse
http://www.natcap.org/sitepages/pid66.php

[portlandatheist]

Thanks for the links

[Poptech]

There are extensive videos on the subject:

Bjorn Lomborg: Our priorities for saving the world (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs) (Video) (17min) (Bjørn Lomborg, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics)
John R. Christy: Global Warming - What Do The Numbers Show? (http://youtube.com/watch?v=-WWpH0lmcxA) (Video) (65min) (John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences)
Patrick J. Michaels: Climate of Extremes (http://fora.tv/2009/03/12/Climate_of_Extremes) (Video) (60min) (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology)
R. Tim Patterson: Global Warming - Some Real Science (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8668666223073644839&hl=en) (Video) (33min) (R. Tim Patterson, Ph.D. Professor of Earth Science)
Robert M. Carter: Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1326937617167558947) (Video) (36min) (Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences)
Roy W. Spencer: Global Warming: Manmade Mess or Nature's Norm? (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9hovu_dr-roy-spencer-global-warming_tech) (Video) (63min) (Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. Former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA)

20/20: Give Me a Break: Global Warming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEJ5pHVKjiI) (Video) (8min)
Apocalypse? No! (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5206383248165214524) (Video) (1hr 26min)
BS! - Environmental Hysteria (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=2028375596) (Video) (29min)
BS! - Being Green (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1325805851224851246) (Video) (28min)
CBC: Doomsday Called Off (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295) (Video) (44min)
Climate Catastrophe Cancelled (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4468713209160533271) (Video) (25min)
CNN: Exposed: The Climate of Fear (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7221788764767175476&q=glenn-beck+climate) (Video) (42min)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=288952680655100870) (Video) (1hr 14min)
Unstoppable Solar Cycles (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF_2bP9n3R0) (Video) (10min)
What is Normal? A Critique of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Theory (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2827010454587416316&hl=en) (Video) (55min)

[BenBurch]

More swill linkspam, bolded to make it look significant.

[Poptech]

ROFLMAO, yes of course if others post links to videos that is ok but when I do it, it is "link spam". Your bias is evident Ben.

[portlandatheist]

Poptech,
Did you watch the videos in the OP and if so, care to comment on those videos?

[Poptech]

That video is very misleading.

The satellite temperature corrections are not what he claims as they still disagree with "adjusted" surface measurements. The satellite measurements are actually much lower and show a much milder warming trend since the 1970s. Least of all do they validate the worthless climate models which are nothing more than a complex mathematical exercise that will always show (in virtual reality) an increase in CO2 forcing causing an increase in temperature.

The fact that CO2 lags temperatures is overwhelming and the nonsense that some sort of feedback loop is invoked is not substantiated. Based on this logic the planet should have went into a runaway greenhouse long ago.

He also misleads about Greenland "melting" and Antarctica which is cooling.

[DC]

That video is very misleading.

The satellite temperature corrections are not what he claims as they still disagree with "adjusted" surface measurements. The satellite measurements are actually much lower and show a much milder warming trend since the 1970s. Least of all do they validate the worthless climate models which are nothing more than a complex mathematical exercise that will always show (in virtual reality) an increase in CO2 forcing causing an increase in temperature.

The fact that CO2 lags temperatures is overwhelming and the nonsense that some sort of feedback loop is invoked is not substantiated. Based on this logic the planet should have went into a runaway greenhouse long ago.

He also misleads about Greenland "melting" and Antarctica which is cooling.

source of the peer reviewed paper that learned you that?

[DC]

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/2672/gletscherfc0.jpg

soon we can play, find the glacier....

[Poptech]

There is extensive scientific evidence against the alarmist conclusions concerning Greenland and Antarctica...

Greenland:
Current Melting of Greenland's Ice Mimics 1920s-1940s Event (http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/grnlndice.htm) (Ohio State University)
ERS Altimeter Survey Shows Growth of Greenland Ice Sheet Interior (http://www.esa.int/esaEO/SEMILF638FE_planet_0.html) (European Space Agency)
Fossil DNA Proves Greenland Once Had Lush Forests; Ice Sheet Is Surprisingly Stable (http://www.science.ku.dk/english/news/060707/) (University of Copenhagen, Denmark)
Greenland's Glaciers Have Been Receding for 100 Years (http://science.au.dk/en/news-and-events/news-article/article/new-research-greenlands-glaciers-have-been-receding-for-100-years/) (University of Aarhus, Denmark)
Greenland Ice Sheet Changes Are Normal; No Evidence Of Long-Term Climate Changes (http://web.missouri.edu/%7Enews/releases/augsept00/icesheet.html) (University Of Missouri-Columbia)
Intensified Ice Sheet Movements Do Not Affect Rising Sea Levels (http://www.uu.nl/EN/Current/Pages/Intensifiedicesheetmovementsdonotaffectrisingseale vels.aspx) (Utrecht University, The Netherlands)

Antarctica:
Antarctic Temperatures Disagree With Climate Model Predictions (http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/anttemps.htm) (Ohio State University)
Ice Core 'Dipstick' Indicates West Antarctic Ice Has Thinned Less Than Believed (http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleid=9129) (University of Washington)
No Major Changes Seen In Stability Of Antarctic Ice Sheet (http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/satice1.htm) (Ohio State University)
Pondering A Climate Conundrum In Antarctica; Unique, Distinct Cooling Trend Discovered On Earth's Southernmost Continent (http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/02/pr0203.htm) (National Science Foundation)
Scientists Detect Thickening Of West Antarctic Ice Sheet (http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/3913) (University Of California Santa Cruz)
Scientists Rule Out One Threat Of Antarctic Collapse (http://www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=499&SnID=2) (Rice University)
The Antarctic deep sea gets colder (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-04/haog-tad042108.php) (Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research)

Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25349683-11949,00.html) (The Australian)
Ice shelves stable over six years (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25648336-30417,00.html) (The Australian)
Antarctic sea ice increasing: study (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/23/2550456.htm) (ABC News, Australia)
Satellites Show Overall Increases In Antarctic Sea Ice Cover (http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820southseaice.html) (NASA)

[aleCcowaN]

Was the ABC News Australia's article peer reviewed by Sixty Minutes New Zealand?

[DC]

care to explain to me how this article is supporting your "point"?

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/grnlndice.htm

[macdoc]

snip from article PT supplied....and noted above....

Their evidence reinforces the belief that glaciers and other bodies of ice are exquisitely hyper-sensitive to climate change and bolsters the concern that rising temperatures will speed the demise of that island's ice fields, hastening sea level rise.strange that....:garfield:

•••

addendum from the same spam of scrapings for any sort of "case"...

...my my how "current"

1/23/98 NO MAJOR CHANGES SEEN IN STABILITY OF ANTARCTIC ICE SHEET


http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/satice1.htm

[Poptech]

care to explain to me how this article is supporting your "point"?
I only care about the data not the alarmist conclusions.

They found that the effects of the current warming and melting of Greenland 's glaciers that has alarmed the world's climate scientists occurred in the decades following an abrupt warming in the 1920s.

[macdoc]

Data without knowledge is a fish with a bicycle....:garfield:

[Poptech]

Data without alarmist conclusions is data. So Greenland glaciers melting like they did in 1920 (which did not cause any noticeable rise in sea level) is now cause for alarm? Nope.

[DC]

I only care about the data not the alarmist conclusions.

cool that you have the adequate education and knowledge to have your own conclusion from that data, i havent.

on cold days i wonder where that Global Warming is, on hot days i know it.

Nothing alarmist found in the article, its actually a good article.
not alarmist at all.

[DC]

But after seeing your tactics of cherry picking some stuff and denying other stuff, i must conclude, yes indeed it belongs into the CT section.

when you dnt care about possible climate changes and possible influences by our own way of life, so be it, have funn.
but leave alone the scientists and people that actually do care about it.

[Poptech]

Sorry I am not going to leave alone people creating alarm that is not based on the whole story let alone science.

Is the Sky Really Falling? A Review of Recent Global Warming Scare Stories (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa576.pdf) (PDF) (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology)

[DC]

pointing out some alarms that are over the top or factual errors and lies like from Al Gore are not wrong and very welcome, they enhance the debate and make it more honest.

But you are close to a denial, whish is not based on any sciene at all, but just some cherry picked data you can use while ignoring huge amounts of data you cannot use for the denial.

[DC]

When one is yelling, my house is on fire, while only one cooking pot in his kitchen is on fire. Does that mean there is no danger in his house? and he has nothing to worry about? or does not need any action?

[Wangler]

I didn't watch any of those videos, as videos posted on Youtube aren't guaranteed to be peer-reviewed.

[Wangler]

on cold days i wonder where that Global Warming is, on hot days i know it.

You were kidding here, right?

[Wangler]

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/2672/gletscherfc0.jpg

soon we can play, find the glacier....

I must say this is quite alarming.

;)

[Poptech]

..is not based on any science
Strikeout edits of quoted post removed.

I have provided extensive scientific sources for my positions.

Climate Change Reconsidered (http://www.heartland.org/publications/NIPCC%20report/PDFs/NIPCC%20Final.pdf) (PDF) (NIPCC)
While it is permissable to edit the contents of a quoted post, it must be stated clearly that this has been done. The usual phrase is "fixed that for ya". This is borderline bickering though, since it was clearly not done in mutual good humor, so I'd strongly recommend against this form of reply.

[TShaitanaku]

Sorry I am not going to leave alone people creating alarm that is not based on the whole story let alone science.

Is the Sky Really Falling? A Review of Recent Global Warming Scare Stories (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa576.pdf) (PDF) (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology)

http://www.cato.org/people/patrick-michaels

[TShaitanaku]

I have provided extensive scientific sources for my positions.

Climate Change Reconsidered (http://www.heartland.org/publications/NIPCC%20report/PDFs/NIPCC%20Final.pdf) (PDF) (NIPCC)

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1478

[shadron]

I didn't watch any of those videos, as videos posted on Youtube aren't guaranteed to be peer-reviewed.

Uhhhhhhh, neither is the forum. Betcha don't watch NOVA or visit the Interwebs either, right? Particularly forums.

[shadron]

That video is very misleading.

The fact that CO2 lags temperatures is overwhelming and the nonsense that some sort of feedback loop is invoked is not substantiated.

No - he is merely pointing out that previous high temperature cycles were started by the Milankovitch cycle, and that the CO2 cycle followed along, when the sun warmed up the permafrost and the oceans. In our case, though, because we aren't near a Milankovitch maximum, there would normally be no temperature change, but throwing all the additional CO2 into the air as we are doing is, this time, causing the CO2 to lead the temperature change. We changed the trigger scheme, and therefore it would be abysmally stupid to think the CO2 would follow the temperature.

No feedback loop - in fact, the normal cycling triggered by the M cycle is the case of feedback, where the warming effect causes the CO2. In the athrogenic case, we skipped the middleman and went directly to the CO2. Direct effect. When he talks about feedback, potholer54 is referring to the fact that warming causes CO2/CH4 release which warms further.

Based on this logic the planet should have went into a runaway greenhouse long ago.All such runaways eventually end because of non-linearities in the system drivers (System Engineering 101). In this case, the warming ends when most of the CO2 and methane trapped in the permafrost is released into the atmosphere. As the source of the bulk of permafrost GHGs has now dried up, the CO2 cannot be driven higher. Except that that's not true in this current case, now, is it? Perhaps with the fall of our industrial civilization the Earth climate system will see another non-linearity, proving you shouldn't fool with Mother Nature.

But then, why are you disagreeing with CO2 vs temperature cycles when your real beef is with the misapplication of radiative equations in computer models? (See http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4903537&postcount=259) It would seem that rather than having a real beef with anything in AGW, you, rather, have soaked up the whole panoply of denialist arguments, from the subtle to the stupid, and wield them all. It doesn't look to me that you're really sincere about arguing about AGW - you just want to spread your politics, and our forum is a handy soap box for that, because we don't normally ban idiocy.

[CapelDodger]

cool that you have the adequate education and knowledge to have your own conclusion from that data, i havent.

on cold days i wonder where that Global Warming is, on hot days i know it.

Nothing alarmist found in the article, its actually a good article.
not alarmist at all.

PopTech is easily alarmed. That's why he has to believe that everything's OK really. And sho' nuff there are people ready and very willing to tell him so.

Looking into the references he cuts-and-pastes might alarm him again, so he's happy enough to believe that they do say what he's told they say. Which they don't, of course.

PopTech is (frankly) not very bright. And there's plenty of data available to demonstrate that. He provides no end of it.

[CapelDodger]

Uhhhhhhh, neither is the forum. Betcha don't watch NOVA or visit the Interwebs either, right? Particularly forums.

In a way these forums are peer-reviewed, since we're all our peers. Some are more primus than inter pares, but it was ever thus :).

[shadron]

In a way these forums are peer-reviewed, since we're all our peers. Some are more primus than inter pares, but it was ever thus :).

Touche on that. :)

[DC]

You were kidding here, right?

sure :)
im strange, but not that strange :D

[Wangler]

In a way these forums are peer-reviewed, since we're all our peers. Some are more primus than inter pares, but it was ever thus :).

I never thought of it that way, but you are correct!

[CapelDodger]

I have provided extensive scientific sources for my positions.

No, you haven't. You think you have, but then that's what you've been told and you believe it unquestioningly. Presumably because it's what you want to believe, whereas the reality of AGW is what you don't want to believe.

This is a sceptics' forum which is why you're such a fish out of water (on an imaginary bicycle). We don't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows.