New Climate Short: Don’t Panic — Flaws in Catastrophic Global Warming Forecasts

After releasing my first climate video, which ran over 50 minutes, I had a lot of feedback that I should aim for shorter, more focused videos.  This is my first such effort, setting for myself the artificial limit of 10 minutes, which is the YouTube limit on video length.

While the science of how CO2 and other greenhouse gases cause warming is fairly well understood, this core process only results in limited, nuisance levels of global warming. Catastrophic warming forecasts depend on added elements, particularly the assumption that the climate is dominated by strong positive feedbacks, where the science is MUCH weaker. This video explores these issues and explains why most catastrophic warming forecasts are probably greatly exaggerated.

You can also access the YouTube video here, or you can access the same version on Google video here.

If you have the bandwidth, you can download a much higher quality version by right-clicking either of the links below:

I am not sure why the quicktime version is so porky.  In addition, the sound is not great in the quicktime version, so use the windows media wmv files if you can.  I will try to reprocess it tonight.  All of these files for download are much more readable than the YouTube version (memo to self:  use larger font next time!)

This is a companion video to the longer and more comprehensive climate skeptic video "What is Normal — a Critique of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Theory."

4 thoughts on “New Climate Short: Don’t Panic — Flaws in Catastrophic Global Warming Forecasts”

  1. The paper that shows that as much as half of recent warming maybe due to biases in the record is by Patrick Michaels and Ross McKitrick. Steve McIntyre was not involved, to my knowledge.

  2. To avoid a cheap shot, you’ll want to change your graph of observed tempuratures. The RSS data was corrected on January 16th (2007 was too low). The AGW crowd is running around accusing everybody that used perfectly good data as of a week ago of being stupid.

    Great video. However I, unlike the unwashed masses, would like one 10 hours long.

  3. I’ve been trying to apply the math here, but I run into some problems. First, if Temperature change= dT/(1-f), I can’t input a value of exactly 1, for reasons that should be obvious. Second, when I input values greater than one for f, the whole thing flips and goes negative, implying that the “tipping point” actually refers to runaway cooling. I don’t get this. Do you mean when you describe the feedback that (1-f)>1 means run away, ie, negative values of f? I’m in need of help here.

Comments are closed.