The Physics of Climate Change Online Lecture with Lawrence Krauss

The news is full of hotly debated and divergent claims about the existence, impacts, and risks of climate change. Public policy should be based on science, but if it isn’t possible to explain the scientific principles & predictions associated with climate change in a straightforward and accessible fashion, then what hope is there for any rational public discourse and decision-making on the subject?

Fortunately, it is possible and Lawrence Krauss will present a lively and compelling narrative that explores the history of how scientists progressed to our current understanding of climate change and explains the basic theoretical and observational underpinnings of climate science. Viewers will leave with an informed perspective to judge public policy proposals, and with information they can use in discussions with family, friends, and within their communities.
Join us for what promises to be an entertaining and informative live event about a topic that should be of interest to us all.

Chapters:

00:16:38 - Beginning of Lecture

Presented by The ORIGINS Project Foundation in association with Think Inc.

All proceeds will go to the ORIGINS Project Foundation, a 501 c3 nonprofit foundation devoted to promoting science, education, reason, and culture to meet today’s current challenges.

[paddydiddles]

The palaeoclimate graphs seem to suggest a wide fluctuation of temperatures and c02 level - all by itself ie no human input

[atrey]

My Gosh! Please, invite doctor Willam Happer to your podcast, and debate him on the climate change matters. I'am 100% sure this will be worth it and eye opening for the audience and yourself.

[natxosailor]

As slide at 39:41 indicates, as CO2 concentration increases radiation decreases but this effect has a saturation point due to the logarithmic function connecting both parameters. For example, going from current CO2 levels (400 ppm) to 800 ppm would have just a 1% effect (or about 0, 70 degree C) due to saturation. The “slight widening” of the curve as CO2 concentration increases is indeed slight and has minimum effect on radiation/ temperature. If you overlook this fact, the rest of your propositions are just invalid.

[stauffap]

I want to add a bit regarding the supposed saturation of CO2's warming effect:
The reason why the saturation argument is wrong isn't just because of the effect that Lawrence mentioned at 52:00 (more room for absorption at the edges of an absorption line). That's part of the reason. The saturation argument comes from using the Beer-Lambertt-Law. This law only deals with absorption of radiation. So when you're only using that law you're ignoring that the atmosphere is emitting as well. And obviously you'll then get wrong results like the believe that the warming effect of CO2 is saturated. What you actually have to use are radiative transfer equations. They factor in that the atmosphere emits radiation as well. And it's the addition of this equation that produces the correct result.
Just for the people, who are interested in a bit more of the laws that are used to calculate something like the downwelling longwave radiation spectrum.

[prla]

I missed the lecture and just woke up. Great for him to make it public ASAP after it was over.

[VeganChefRon]

Very well done, easy to understand. I learned a lot. A few items I didn't see addressed. The most fertile period on earth for plants and animals was the Jurassic period when the CO2 level was 2, 400ppm, 6x the current levels. Also, I didn't hear you speak of the greening of the planet caused by higher co2 levels. This has been reported by NASA and many other agencies and partially responsible for record crop production, massive growth of many forest areas, including formerly dead areas such as Sub Sahara Africa making it habitable again. So, as with most things, there are positives and negatives. How do we decide what levels of CO2 are most desirable? Do we want to reduce CO2 and cause starvation with lower crop yields around the world? How do make these big decisions responsibly? Also, I'm sure you know the work of Bjorn Lomborg who believes the best strategy for stabilizing climate is through innovation, NOT subsidies of industries that make little difference like wind turbines and electric cars. How do we make intelligent choices and not frantic spending that has little effect on global warming?

[ampadysheikslal.]

Thank you so much for making this lecture available to all the audience. With the author's own descriptions it is more effective to understand the book.

[professoranonymous]

I'm sure you're aware of this but the Greenland Ice core data clearly shows in the isotopes versus CO2 levels, shows temperature increasing before CO2. Ocean out gassing!

[libertysprings]

The part I have trouble with is understanding how we can model such a complex system with water vapor and clouds and tidal ocean mixing variations, Atmosphere. thickness ozone and oxygen levels etc and why we think we can separate out the co2 effect when it's just one of so many factors

[Zantorc]

Taken all together, the greening of the planet over the last two decades represents an increase in leaf area on plants and trees equivalent to the area covered by all the Amazon rainforests. There are now more than two million square miles of extra green leaf area per year, compared to the early 2000s – a 5% increase. - a NASA statement 11 Feb 2019

[panikaffe]

24:30 WMO says Earth had 2020 an average temperature of 14.9°C. so where is the dagerous heating of CO2 ?

[anthonywarren]

On the topic of correlation between CO2 levels and historical temperature; why should we believe a data set that has never been independently audited, has plenty of evidence of data tampering, and does not meet ISO standards for data integrity? There isn't a big data enterprise on earth that would accept this situation with their own skin in the game. If insurance rates were set by such data, the error bars would be incredibly large.

[peterh]

Thank you for putting this information out on youTube.

[frankpocius]

When I was a child I asked my father what we should do in preparation for the recent forecast of gloom and doom. His response was that the disaster never comes true and there is always a new threat imagined every 10 or 12 years because the old threat never happens. My children can’t believe that politicians would be so corrupt and use fear to distract and to control people. In my 76 years I have observed the failure of every prediction of gloom and doom so proving my father’s observations to be correct. One day, my children will no doubt reach the same conclusion and warn their children to fear only the politicians wanting to create nuclear war.

[shoutitallloud]

26:50 This looks like some cheat trick. The initial presumption was that Pout - is the energy provided by the Sun and absorbed by Earth. Now it's concluded that Pout actually is not all the energy income. And the Earth must in fact radiate more. Basicaly it should be giving more energy than it takes. Where had this additional energy came from?

[chrisgriffiths]

It is good to Experience Lawrence's Science Skills at Work.

[Mywoodlandwalks]

Thank you Lawrence for this great lecture, I learned so much from this, and it condenses the book very well into an hour of solid science. I hope many on here watching this go and buy the book, I would highly recommend it, if you really want to understand the science and not be caught up in all the politics etc, "The Physics of Climate Change" is the book you want. This is such an important issue, and the natural world is such a beautiful, incredible, precious place that we have the power to save or destroy, and now we have the knowledge, all due to science and our ability to understand our world, to be able to change the way we use resources before it is too late. Thank you once again, Lawrence and the Origins Foundation for all the work you do contributing to this knowledge and the public understanding of science.

[daltanionwaves]

Don't forget, as the earth warms it also becomes MORE habitable. For instance, the greening of the Sahara desert and Siberia (already happening) will produce arable land capable of sustaining another BILLION people, as well as the flora and fauna that go along with that. Throughout millions of years of history, these interglacial warming periods are a blessing for whoever is fortunate enough to live during the glacial minimums when the earth reaches maximum habitability. 1 meter of sea level change isn't a problem, period... problems arise when sea levels change in tens of meters in a couple hundred years. Which is normal. The warming pulse was a problem for the wholly mammoths, but it also allowed the flourishing of the rest of the animals, in particular, human civilization... The other problem is cooling. Because cooling begins the transition Away from maximum habitability, which means many organisms lose their habitats completely and die off. The mass extinctions are the result of global cooling towards the glacial maximums. That's when the party truly ends. And what's interesting is burning 100% of fossil fuels over the course of a century or two, taking all the carbon from the carbon cycle and putting it into the atmosphere will have virtually no impact on global temperatures and will not save us from the next ice age. So we will have to innovate currently unknown solutions or adapt to the changing circumstances via technology and social planning. No problem... The ruling class has always used these doomsday cults to control people and take their rights for the simple reason that they are effective. An effective emergency to justify taking your rights and make you poor so that you have to work as a literal indentured servant who never owns property and can never get ahead, because otherwise the world will end. And you don't want the world to end do you?? Well, then give up your rights and give them all your money for the rest of your life.

[mackenziekid]

Thanks! This is EXACTLY the kind of information I've been wishing both "sides" would present! Just the data!
Of course, the other currently heretical question to ask is, are changes of a degree in temperature, and a rise of a few meters in sea level over hundreds of years a panic situation?
The climate now is vastly better for life than during the last ice age only 12, 000 years ago.
Right now is actually the best climate for human life that we've ever had.
How do we figure that out?

[FirstLast-syrj]

You must have Tony Heller on for a good discussion on this topic