Climate Change: The Science and Global Impact @ EDX - Free 8 week course. Applications open now, begins tomorrow.

Moved to Forum: Original Link

About this course

Climate change is arguably the greatest challenge of our time. Human activity has already warmed the planet by one degree Celsius relative to pre-industrial times, and we are feeling the effects through record heat waves, droughts, wildfires and flooding. If we continue to burn fossil fuels at the current rate, the planet will reach two degrees of warming by 2050 - the threshold that many scientists have identified as a dangerous tipping point. What is the science behind these projections?

Join climate scientist expert Michael Mann to learn about the basic scientific principles behind climate change and global warming. We need to understand the science in order to solve the broader environmental, societal and economic changes that climate change is bringing.

By the end of this course, you will:
*Develop a deep scientific understanding of HOW the climate system has been changing;
*Articulate WHY the climate system is changing;
*Understand the nature of these changes;
*Develop a systems thinking approach to analyzing the impacts of climate change on both natural and human systems.

The course covers the basic principles of atmospheric science, methods of climate data collection and tracking of greenhouse gas emissions. It introduces basic climate modeling and explores the impact of various greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. Finally, it outlines the impacts of climate change on environmental, social, economic and human systems, from coral reefs and sea level rise to urban infrastructure. The course follows the general outline of the 5th Assessement Report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Related Stores

edX
edX

Comments

  • +4

    What's the regular price of this course though?

      • https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-11/australias-fires-reve…

        NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) Inspector Ben Shepherd said earlier this week lightning was predominantly responsible for the bushfire crisis.
        "I can confidently say the majority of the larger fires that we have been dealing with have been a result of fires coming out of remote areas as a result of dry lightning storms," he said.

        • ???

          • @kamlem: Dry lightning and plenty of fuel is to blame.

            • -1

              @whooah1979: I wasn't aware dry lightning was an invention of 2019.

              "Commissioner Fitzsimmons said the agency had met its targets for hazard reduction in the lead-up to this bushfire season, but the "really awful" conditions across the drought-stricken state meant that fires had spread wildly regardless.

              "Hazard reduction burning is really challenging and the single biggest impediment to completing hazard reduction burning is the weather," Commissioner Fitzsimmons told ABC Breakfast."

              https://www.smh.com.au/national/hazard-reduction-burns-are-n…

              • @kamlem: Back burning targets are clearly too low. The law should change to allow residents to do what is necessary to protect their properties.

                • @whooah1979: Perhaps, but you have not provided evidence that the RFS's efforts have been significantly different to previous years, or that occurrences of dry lightning has increased dramatically outside of Pyrocumulonimbus (pyroCB) storms.

                  So what has changed to create this current disaster?

                  There is overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing.

                  • @kamlem: Major bushfires like this one comes in cycles. 7 to 10 years by the looks of it. We may expect a few small ones and then a major in 2028/29.

                    • +2

                      @whooah1979: Please provide a scientific source for your claim.

                      Hint: Cycles such as El Niño finished in the winter of 2019

                      https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/august-2019…

                      • +1

                        @kamlem: Pass bushfire dates is a good indicator. That and time it takes for trees to grow which is about ten years.

                        • +2

                          @whooah1979: So no scientific sources for your assertions about dry lightning, hazard reduction levels or climate change unrelated cyclical causes for this season's unprecedented bushfires.

                          You are a perfect candidate to educate yourself with a free 8 week online course that meticulously explains the science, data and effects of anthropogenic climate change. :)

                          • +6

                            @kamlem: My time is better spend on working.

                            We can revisit this thread in ten years.

                            • @whooah1979: No need. The scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change exists today whereas evidence for your claims as to the root cause of these unprecedented bushfires apparently doesn't. :)

      • +5

        What does "climate change" have to do with idiots starting fires? Are they lighting them in protest?

    • +1

      Hundreds of billions dollars to our economy to implement global socialism.

      • +3

        Only halfway through the bushfire season of a single year…

        "Scaling up the royal commission’s Black Saturday figures for the size of the fire and scaling them down for the fewer deaths and other things that shouldn’t be scaled up produces an estimate of tangible costs of A$103 billion in today’s dollars.

        The Deloitte Access Economics ratio of intangible to tangible costs suggests a total for both types of costs of A$230 billion.

        As it happens the tangible costs estimate is close to an estimate of A$100 billion prepared using methods by University of Queensland economist John Quiggin."

        https://theconversation.com/with-costs-approaching-100-billi…

      • +3

        LOL - someone's been watching Fox & Friends and/or listening to Alan Jones a little too much…

      • people like you want us all dead

    • @flagstones

      to answer your actual question

      from what i can tell it's always free?

      free to 'audit' which includes

      access to course materials and discussions forums

      and you can also always pay $49USD $71AUD to

      Pursue the Verified Track.
      Graded Assignments: Build your skills through graded assignments and projects.
      Easily Sharable: Add the certificate to your CV or resume, or post it directly on LinkedIn.
      Support our Mission: EdX, a non-profit, relies on verified certificates to help fund affordable education to everyone globally.

    • Amazingly good value at $0.
      But you can "Pursue a Verified Certificate to highlight the knowledge and skills you gain $49.00".
      Yes, it is "Official and Verified - Receive an instructor-signed certificate with the institution's logo to verify your achievement and increase your job prospects".
      Yes, signed by Michael Mann, who forged his own Nobel Prize certificate. https://iowaclimate.org/2019/09/18/michael-mann-fake-nobel-p… As bogus as his hockey stick graph.

      • who forged his own Nobel Prize certificate.

        Now that's juicy stuff!

      • I think that your statement regarding Dr Mann is false and defamatory.
        The IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and the IPCC, in turn, awarded certificates to the main contributors and lead authors, one of which was Dr Mann.

  • -2

    Climate change is a complete hoax.

    • I don't need to attack you. I will just say you are simply wrong. I hope you children (if you have any) or grand children don't read your comment in the future. They may be a tad disappointed…

    • Climate-change denialism is the complete hoax.

    • +4

      Yep completely agree! Temperatures have only been recorded for around 100 years. They think they can tell us that we're causing the earth to change its weather? The earth has seasons, what makes it so impossible that the earth would also have extreme cyclical weather throughout its existence. It's known we have had floods, ice ages, droughts, etc throughout the last hundreds of thousands of years. Are these people saying that humans caused all those changes too… Also the bushfires happen every single year, the reason why it went completely out of control is they are banning the controlled burn offs more and more each year, which means there's huge areas that if started will continue for ages. If people want to actually do some research into more natural happenings of the earth it's supposed to happen around every 25,000 years where the polar shifts cause havoc for the earth's weather. The last time this happened we had huge floods which then froze over and caused the previous ice age. I'm guessing all our technological devices, meat eating and pollution caused that to happen back then. Don't believe everything you hear in the media people, do your own research and find out for yourselves what you want to believe. Always look at both sides of the story and then make a judgement.

      • “ I'm guessing all our … “
        “ do your own research”
        “ Always look at both sides of the story and then make a judgement.”

        Sounds like you need to do the course

        • +1

          The I'm guessing part was sarcasm saying that our technology caused the ice age thousands of years ago. If you can't even read a sentence properly we got no hope trying to convince people like you that climate change is at most a poor theory, with only a few years of research which defies every major weather event over earths billions of years.

          • @Whisper Quiet: You might want to check out the Vostok ice core data. 500,000+ years, from memory, of data

            • +1

              @kale chips suck: No.. It's thought that the glaciers are that old but its only theorised for a maximum of 40,000 years that they can be somewhat sure of readings and the link shows hardly any difference.
              https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html
              I don't understand now people are conveniently forgetting about the last ice age?! Which ended around 12,000 years ago. Did you forget all the things and history you learned in school. This is turning into George Orwell's 1984. Everyone doesn't have to believe that Climate Change isnt real. We could be adding to it marginally but not causing it. Just keep an open mind is all I'm asking

  • +2

    Just registered Scomo for the course:)
    https://www.pm.gov.au/contact-your-pm

    Hopefully he puts down his lump of coal long enough to attend :)

  • +7

    Climate change is definitely a hoax, just ask our supreme leader The Donald. He's done a lot of research on the topic, more than anyone else

    • +4

      Big brain, good genes.

      • +1

        An impeccable specimen of the racial hierarchy. He evidently and unquestionably is the pinnacle example of the bell curve!

  • +8

    Climate change:
    I predict a calm, lucid discussion amoungst fellows with no extreme arguments, no mocking of others' positions and no screaming or accusations. Politics will be intelligently kept out of it and discourse will continue with only reason, science and logic guiding it.
    No one will be banned or end up in the sin bin and a jolly good time will be had by all.

    ah yes…

  • +4

    There are so many articals explaining climate change and then this https://climatechangedispatch.com/time-to-end-the-climate-gr…

    Geological records show that today’s CO2 levels are very low

    https://skepticalscience.com/co2-levels-airborne-fraction-in…

    This proves anyone can write articles :)

    • -3

      "This proves anyone can write articles :)"

      [insert self-own GIF]

  • +1

    Climate change is arguably the greatest challenge of our time.

    rofl

    this post has to be a troll….

    • A post cannot be a troll, but nice try…

      • Fair point.

  • +2

    I'd rather us take our chances :D

  • +5

    I was talking to some firefighters whom said the burn off was harder to perform due to the greens 10 years ago, the Greens said the burn off causes too much CO2 being released in the air.

    10 years on, the forest fuels has been stacking up and the fires are uncontainable, Australia had always had burn off since the indigenous Australians.

    • +2

      Not sure how the greens, that haven't had or been in power for, well, ever, can have such a big impact on decisions.

      (This was peak Barnaby Joyce scaremongering that the firies and many boomers took on.)

      • +2

        Not sure how the greens, that haven't had or been in power

        So being in coalition (in a minority) with others means you have no power?

        If so then Barnaby Joyce couldnt scaremonger as the Nationals havent been in power either as minority Coalition partner?

        Cuts both ways

        You really destroy your arguments when you try to be too clever.

        The Labor party lost votes in QLD by being too clever with Greens policy. Greens have no influence? Tell that to Voters, and those handing out Greens how to vote cards.

        BTW I am not arguing with your climate change points

        • +3

          I get that they would have a say, but for them to attribute this to solely the greens is a rather extreme way to deflect from the signs of global warming (increased temperatures creating increased dry fuel loads), especially when the greens are pro hazard reduction burns as well.

          • +1

            @Drakesy: Agreed they are now pro hazard reduction, but this is only just a new policy, hazards have been building for them last 10-15 years.

            And it still hasn’t got to the greens at council level, our local council has just increased the restrictions on tree removal to 3 metres from the home from 10 metres.

            So let’s hope the national policy filters down to where it is needed.

    • +8

      Using the Royal Commission’s target of a minimum of 390,000Ha of annual hazard reduction burns across Victoria, the actual planned burnt areas were;

      2018-19 : 130,000 Deficit- 260,000
      2017-18: 74,728 Deficit- 315,272
      2016-17 : 125,052 Deficit- 264,948
      2015-16 : 197,940 Deficit- 192,060

      https://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCo…

      Even left Conversation site agrees https://theconversation.com/theres-only-one-way-to-make-bush…

    • +1

      Greens policy clearly articulates support for hazard reduction burns.
      The fire chiefs have stated that reduction burns are becoming riskier because of climate change driven drought. This is why the fuel loads have risen. There's no point doing them if you're going to lose control and have houses burn down as a result.
      Intense fires travel through the crowns of the trees. You can do a burn and still have a nasty fire come through a week later.
      So 'some firefighters' need to talk to their bosses and stop misrepresenting the science, the Greens and the fire chiefs.

      • +1

        Ah the magical "Science". Its not a Science, its an opinion based on plenty of experience, but its NOT a science. Quoting as such just means nothing. You and others should stop the true misrepresentation of Science

        There is more to this that just what you quote. A number of Firechiefs also say that leaving the fuel means it reaches a point that at some point it has become so hazardous that burning off isnt the answer. Earlier intervention before it builds up to this point is effective and necessary.

        Crowning spreads fires but fuel load on the ground maintains a fire, two different impacts here. Plus most of the disastrous fires start in National parks, because of the terrain that stops them being controlled. (That is NOT a criticism of National parks - its a function of what they are) Historically most of these are put out by a raining period. No rain no extinguishing.

        Firefighting is there to protect human structures and human lives. Wallies/Roos. Koala's dont have fire brigades. So the best protection for human structures means clearing near them.

  • +1

    Come in spinners lol.

    • -1

      Which definition of "spinners" are you using? Might attend depending…

  • Almost guarantee those pushing climate change also voted for gay marriage.

    • +3

      So you're saying the two thirds majority then?

      • +1

        So you're saying the two thirds majority then?

        ^well played

      • -1

        No, that would be if he said those pushing for gay marriage are also pushing for climate change.

    • +1

      And are in the mee too movement

  • +5

    PM me to sell your beach front property. Don't land yourself in deep water due to rising tides. Top prices paid. Enquire now!

  • Does this course also include the topic of the Milankovitch Cycles? I bet it does not. Watch this video if you want to be better informed about climate change. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GUcn07enz4

    • +1

      Just remember though these are over 100's of thousands of years and not reflective of what we're experiencing in the short term.

  • +1

    This is a interesting site , it has lots of historical newspaper cuttings of previous climate events and views.https://realclimatescience.com

    Life on Mars ? Did you know that at the turn of the last century 1900's there was a consensus by leading scientist that there was intelligent life living on Mars .. https://realclimatescience.com/scientific-consensus-for-life…

  • +2

    Is this course run by the same climate scientist expert Michael Mann that is mentioned in this article “Michael Mann Climate change hoax collapses as Michael Mann’s bogus “hockey stick” graph defamation lawsuit dismissed by the Supreme Court of British Columbia”?
    https://climate.news/2019-08-26-climate-change-hoax-collapse…

  • What a SCAM…
    This is taking to a scientology course…

    We are actually living in an ice age… research that.

    The earth rotates upon its axis, and a concept called the "procession of the equinoxes" eventually changes the seasons… look that one up.

    These are but two topics your so called "scientist" will fail to expound upon… why… bc these people are akin to scientologist, they want to indoctrinate you in a FABLE.

    • -1

      It's the same scientists that talk about previous ice ages thousands of years ago, water damaged rocks from empty crevices millions of years ago that are now baron, who say it's now people that are causing these catastrophic weather changes. You can't blame people for the weather changes in the current time period, then blame the earth's natural course for the weather changes thousands or millions of years ago. Who believes these geniuses.

  • The course organiser invites you to join climate scientist expert Michael Mann to learn about the basic scientific principles behind climate change. Is this the Michael Mann that falsely claimed to have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/michael-manns-false-no…

    • -1

      The IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and the IPCC, in turn, awarded certificates to the main contributors and lead authors, one of which was Dr Mann.
      He's done nothing wrong. He is an authority on climate change.

  • -1

    Facts are facts; the Nobel Committee in Norway says that Michael Mann never won a Nobel Peace Prize. He made up his own fake certificate. https://realclimatescience.com/2019/09/michael-mann-fake-nob…
    Michael Mann Retracts False Nobel Prize Claims in Humiliating Climbdown
    https://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/michael-mann-…

    • -1

      That's more conspiratorial nonsense.
      The IPCC issued certificates to Mann and others. He didn't fake anything whatsoever.
      The worst you can say is that he used the word 'shared' versus 'contributed' . Ie semantics, which they corrected.
      None of this invalidates the work they all did.
      The fact is that the IPCC won the Nobel prize "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change."
      What this is really about is a bunch of flat-earthers using ad hominems to give the impression that climate-change is not a real phenomenon.
      Quite gutless really.

      • -1

        You obviously don't know what an ad hominem is. Not if you are calling us "a bunch of flat earthers" in the same sentence.

Login or Join to leave a comment