This is what a scientist sounds like - Dr.Dessler's video shorts

Here are five short videos by Atmospheric scientist Dr. Andrew Dessler explaining various aspects of climate sensitivity including a look at Lindzen and Spencer's failed cloud feedback study.  I think these videos are fine examples of a real scientist in action explaining the facts.  Tell me you don't notice a huge difference between Dr. Dessler's approach to his topic and the weird handwaving and innuendo laced approach of folks like Dr. Singer or my man Steele.  
(I put together the notes so any mistakes in them are mine alone.)

Summary of Dessler GRL 2011

Is the climate sensitivity less than 2°C?

Stratospheric water vapor feedback

Climate sensitivity calculations, Kummer and Dessler, GRL, 2014

Decision making under uncertainty

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Summary of Dessler GRL 2011

Uploaded on Sep 5, 2011 | dessler2 | 3:45 minutes

"Cloud variations and the Earth's energy budget"

published in Geophysical Review Letters

Dessler examines Lindzen and Spencer's suggestioin that it's clouds causing warming and that human influence warming.

This is what a scientist sounds like - Dr. Dessler

On my way back to Mr. Steele's 'Climate Science Horror Series' I came across a YouTube video of Dr. Singer talking to Dr. Dessler's class about Merchants of Doubt.  I tell you, talk about another perfect vehicle for continuing my investigation into the mechanics of their fraud, so I made a U-turn, returning Jim to the back-burner.  

Starting on that, I spent some time viewing another Dr. Dessler YT video, then another, and another. Particularly his short series explaining the basics of climate science.  

They were such a pleasant break from the cynical,  infuriatingly dishonest spiel of Mr. Steele or Dr. Singer, that superstar of the Republican/libertarian PR campaign, that I decided to take a break and focus a couple posts on a genuine climate scientist explaining real climate science.  The contrast in substance and style is astounding.

Dr. Dessler is an example of how to enable constructive learning, as opposed to dog-chasing-tail debates. With Dr. Dessler's blessing I'm posting this informative climate science lecture - as an example of how serious scientists approach their subject.  

For the interested student I have included time-signature notes of highlights.

______________________________

The Human Influence of Climate

A.E. Dessler, Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences

Texas A & M University

Jan. 2011 seminar given to the TAMU Petroleum Engineering Department.

Published on Sep 19, 2014 | dessler2

https://www.youtube.com/embed/7ImRv58XJO8

___________________________________________________________

notes:  

Dr. Dessler shares his intention early on: 

"What I'm going to try to convince you of is that it's really a much simpler problem than you may be led to believe.  You can use freshman physics to convince yourself there's good chance that if we keep emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere we're really going to see very large warming over the next century, and that's my goal…"

0:41 I like to start off with this iconic plot (NASA GISS Global-Avg. Surface Temp Record 1880-2009), it's the global surface temperature record measured by thermometers that are all across the globe…

Discussion with Pete Ridley #2

Deep down my hope is that some intelligent students read some of these posts, because I've learned that taking the time to answer and hope for a rational discussion with a denialist character like Pete Ridley is a hopeless endeavor.

But, it's not a hopeless exercise if it helps some better understand the types of diversions denialist have honed to a fine art.  Perhaps it'll help some better prepare for the various "debate tricks" and tactics you'll run into if you vocally defend serious professional rational scientists and their findings against the Republican/Libertarian ideologues who see nothing but a political contest to win at all cost with license to fabricate their facts at will.  

Not much else to add.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Pete Ridley said...

Discussion with Pete Ridley #1

{edited Saturday evening}

Recently I've exchanged a couple emails with Pete Ridley, our unlikely connection is on account of mutual blogging regarding that fraud John O'Sullivan, though I haven't taken the time to become acquainted with the particulars of their feud.
[Ridley has reminded me that we had actually met earlier, in the comments section - http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/bbc-earth-climate-wars-dr-iain-stewart.html ]

In any event, though Ridley and I agree on our contempt for O'Sullivan, Ridley doesn't accept the scientific consensus among climate experts regarding global warming and what's driving it. 

Not sure why, but lately he's taken to counseling me on the errors of my supposedly gullible scientific establishment loving ways.  In the process I've been pulled into a discussion at globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com, that has in turn motivated me to use a couple quotes as a vehicle to highlight some of the dishonest tactics used by such folks.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Ridley writes: In November 2013 you (CC) opined that " .. Colorado experienced its most extreme weather event in recent memory between Sept. 9 and 15.  .. resulting in massive flooding .. Predictably, folks are asking: Is this related to man-made global warming?  That a question that is both easy and tough to answer.  Our climate system is a global heat-distribution engine .. our land, atmosphere, and the oceans have indisputably warmed .. our atmosphere’s moisture content has been measurably increasing.  Given such geophysical realities, it is self-evident that all extreme weather events contain elements of this newly energized climate system.  And that much more of the same must be expected. So in that sense, the answer is easy: Yes .. " (see: http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/10/colo-floods-statistics-vs-physics.html). 

That's a lot of conviction from someone with no more than lay understanding of the subject. Despite your efforts in that article to give the impression of a sound understanding of the processes and drivers of the different global climates you demonstrated that your understanding is very limited. {Pete "tells" me I'm wrong, but doesn't show us by confronting my specific claims with contra-evidence.  What's up with that?  

A)   Our climate system is a global heat-distribution engine .. our land, atmosphere, and the oceans … B)   have indisputably warmed … C)   our atmosphere’s moisture content has been measurably increasing.  }

Let me give you an example.