As both a mathematician & earth scientist I would not be quick to apply standard concepts of math series or sequences as a prediction tool of temperature. I.e. one can't just choose a time range observe a temp increase & then isolate some causation & assume that doubling or tripling will happen. The earth's behavior arises from many feedback loops not from some geometric sequence of numbers.

The bell curve graph he used to show a 1.5 degree shift (15:49) isn’t tied to any data. It is simply an example. The true difference between the two peeks would be much closer together and therefore show a much less dramatic increase in possible extreme hot weather. It does however show the phenomenon he is trying to explain more clearly. It is just over exemplified and therefore appears more alarming. Anybody else catch that?

Also if the IPCC would change their models to match the actual observed data instead of changing the data to match their models, maybe they wouldn’t be 98% wrong!

I am very skeptical about the graph of 6:48. The medieval warm period being less hot than 2000? This is the usual Mann con job. Also, the graph of 9:12 seems to be the graph "re adjusted" By NOAA to decrease the temperatures before 1980 and increase them after 1980.

27:23 Yeah, its very clear that you only use 40 years of data. Why at 1979? Data for arctic sea ice extent go way back than just 1979. Oh, yeah, because it wouldn't show declining trend, but a cycle of up and down.

18:10 map is quite misleading. It says it shows areas vulnerable to 170m sea level rise, but predictions tell that if all ice will melt, sea level will rise only 80m.

The idea about extreme events is incorrect. If you look not on the average but minimum (winter) vs maximum (summer) temperature trends in the same area and the difference between tropical vs arctic weather - you'll see that both deltas are *decreasing*. Meaning its getting warmer in winter rafher than summer and warmer in the cold places rather hot places. Look at NASA data - the warming is concentrated near Arctic. Extreme weather is about these deltas. For e.g. in Chicago the weather is more extreme than Florida. So even if global warming is real - its going to be more comfortable and tropical (rainforest) climate with rare extreme events.

I live in Canada. Over the last 3 years we have had the shortest growing seasons in memory. Due to cold. Model that.

I've seen most of these graphs before... by people debunking them for cherry-picking data...

It is not controversial. Climate change is scientific fact. The sad thing is that unless we are in an uncontrolled positive feedback situation, we have the science to roll the carbon dioxide levels back and we can greatly improve our quality of life at the same time. The problem does not lie in our physical scientists but in the politicians who do not understand science. And worst of all they fail to understand the science of government. They have lost control and nowhere is this more characterised than in the kindergarten behaviour in the parliaments. We need more real scientists in government and less lawyers and merchant bankers. Our science should be developed in laboratories and in universities, not in restaurants and on golf courses.

Emissivity is the fraction absorbed and the fraction emitted. Using it as only fraction emitted is NOT supported by theory.

The mathematics of extrapolation.......bad mathematics. " Climate modelling is really hard, is really uncertain, and we lack much of the data we need." And then we go on to construct a mathematical model anyway.........never heard such mathematical rubbish in all my life.

The 1930s were warmer than 2016. Did he say proxy or poxy data?

If you leave out the "most important tree in the world", then the Medieval warm period is again the warmest time on the record and everything makes sense. In the sense of Nothing going on here, move along.

The big problem is that they assume that rising co2 level result in rising temperature, correlation is not causation. The ice core samples show an 800 year lag temperatures rise, plants grow, oceans warm releasing more co2. Temperatures drop, vegetation recedes, oceans cool, co2 follows after the temp. Co2 is therefore not the cause of warming, but the effect

No evidence that mans co2 drives temp. Which is question#1.

Amazing how videos like this attract so many (self- proclaimed) experts on the subject. Perhaps they could help the IPCC by sending in their extensive peer-reviewed research papers, their well-reasoned theories and their long lists of relevant academic degrees. If they are somehow unable to provide such accreditations, perhaps they could help us...by keeping their opinions to themselves.

Geoengineering the earth to make it colder huh? By taxing co2? No I am sorry but this is not science

Roy Spencer says: Quote The Five Big Questions 1) Is warming and associated climate change mostly human-caused? 2) Is the human-caused portion of warming and associated climate change large enough to be damaging? 3) Do the climate models we use for proposed energy policies accurately predict climate change? 4) Would the proposed policy changes substantially reduce climate change and resulting damage? 5) Would the policy changes do more good than harm to humanity? End quote This presentation answers none of the questions, gives only the alarmist point of view, and is not grounded in data.

You look at the 1st graph, and it looks really really scary....until you suddenly realize it shows 6/10th of a degree over the last 100 years.

What is the cause of the extreme drop in global temperature every 100k years? I have never heard an explanation for that, only that it happens predictably.

Are there any people making comments who have credential similar to the speakers?

thanks for the lecture, good stuff, except for all those experts in the discussion, some of them did not even watch this before commenting.

20:50 the “hockey stick” referes to temperature NOT CO2 levels in the climate world

"Climate modelling is hard, uncertain, and lacks good data" explains why the models don't match observed data. Garbage in delivers garbage out. If you don't understand the problem, you will have difficulty solving it, and computers just do what they are told to do.

Assumption 1: Things are getting warmer. Based on the hockey stick. Not true. From there the whole business of fossil fuel CO2 causing warming (now the nebulous "climate change") is questionable at best.

Interesting, but the model does not seem to work throughout history, if the CO2 % in the atmosphere and emissivity are linear (and I am not sure that they are - because water and methane, per the professor, are actually the major greenhouse gases) then the temperature growth at times when CO2 was far far higher would have run away with itself. It did not. Could I ask that the professor plugs in historical long term (very, very high CO2) numbers and sees what the model predicts and what the actual results were. This would be testing the Hypothesis (model) against actual long term data. The model does not seem to work.

I can't wait for historians in 30 years time digging the internet for old videos of "scientists" claiming the Earth would be ruined/destroyed by 2050

No one likes to face such painful truths...especially the totally ignorant of mankind. More: upon further reflection, we've all been lied to throughout our lives, it's a wonder that there is any trust at all in this crazy world of ours. Half the battle is to figure out whom to trust! And that takes self trust, first of all.

Your failure to address the warming 1910-1940 vs the 1970-2000 warming, as others, is noted. Do you think we are so stupid that we are unfamiliar with the talking points?

promised to "discuss later" whether temperature lags or leads carbon dioxide in the ice core data ... but didn't!

I am curious about the enthalpy of melted ice and increased water vapor. Seems a lot of latent heat remains unaccounted for.

This guy is not talking about climate, he´s talking about the weather.

To be clear mathematical analysis is all statistical and all of these models have margin of error and when using multiple models you have to multiply that margin of errors and remember they are just models . “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Hockey stick it is a hoax ! Michael Mann recently lost a lawsuit against Tim Ball !

Okay let's bookmark this lecture. Current prediction is that 30 years from now that was 2018 when this video was published that all Arctic sea ice will be gone. That's going to be 2048. If by 2048 that doesn't occur are we going to get an apology for climate alarmism? I doubt it.

A lot of scientist wannabes in the comments here. Can't wait to see their peer reviewed published research paper that solidifies their fame in the scientific community

As soon as I saw the graph at 6:30, I knew this was bogus. Much warmer in the 30’s than it is now! Also plants do much better with 200-500 percent higher co2 than we have now, and require less water to produce more product.

The 1930s were warmer than 2016. Check out Tony Heller's videos on the subject.

Funny how there was never a correlation between CO2 and temperature all the way through the nineties up to the noughties and now suddenly there is thanks to Schmitt and Karl. Tony Heller has shown an interesting straight line correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature data tampering sorry adjustments.

WTF! How is possible that a Geometry graduate considers himself able to speech about Phisics?

His temperature graph of the last two thousand years shows the medieval warm as being much colder than present. This is simply not true, take it from a geologist. So what else in this mass of mathematics has he gotten wrong. Climate change is real and natural and a small contribution may come from man now but it is not a catastrophe. CO2 is not the control knob of climate change only a small contributor.

I feel like a model planet demonstration using CGI of the predicted effects of climate change would be critical to helping people understand. Like CGI renderings of the sinking of the Titanic it just becomes very real when you see them.

Problem with the temperature chart. It's showing it warmer than the 1930s when the US had record highs close to 100 nationwide.

He accepts the data without questioning that data.

a minute and a half in and the dude shows a 'model of everything' which doesn't include the sun. lol, some "scientist". I'm out.

'Climate Change' will be mostly beneficial for the earth as a whole.

Figures never lie but liars always figure. Where is the math you promised. I've seen enough charts explain why yours are superior to others please. Half in and I'm out.

Also, his data on extreme weather events is completely wrong. There is no sign that there are an anomalous number of extreme weather events happening this decade.

Excellent presentation, very informative... and I especially appreciate the parts where Prof. Budd spoke about the uncertainties involved.

One incorrect thing he said is that “until recently, climate change wasn’t called climate change at all. It was called global warming.” “Climactic change” terminology actually predates the term “global warming.” It’s just that for a while there the latter term was more popular, and then it switched.

Funny how people with no qualifications argue in the comments section of you tube with elaborate arguments. Call me hopelessly conventional but when I rake a plane I trust in the expertise of pilots who've spent years training to do the job. Similarly when I want to know about the future of the climate I look to climatologists not you tube commenters . 95 % of climatologists opinion that climate change is man made and dangerous and EXPENSIVE is good enough for me. The recent very alarmist study said that tackling the problem would cost 3 or 4% of world GDP. I'm not rich but I'd happily give 4% of my net worth to insure my grandchildren ( that I don't yet have ) and yours avoid a global climate breakdown.

i spotted one of those tricks he mentioned, when discussing Arctic ice cover at 26.20+ the first few graphs works with up to 8.5 million sq miles, then to show the constant decrease the graphs are doubled up to 16 million sq miles, this trick has been used many times in these models, very sneaky

Great talk, with much needed proper mathematical/statistical analysis of the climate. If you break your leg you see a medical expert. If you want to know about climate you consult accredited climate scientists who publish in peer reviewed journals. PS watch out for Big Oil lobbyists who like Big Tobacco lobbyists will spread disinformation wherever they can.

Your model is only as good as your assumptions and your starting data, neither of which are correct in climate modelling.

I know the 'hockey stick' term is being used widely now for any graph that has a steep rise at one end but wan't the original Michael E Mann et al on temperature, not CO2? Also aren't there significant differences between local and global measurements (apart from sea level) and he doesn't make clear which he's talking about. Seems he may be interchanging to suit his point? Nice to be so sure of everything!

At 52:24 and generally. These climate scientists never mention that there are also 18 paleo climate proxy analyses that have pegged climate sensitivity (warming for CO2 doubling) at 2.4 to 4.8 degrees, so most likely around 3.6 degrees, but that's after centuries to get squeeze out that final tiny bit of warming (because they are paleo climate proxies so long time scale) so will be a bit less than 3.6 degrees over 100 years. This does match well the 3.3 degrees climate sensitivity that WG1 climate scientists are settling on.

Did he mension Milankovic laws of climate change ? Seems important to me.

Mathematics is God. I am honored to have lived on this earth & done something relatively very few (out of all humans who have existed) have done: prove mathematical theorems, search for new solutions to differential equations, invert/solve transcendental equations, devote my life to differential algebra.

The economics of cliamte change are easy to *understand* The temperature of the World goes up, i make money, the temperature goes down, I make Money…Pope Al Gore.

Your models have left out the sun. You'll never get it right till you can model the sun's influence on the climate at all spectra including UV, magnetics, etc.

42:00 un-testable models are useless (*honest). & mixing data sets is a risky business. you can magnify confounds and get alarmist sounding results.

A very clear lecture by top mathematician. The comments from the know-alls are depressing. Mostly Americans?

No mention of irresponsible geo engineering or reckless population growth without which his lecture is incomplete.

🎯Good stuff to learn again ! 📈This is why I'm a big fan of 👉"Gresham College Super-Lectures"👈 thank you very much for all. I salute you all from Quebec Canada.

Would like to see a lecture on the mathematics of the economics of climate change. How much is being spent on research grants? How much on global observations? How much on remedies? How much on such “pseudo” alternatives such as wind and solar? How much on politicians and lawyers screaming about it? What are the trends in these expenses? What are the proposals for future spending? What are the differentials of the trends in spending. What are the inflation-adjusted integrals of spending over periods of time?

1) So climatists calibrate their models for past data, and try to predict the future with it? Are you sure? By this method you can take any model, no matter how foolish it is. At least they should take 50% data for calibration, and check if they can predict the second 50%. But even in this case the predictions can be false: --> Take data from a sin(x) - function from -Pi/2 to Pi/2 (with some noise): I bet you get a parabola as best estimate. 2) You dont explain how exaclty CO2 is taken into account! Because its ratio in air is so small, it doesnt affect any physical equation you showed (in your interesting equation slide for the weather). I am really interessted in that particulary point, because climatist say CO2 the most important! 3) You are making the fundamental mistake of climatologists: There is no conversation law of radiation! You totally confuse the words energy, radiation and heat. 4) You did a simple mathematical mistake - popular to all climatologists - by comparing a 4th root of 4th power mean with a normal mean, when you used Stefan-Boltzman! And from physics point of view it is highly questionable, if one can asume that the earth is a black body radiator!!!

I haven’t found the explanation of the Stefan-Boltzmann-Law (I cannot see the earth as a black object). Explanation of atmospheric greenhouse theory according to the second law of thermodynamics. How can radiation heat the earth, if it was cooled while it rises and then reflected (back to earth). Why shows data from partridge et al (2009) that the temperature of the stratosphere did not increase over 40 years?

It seems that the problem to solve is to keep a CO2-level that can save us from the recurring ice ages.

Probably the most non-convincing presentation I have seen yet from the scholarly folk... Avoiding Gresham at all costs seems the right choice

The mathematics of climate change: 2+2=5

Can't predict the weather more than a week ahead, yet simple models suggest trends over decades, (when funds are given to indicate them)?

Oh, and another thing... as CO2 levels in the atmosphere rise, flora thrives to bring it back again to lower levels... the earth's atmoshere is one huge spring balance mechanism - how else has life on earth thrived for millions of years with the earth in such a precarious position being 'third rock from the Sun' without the atmosphere 'boiling off' eons ago.

Great video. Why does this not have more likes

at 6:24 he shows the fake hockey stick. The Medieval warming period is estimated to be much more warmer than showed, propably higher than today. The proxy data used to fabricate this hockey Stick uses dendrology, in particular a pine tree, which growing yearly rate is more sensitive to available water, than temperature! Then at 8:45 it omits the fall in temperatures from 1940 to 1977, the period of an huge increase in CO2! Following it omits the pause in the increase in temperatures, verified from 1998 to present date. Then it talks about Arctic melting ice, and forgets to say Antarctic is gaining ice for decades! At this time is worth to see this: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/o9eVnbuknL7Lo4k.html, then it comes one of the worst absurd and preposterous assumption that make me rolling in laugh. This klown sais that Antartic region is gaining ice because terrestial antarctic is melting LOOOOOOOOLLLLL! At this stage i stop commenting... iam gona see the rest, just to observe how these nescients fool their public, doing this type of "anthropogenic" climate change pseudoscientific propaganda. (...) I said i would stop commenting but i cant LOL. Just after it talks about extreme weather, showing a picture that seems a fake, with a sea wave in a Vilage! My grand mother, that lived in a small countryside vilagge near a mountain, explained me that in the 1920s, there was a diluge in the mountain that wiped half the village away, basicaly all houses near the small river. There never was another diluge like that ever since that date. (...) the rest is complete BS, pseudoscientific assumptions, lies and more lies, not based in any evidence, etc, etc

The Truth About Climate Change - Dr. Patrick Moore - Greenpeace Co-Founder

This lecture must be several years old,atmospheric CO2 concentrations hit some 412.60 ppm....... on May 14 2018

45:30 "107W get reflected by the clouds" - according to the IPCC clouds reflect only 50W/m2. Also the chart explicitly claims 77W/m2 reflected by clouds AND aerosols and gases 46:35 "the earth heats up and acts like a black body" - meaning has an emissivity of 1. 46:50 "the e is the propotion of the radiated energy from the earth actually getting into space. Because a large proportion of the energy radiated from the earth is reflected by the clouds. So you are not (?) getting into space is about 30% of the amount radiated by the earth" - then emissivity = 0.7. 47:40 "the emissivity, sorry I was misquoting, is about 0.6" Within only about 2 minutes Chris Budd managed to mess up virtually everything about the GHE. I think it is a solid indication he has absolutely no clue what he is actually talking about, despite the fact he is not doing research, but is only meant to quote "the climate science" correctly. He totally fails on that. The scary thing here is, that he is not the exception, but rather the rule. By quoting a bad science incorrectly, he has all it takes to be a climate expert.

If you're confused about, or disagree with climate change because of discrepancies in the modeling versus actual temperatures, (which is evidence some 'climatologists' use to discredit climate change) then don’t worry, you’re just a critical thinker. But before you think it’s actual evidence to completely write off climate change and mitigating actions, please consider the following 2 critical points: 1. Ice melt and permafrost melt are happening much faster than the models predicted as well. Why is this important? Melting ice requires MUCH more energy, called latent heat. Latent heat requires 80 times more energy, than raising like temperatures. It takes 1 calorie to raise 1 gram of water, 1 degree celcius. Now, to change 0 degree ice to 0 degree water takes 80 calories. Just as an experiment, take a pot of ice water and put it on heat. Insert a thermometer and watch the temp. You’ll see that the temp doesn’t rise until all the ice it gone. Once it is, you see a sharp rise in temps. So, when you put that in perspective, that the ice is melting faster, it tells you where that energy is going. Still, 2014-2016 were consecutively the hottest years on record. 2. It’s not just about climate change. Oil has a very definitive quantity. According to oilprice.com, there’s only 53 years of oil left anyway and that the easy oil was out in 2008. Now, when you use Energy Return On Investment, or EROI, you see that oil, coal and gas all have low EROI when you account for finding, pumping, transporting, and refining. Gas is the best fossil fuel at 35%. Solar has 200%, Wind has an EROI of 1,164%. So this is about being in front of efficiency and saving the oil for what we need it for: airplanes! Its the only technology we don’t already have an answer for due to the energy density of today’s batteries. Hope this helps

So much obfuscation here it is hard to know where to start. Let's stipulate a few things: 1) Mammalian-like species have existed and thrived on earth for ~200 million years. 2) Climate has seen dramatic, at time 'significant' changes during that time. 3) The most 'significant' changes were associated with 'catastrophic' events (comet or meteor strikes, massive volcanic releases of gas and particulates, etc.). Factor in Milankovitch cycles and continental drift due to plate tectonics and you get most of the rest. 4) However, since the global climate is extremely stable with strong negative feedback due to water vapor and clouds, mammals have been able to survive and thrive despite the insults to date. 5) Humans are the most adaptive mammalian species ever to evolve. We will be fine. 6) However, with CO2 concentrations falling below 200 ppm during the last ice age, plants were close to starving (not enough plant food). Current levels of CO2 are dangerous initial conditions for plants (and hence humans) going into the next ice age. End of stipulations. More CO2 is not a risk factor for human flourishing (see Patrick Moore). If you dispute any of the stipulations above, please be specific in any REPLY to this posting.

Real science requires the use of the scientific method. This is critical to prove one's theories.. Climate science looks at past data and them develops theories - guesses. The next major step would be to develop experiments and do those experiments. But these "scientists' do zero experimentation. zero. You can not do experiments on the climate. So these guys develop climate models and computer programs. The guy in the video states that they use physics in their climate models. As a physicist this is insulting to all science. In physics we use the entire scientific method to find facts. Well controlled and repeated experimentation is the absolutely necessary. These climate scientists are not doing physics and don't let them delude you to think that they are. In medicine we deal with very complicated biologic systems - very analogous to the complexities of the climate. Medical research is by far the largest area of research being done at our universities. The gold standard in medical research if to construct and do double blinded prospective randomized experimentation. It has been proven over and over that any other type of study is fatally flawed and is worthless. It is also been shown that using old data (retrospective data) to draw conclusions is dangerously inaccurate. Medical researchers only use old data to develop theories. The final thing that medical research has shown us is that the bias of the researchers is amazingly strong. All too often we have examples of how randomized double blinded prospective studies 'proved' something and then future studies find the old facts to be in error. Medical research if littered with examples of this. Worse yet it is proven that the bias of medical researchers tends to make them design research studies that will get them the results they expect to find - even in what looks like well designed studies this is true. Bias is huge. Bottom line is that climate science is really garbage science. Bias in their kind of research usually finds what they want to find. The bias these days is to blame humans for they changes they are measuring. There is zero proof for any conclusion. And lastly, always follow the money. Climate science has grown because of the fear and funding has increased. These guys are now getting the spot light. Their opinions are shaping public policy. Money, prestige and power are what drive corruption. Corrupt science is worthless.

The graph he shows at 9 mins is not Met office data, as stated - it is NASA GISS data, (it says so on the Graph!!!)

video moment 27:58. How the amount of ice can be negative in 2100 ?

He is a professor of geometry. If you want to know about climate change you should consult an expert in climatology not mathematics. I would trust his judgement for geometry but it would be foolish to rely on him for climate change. He obviously does not have a very good understanding of the factors that affect climate. C02 has been as high as 8000 ppm in the last 600m years as facts show from the atmosphere trapped in the ice at the poles. 150 PPM or lower is fatel to living plants. The amount of ice in the glasures is affected by the orbit and tilt of the Earth as was first discovered by James Coroll and are known as the milankovich cycles. Check it out!

I am 54 I have not yet seen one of the models come close to predicting an outcome. I have however been treated to endless claims that the planet is dead or will be within 10 years oddly enough we are still here.

There's a difference between "scare mongering" and "reasonable warning". If someone tells you not to jump off from the top of 10 story building because you'll die is certainly not a scare mongering but a reality.

The problem I noticed in the comments is a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics as some kind of hacky-ball that predicts the future. Many statistics shown in this video that are based on "uncertain" data are the effects of multiple complicated huge models that all test the data that is put in through a multitude of variables and predict a PROBABILITY not a certainty. A trend if you will. A good example to grasp what that means is to look at normal distribution graphs. They do not represent the data that is put in but the probability of certain points of data to occur as a mean therefor showing trends and probabilities for different variables and events to happen. THESE ARE NOT DESCRIPTIVE STATISTCS!!! People often seem to confuse the descriptive statistic with Probability and coefficient statistic. I highly recommend catching a video about regression analysis and probability statistics.

It seems to be getting warmer, what if anything can practically be done about it remains to be seen.

Not another climate change doomer...

Thanks a lot for this video. Much appreciated.

Where can a species extinction model be found?

At 47.51 the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is used to get a mean earth temperature of 288 K. It is then argued that increased CO2 will decrease the emissivity, e, and raise the temperature. Perfectly reasonable. This point is developed at 50.22 where emissivities for various CO2 concentrations are given. However, e = 0.605 gives T = 288 K whereas the CO2 e-values are much lower; e.g. at 400 ppm CO2 e = 0.140 and this gives T = 415 K. So how are the original e = 0.605 and e(CO2) values related?

The willfully ignorant comments here are either made by the extremely ignorant, the cognitively impaired, or malign trolls. Make your pick, or maybe just throw a dice.

Oh dear - a lot of data missing here - he'll keep his job though.

We can quibble over models and math, but at the end of the day, the biosphere that supports and allows everything that you love and hold dear is dying right in front of you. But by all means, keep quibbling.

how do we know how accurate long term climate models are when the ones we use are less than 20 years old?

Great lecture...As average (mean) temp increases, how does the variance (S^2) change ? How does this effect accuracy of prediction ?

First, I don't view this presentation as thorough as there is no uncertainty, which is also a characteristic of legitimate science, in the stated "data". As the accuracy of most thermometers is +/- 1 degree, the "data" has to be treated as uncertain and indeterminate. No matter which side you hear, none seems to consider the size of the human fire. The energy content of everything we burn, including uranium and the food we eat, ends up as heat. How much heat are we pumping into the system ? How much closer to the sun does this effectively make us ? How much energy are we pushing into the environment by replacing energy capturing plant life with the asphalt, concrete, and glass of our cities and suburbs ? Any takers ? Would make a heck of a graduate thesis.

This pisses me off. We should all probably stop driving our cars. No argument there. But why is a video produced in 2018 using storm data that stops in 2007? Do we not have the storm frequency data yet for the most recent 10 years? I'm guessing any weather service would have that data.

I will never forget last year where the BBC had the lady in charge of funding the NHS and she said "People don't just die from heat" She stated that the elderly need not avoid going outdoors in the extreme heat as long as they drink plenty of water and wear sun cream......Plastic was melting in my garden that day. Never seen it before, wondered what it was, tried to pick it up off the grass. My sons toy had melted and it burned quite a bit.