Don't worry, she's interviewing an expert. If she spoke about the uncertainty in climatology herself, to an Internet which does not necessarily grasp any credibility she offers: No matter how accurately she spoke, she'd probably be subject to scorn and ridicule, simply due to the way this 'sounds' to those who claim to promote science. Furthermore, she might likewise find herself the host of many deniers who flocked in to ignorantly promote the literal notion in the title of this video.
Why courage ? Are you saying this video has more to it than just being an informative and semi-technical interview with a climate scientist ? From the comments section it looks like the title of this video has attracted a lot of AGW skeptics. Maybe I am too dense, but I kind of feel that Sabine put up this video to show that this field isn't very reliable.
@@MrMichaelFire that is the thing about idiots like you. You have a fixed idea of how knowledgeable and confident people speak and classify other ways of speaking as "lying".
As a physics professor (ret) myself, this video suffers from the inevitable problem that scientists find it difficult to explain things without falling into the trap of getting lost in details that are important to the scientist but are difficult to put in perspective. Sabine is usually good at avoiding this, a rare talent. The scientist will tend to emphasize the inaccuracies and limitations of his methods, whereas the skeptic will cherry-pick the factors that reinforce his pre-conceived notions.
Hank Snow ....Well, all models (and virtually everything humans know are models) try to emulate/forecast reality and reality is extremely complex. So, all models have assumptions, approximations, and, indeed, errors (or residuals) and are thus imperfect. Some models are better at forecasting (or producing forecasts that are reasonably close to observed future value), but this is often because they are modelling simpler phenomena. Hard science models can often produce good forecasts, for example car crash dynamics can produce results close to what is modelled, similarly for laboratory chemical reactions...( add chemical X to chemical Y, under controlled conditions and the result is pretty easy to forecast and reproduce.) On the other hand, social science models have horrible predictive power. This is especially true for subjects such as economics, whose models have about as much predictive power as a circus fortune teller. (Mainly because they rely so heavily on human behaviour or interactions with the systems being studied.)
@@chatteyj It is a problem. If humans want to live healthy and prosperous lives into the future, it's a huge problem. That's an objective fact, not a claim.
@D R It is not courageous what Sabine is doing. She is not being critical at all. If she where critical she would challenge the narrative that Co2 would cause global warming. That is challenge the suggested causal effect, or even turn it around and suggest higher temperatures cause higher CO2 levels (which in part is true). She does nothing of the kind so no, this is not courageous...it is just a big nothing burger....
@@scribblescrabble3185 We have to distinguish between facts and opinions. Fact is that we we have glaciers melting currently. That is true. But fact is also that under these melting ice sheets we are finding 2000 year old well preserved and rooted tree trunks, dating back to the Roman era. Not just in the Alps, but also in Siberia and Iceland. This unambiguously proofs it was at LEAST 5 degrees warmer 2000 years ago on a global scale. Now, since CO2 levels were much lower back than (which I am happy to accept) we simply cannot hard-link rising CO2 levels (for which indeed humans have a strong influence, and yes it is a greenhouse gass) to the short term rise in Earth's temperature. So by posting video's like this Sabine is supporting the notion that human induced rise of CO2 levels would be crucial to predict future rise of temperature and thus that having reliable CO2 predictions is important . Fact is that the current warming (which is mostly regional by the way) is by and large a cyclical event, possibly even linked to solar output cycles. Much as Marxists want to believe, we humans are not always the dominant factor (whether in the economy or in Nature), nor can thus steering our habits have a major impact on the grander cycles. Yes we must stop polluting our planet and stop cutting trees in the Amazone, but we should also not overestimate our impact in Global wether cycles, or even solar Cycles. Bottom line, either Sabine is incapable of logical thought or she is deliberately letting herself be used as an alarmist in the marxist push for centralized government. To some extend it is sad to see one of the very few critical thinkers in the scientific world not being able to distinguish facts from fiction. Humanity is letting itself get hyped and perhaps we don't deserve a brighter future because of our proven incapability of opinion-free judgement...So whatever...:-)
If there were more of this kind of honest, nuanced discussion instead of oversimplified propaganda and fearmongering, it would be a lot easier to get traction on problems like this. People can handle nuance, and some people require it in order not to feel manipulated. Great job Sabine.
The manmade-climatechange hoax has been made into a cashgrab by ''the elites'' to sell the masses green energy crap, and nothing more. They don't give a fuck about climate-change caused disasters, why else not simply build higher and stronger dykes to prevent floods? Dig canals so water gets more space? Plant more trees/make more forests? Those are all not too hard to realize right? But no, it is not about that, at all..
@@MarshallMathersthe7th It doesn't have to be a hoax in order to become a cash grab. Both things can be true, and whether it's man-made is ultimately irrelevant. The only important question is whether we let it happen, and if not, how to pragmatically address it without it becoming another scammy wealth transfer.
@@musicalfringe I agree, and it's true. Combatting climate-change is so simple, but what do i know i'm not a scientist. My ideas would be, bigger and stronger dykes for any country or coastal area that is below sealevel if possible, move people from places at risk (below sealevel, coastal areas) Plant trees, lots of them to catch the Co2 out of the air, reducing the supposedly warming effect. More ''green'' as in plants around you also makes people feel better (supposedly) I have nothing against coalplants, matter of fact i think they are a great cheap and reliable source of energy. But.. Nuclear power is the best sort of power there is imo. Building more nuclear powerplants, and getting most of our energy from nuclear power (and from LNG) would decrease Co2 levels massively. And yes.. Have less people walking this damn planet, more people means more Co2 it's that simple, but obviously, and rightfully so, people don't want to hear this. Anyway, i don't know why i am typing this to you, you already know and seem like a smart person.
The models only serve a propaganda function. Any idiot can realize that the atmosphere is too complex and too poorly understood for the models to produce anything useful. It's just a scam. Don't be dumb.
I think many people don't realise that the atmosphere, despite having several million of square km area, it is about 80km width. It is thin as a contact lens and can easily by afected.
Paraphrasing the lovely Sabine, “I find it peculiar that we are not presented with the uncertainty from each model.” What is even more peculiar is Tim’s response. We must see the estimate and the bounds on the estimate. It would also be nice to see prior model estimates versus actuals. If we can’t get near perfect decade length extrapolations, how will we be able to estimate much further out, given fan shaped errors? If you are leaning on ensembles, isn’t that just ARIMA?
If he can't explain it in terms a layman could understand... I heard nothing but saw a great deal of smoke. That one bothered me too but not enough to go back for another try.
@@2nostromo Nobody wants to say we're basically toast. I don't think we have many decades to come as Tim suggested. All one will get from scientists are different outlooks without commitment to any.
That was a really nice way of saying that all Tim’s doublespeak and misdirections amounted to a pile of rubbish. In the first few minutes he said the models were pretty accurate but needed a lot more work. Wait, if they’re accurate, why do we need to work on them? I would like to see Sabine either stay away from this topic or be brave [risk demonitization] and really dig for the truth. I KNOW she’s plenty smart to smell the BS.
He explained that clearly. If you have models with just one or a few runs there is no possibility to give a reasonable standard deviation. Including those models appears to be sort of a political question, not wanting to exclude the „poorer“ institutes with less computing power. Instead the means of all the models are used to represent a range of spread. I see no basic fault in that decision.
This is the first time in my life that i actually heard a scientist talk about climate change rather than politicians and the media... thank you very very much prof Sabine
Gregory Jones Apart from the first sentence, you should have posted that as another comment, not a a reply to me. I am not sure you were even addressing me.
Freeman Dyson concluded, "Climate models solve the equations of fluid dynamics. They might do a good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry, and the biology of fields, farms, and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in."
@@thalesnemo2841 - Dyson is a lifelong leftist. He is not a climate change denier. He has stated that the earth is warming. He agrees that the carbon emissions have warmed the planet, and this may be wrong, he thinks there is a limit to the warming to be done by carbon. If I interpret him correctly, he thinks there are benefits to increased carbon, one of them being the increased vegetation worldwide. However, he is for reducing carbon emissions because carbon in the atmosphere attacks the ozone layer.
@@zoeherriot - Dyson has been interested in the atmosphere for decades. You might want to watch one or more of his interviews to get a better idea of what and why he has his opinions. Not all scientists will agree that the models have been correct. One of the problems is that most scientists are trying to make a living, and they may see their walking papers if they don't dance around the facts a little. What seems to be consistent is that most of the scientists who disagree with the current global warming scare are retired, and not connected to our left leaning universities. Politics is affecting science. You can see this when there is the debate about men becoming women. There are no scientists speaking up. In our cancel culture environment, scientists want their paychecks, because they have house payments, wives, and children to support and send to university.
Global climate is incredibly complex. We understand the physics and chemistry pretty well (perhaps not quite so well where chemistry is concerned), but the complexity of the system makes simulation extremely difficult. Just think of clouds. I don't think we can simulate clouds very well at all. When he says "We still have some way to go" that is a great understatement, IMO.
However, at the larger scale, our simulations actually do work quite well. Heck, at the scale of changes in the total Earth energy balance a model you can write down on a piece of paper and compute out by hand is pretty accurate... And was done about 100 years ago. So many people seem to think that the extreme difficulty building up a detailed model mostly based on first principles means we are just clueless about the bigger picture... That is simply not the case, as is pointed out repeatedly in this interview.
It's a criminal understatement. The "tipping point" predictions have been all wrong and he won't admit it. Increased CO2 might be keeping us from enduring an ice age. It might cause sporadic bad weather of the kind we have experienced for thousands of years. Instead of addressing the issues directly, drought with reservoirs, water filtration, aqueducts, and heat and cold with better power generation and better disaster preparedness and construction we are being told we must address "root causes" which aren't fully understood, are impossible to address globally, may be having a beneficial effect globally and are apparently impossible to predict the results. This isn't an understatement, it's a criminal misdirection.
@@musashi9873 Well said, I couldn't agree with you more. All this interview did for me was to confirm the models the climate scientists rely upon are little better than useless at predicting future global temperatures with any accuracy. They're about as useful as 'Tits on the proverbial Bull!' What an absolute waste of valuable time in watching this inane interview.
@@MarathonSimmo I agree. Sabine has become a political activist just like Snake in DeGrasse Tyson, Shill Nye and Mucho Kaka. Very disappointing. I have previously observed that science died on 9/11 after a protracted illness and I am yet to see evidence to the contrary. :(
The questions were very good ones as you might expect, but the answers too. What I feel didn’t come out clearly enough is that there are very few decisions we can afford to make only after achieving the “six-sigma statistical significance required” to accept a finding in particle physics. Events would tend to overwhelm us while we were still studying our confidence intervals. Also the purpose of the IPPC reports was to inform AND communicate; and to a political audience with severe attention deficit disorder. Its really hard to be neutral and informative in this area, and I get it - sometimes a central estimate is the way to communicate even if, for a more rigorous mind, its hard to interpret without knowledge of the variance.
"the purpose of the IPPC reports was to inform AND communicate" translation" - sell and convince the people with the purse strings that we need more money or you're all gonna die...maybe, uh if this and that and worst case and...or maybe not...but, it might already be too late if you don't give us more money... Underlying it all are poorly defined "assumptions" that the models are based on ("the most important being cloud cover"). Then the model's are referenced to support the assumptions - saying they may not be entirely correct regionally (translation" don't correlate well with the real world data) due to computational resolution issues, but nevertheless we believe them to be correct globally (which assumes the assumptions to be correct "on average") so you should believe us too. The uncertainty rationalization and methodology discussion ends up being a tangent that gives him room to gloss over and move on from the uncertainty of the assumption validity and it's impact on the overall model uncertainty.
@@luismartinslopes8900 The data in this video was generated in paradigms of the Fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, and CMIP5 was upgraded to CMIP6. This video precedes the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report and the corresponding Synthesis Report. Thank you for your comment; it led to more recent information.
@@JA238979 - The public (the electorate) doesn't understand how weather works. How climate changes is a far more difficult subject.. It seems hopeless to me as a meteorologist.
As soon as Palmer said, at 2:43, that the historical models have been "remarkably accurate", I knew he was either lying through his teeth, or he is utterly brainwashed and delusional. No reasonable, honest scientist would dare call any of the current climate models "accurate". The models have all been embarrassing, ALWAYS substantially exaggerating the amount of warming. How would Palmer explain the periods in Earth's history when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times higher than now, at the same time that the Earth was much colder it is than today? And how would Palmer explain the periods in Earth's history when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was lower than now, at the same time that the Earth was much hotter than it is today? The fact that he intentionally ignores reality in his own field of study, including ignoring the intentional falsification and selective deletion of critical climate data in his own country, speaks volumes. Sabine, would you ignore proven falsification of data regarding the nature of photons, or the nature of dark matter, or the falsification of similar astronomical topics? Merely the fact that he is employed in this field in England, indicates his fraudulence - they would never tolerate any scientist who doesn't say that the Earth is not in imminent danger. For Palmer to not stress that the output from the IPCC is manufactured by ignorant, utterly corrupt politicians, and not by scientists, is very damning. For Palmer to not even mention the variability of the Sun's output and variabilities in the Earth's orbit, is also very damning. For Palmer to state at 31:44 that the forced mass migration into Europe and the U.S. was due to climate change , rather than a truly evil political plan by those nations' leaders to institute a permanent, global, totalitarian communist government, was an extreme insult to all those who value the truth and freedom. And for Palmer to just assume, out of the clear blue sky and based on no evidence or reasoning what-so-ever, that the Earth being a few degrees hotter will be a net negative to mankind, rather than a net positive, is very damning. Everything this lying fraud says should be ignored. It is so very, very tiresome to repeatedly see jackasses like him being interviewed. Sabine asking, at 21:50, "So, what can be done about it?" is such a disappointment. That question assumes a scientific reality that even Palmer admits is absolutely not known. Sabine, to your credit, you are so honest and logical that you have a hard time recognizing (or believing) how utterly corrupt the scientists and politicians are in the field of climate science. This is a fascinating example that even your iron-grip on scientific rationality can be corrupted. Please use the same level of scientific skepticism for climate science that you used when you analyzed the need for a larger supercollider. You are so much smarter than this.
"As soon as Palmer said, at 2:43, that the historical models have been "remarkably accurate", I knew he was either lying through his teeth, or he is utterly brainwashed and delusional." Agreed. Even the IPCC no longer uses the models for support of the conclusions. Given that it can't rely on empirical evidence (which falsifies the AGW hypothesis) all it has left is 'expert judgment.'
@@alanlowey2769 Your hypothesis is interesting but I have a bit of trouble with the idea of dark matter without any evidence of it. I know that the cosmology people have had many problems that have thrown the field in disarray and expect to have the chaos last for a very long period of time. That is why I am not ready to examine your idea at this time. But if you have a few references I would be glad to take a look. The driver that interests me is the change in cosmic ray flux in the lower atmosphere. A great overview was provided in a popular book called The Chilling Stars. But there is a great deal of literature on the subject that is accessible to anyone interested. I am far more convinced of the cosmic ray connection than of the claim that CO2 is the driver. www.sciencebits.com/weatherphys www.amazon.ca/Chilling-Stars-New-Theory-Climate/dp/1840468661
Sabine is a good science educator as long as she's not talking about climate change, so I'm not sure what you expected from here. This video is an example of an echo chamber.
Very proud to call him my uncle! The intelligence gene skipped my generation unfortunately .... and he is genuinely the nicest man as well as super intelligent... 🤓🙂
Very nice yes, but he also seems very bored. If he was so intelligent he would realise that he is doing bs for a bs institution, well maybe he does know, but then he is too nice, or not very brave.
@Stanley Goddard The ipcc is no university and there is no advancement in knowledge regarding the CO2 climate sensitivity after 30 years. Or is there? I do not devide the debate into pro trump or anti trump. I am from Germany and consider myself a leftist.That you immediatley peg me into a political camp, is part of the problem with this "debate".
@@Tbop3 If you really want i can give you a long talk about the history, the mandate and the structure of the ipcc. But i think the "climategate" e-mails they speak for themself: www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf Palmer made one crucial point himself: Why are the climate models not compared in a stochastic manner, would that not just be the next logical step to compare them and ask why the lowest ones meet the observations by now, asking for the "ingredients" causing these different results? Being a scientist like him stumbling about this question i would truly ask myself if what i am doing here is science after all. The list of former scientists that left the ipcc for scientific reasons is pretty impressive. Him asking these questions himself, maybe after Hossenfelder pointed them out, show that he is not discussing these things with other parts of the ipcc, which is sad and wierd and in the end bs, nothing but bureaucracy, collecting data, modelling and only the political bureau will interpretate everything. There is no room for theorizing and debate whithin the ipcc, it lacks an organ of falsification. This role of falsification is put to fringe, experts like Lindzen, Christy, Curry, Shaviv are named and shamed and excluded since the debate got extremely polarized. So there is no debate by succsfully avoiding a debate, claiming a consensus and defending it ferocious.
My goodness. There is absolutely no falsifiable methodology for determining precisely, or roughly, the effect of CO2 levels on climate temperature. There is no laboratory model of planet Earth upon which CO2-temperature experiments can be run. Where are the facts in this video? I hear unproven theories and speculation. The reference to tipping points has no basis in observed or historical reality. In the paleo climate record, when CO2 has been 5 or 10 or 15 times higher that the current levels, we have not discovered previous tipping points. It annoys me to hear so-called experts demonstrate such a lack of critical, integrated thinking and such a inexplicable inability to distinguish between observable facts and speculation. Anyone, who points to climate models as evidence of anything we can count on as being representative of the future, might as well be looking into a crystal ball-for all that climate models are worth.
If you look through history you will see that the climate often changes relatively fast due to some initial forcing. My understanding of this goes something like this: - To start you have a some forcing (f.x. big eruption, asteroid strike, Earths orbit or tilt changes a little, ocean currents suddenly change, etc.). - After that the feedback loops take over and a small initial cooling or warming ends up freezing or thawing the planet. Those are of course the extremes and due to the multitude of factors, this process can be different at different times and end at a different equilibrium. - That means that the tipping points would be those that the initial forcing has to exceed to get the feedback loops going. About CO2, we know it catches infrared radiation, the type Earth radiates when heated. So it stands to reason that increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere should have a heating affect. It is only part of the puzzle of course, but it is the part we have the biggest effect on. You mention that CO2 has been higher in the past which is absolutely true and the correlation is not perfect. But when you factor in the sun as well (which was cooler in the past), the correlation gets very good. So I think this in not a lack of critical thinking, but of this being a very complicated problem and there being a lot of misinformation out there that makes this conversation a mess.
@GreyGeek Ok, that became a lot longer than intended. The Sun: -When you state that the Sun is *THE* driver, what exactly do you mean by driver? I see multiple ways of understanding that. Do you mean driver of climate or climate change or both? -The way I use it in this context is to mean the most significant factor that is forcing the climate at that time. -The Sun has been getting warmer during the history of the Earth. The temperature on Earth has not followed this trend through history. So the other factors are clearly relevant. About Data: Well, that depends on how and why you change the data and if you are transparent about it. If you have to compare two different data sets from different instruments, you may need to homogenize (I think that is the term) the data to make sure you are comparing apples to apples. Or you may need to account for local variables, such as with heat reading near cities. -Take the example of ocean temperature reading. The had ships to do it and then switched to buoys, but temperature readings from the ships had a bias because of the ships, showing slightly higher temperature. This was not a problem because the objective was to look at change in temperature, so they added the bias to the buoys readings because there were far fewer measurements and it was less work. - If you have any evidence of deliberate misleading, please point to it. Water vapor more potent: You are correct in that water vapor is more potent. But that does not allow you to ignore CO2. If water vapor is 7 times more potent, that still means that CO2 would be ~12.5% percent of the potency of water. That little extra heating allows the air to hold more water vapor, causing more heating, more release of CO2 and more water in the air. So, feedback loop. It also absorbs a little different range of radiation compared to water, narrowing the window for infrared radiation to escape. And yes, the more heat the more the Earth radiates, which is one of the factors that prevents the Earth from going full Hellhole.
I'm not a physics professor, but it seems to me all he is saying is, in effect, yes, climate change from human activity is real, but the specific models measuring it have a certain amount of uncertainty so we need to work on getting more accurate models. I don't see how this undermines the idea that climate change is a problem, but it does suggest that we need to be careful about accepting some of the more "sky is falling immediately" statements. He certainly IS NOT saying that climate change caused by CO2 is a myth.
I find the arguments behind the belief that warming is an impending catastrophe to be dubious for three reasons. One: If we are close to a "tipping point" where the current "delicate balance" will become disrupted if we don't take drastic action right away, then why hasn't any of the historic climate excursions already caused such a latchup? If positive feedback in the climate system is so dominant, then why didn't previous CO2 levels that were TEN times current levels cause disaster? The fact that we haven't experienced a tipping point event already is evidence that negative feedback mechanisms may dominate the Global climate instead of positive feedback mechanisms. Two: How can we be sure that the current climate is ideal for humanity? Couldn't raising global temperatures, and liberating much of the buried carbon back into a potentially lush biosphere be a good thing? The assertion that the global climate right now is ideal for life on Earth is more of an article of faith than an honest assessment of the likely outcome. Three: Time Scales. If sea levels rise to the levels predicted in the worst case, people aren't going to wakeup one day and find their house floating away. Houses get torn down and rebuilt on a much shorter timescale than the predicted rise. Multiple generations will come and go while we are waiting for the rising oceans. On the scale of human existence, I doubt anyone besides historians will notice sea level rise
back to the reason that temperature leads co2 content, presently at 0.49 grams/m³, at sea level. Co2 has high solubility in cold water and very low solubility at warmer conditions in the tropics, where it is expelled in great quantities, after seawater circulation removed the co2 enriched arctic water. In both polar regions it was absorbed readily, This absorption can easily be observed by cooling a bottle with warm water and co2 above it, after cooling the plastic bottle crumbles, there is a pressure reduction caused by the absorption process. This oceanic circulation proves your point.
What I particularly love about Sabine’s videos is when they investigate rather than just advocate for a specific point of view. So many videos start with the conclusion and then provide limited data to support that. If you agree with the premise, the data will be convincing, if you disagree then it’s easy enough to find holes in the data. I’m heading to Patreon now; I’ve put it off long enough. As someone has said, “show me what you spend your money on and I’ll show you what you care about“.
I live in central Ohio. Just a few thousand years ago my house would have been buried under a glacier that reached all the way to Cincinnati. Those glaciers have been receding ever since then and continue to do so. It all started long before man started burning fossil fuels to any significant extent. When that glacier started receding, blessedly there were no politicians around to use it as a crisis to implement their agenda. On second thought, there probably were! Those bastards are always with us!
I am certain a professor of climatology is aware of past ice ages. What really puzzles me is, why a kid from Ohio thinks he knows more about climate than thousands of professors, doctors, and Phd students, most of whom have dedicated their lives to studying the subject.
@@clive373 Funny how they never talk about it. Like stock market graphs, you an make climate change graphs say whatever you want depending on whether you zoom in or out. There are so many variables and feedback loops that affect the climate that no model or computer is large enough and sophisticated enough to generate reliable predictions. UA-cam didn't like me making this point earlier and they took down my comment. They don't believe in free speech. They will probably take down this comment, too. Doing so is a sign of cowardice and lack of confidence in their position, of course. Sad. And scientists are people who are subject to all the flaws and weaknesses that people have. I can recognize groupthink when I see it.
It can be surprisingly hard for people to comprehend that multiple things can be true at the same time. Global temperatures may shift over time due to processes that have nothing to with human activity. Human activity can also affect the environment. Because summer exists does not negate the existence of space heaters. It's not a coincidence that the room gets even hotter in the summer when you also turn on the space heater.
No. The issue is with the underlying process or "model", which is highly non-linear, and the need to use linear approximation in order to make the *modelling* of the processes computationally tractable
@@iii-ei5cv Yes, the model for ENSO/El Nino is non-linear but it can be solved and tidal forcing factors can be applied to model the erratic cycles of El Nino.
@@coreyander286 - so I program my computer model in such a way that human C02 emissions cause global warming over time. Then I run my computer model, and publish the fact that in 100 years time, the computer model predicts that we will have global warming. Can I get a Nobel Price now please, like Al Gore did?
@@coreyander286 If you have an incentive to produce tails like that, getting a model to spit them out is utterly trivial. In fact, if you are not above a little curve fitting they are inevitable products of modelling. Even linear models with an unconstrained input will inevitably lead to such outcomes. It tells you nothing whatsoever about the climate, past, present or future. It is just an artifact of your method. The fact that the models all show the same output artifact is evidence only of the consensus of the linear modelling approach they all use. The simple fact is that there is no evidence for such runaway effects on the basis of CO2 changes in the empirical record.
The so-called "average surface temperature" is not a physical quantity: it is just a construct that means nothing from the thermodynamic viewpoint and which cannot be measured directly or indirectly as one deals with a highly complex open nonequilibrium system (Earth + atmosphere). So, making comparisons with what this "surface average" was supposed to be before the "pre-industrial revolution era" (whatever this overused, yet extremely vague term means) to derive conclusions about atmospheric CO2 concentration effects, is absolutely ridiculous: not only the boundary conditions vary greatly over time, but they are systematically ill-defined at best. Models are not accurate.
It's not enough that the politicians have the information on the risks of continued CO2 emissions. In democracies, we need the voting public to understand those risks otherwise politicians who are willing to take the needed action to reduce CO2 emissions won't be voted in.
5 років тому
Only WASPS are stupid enough to pretend climate change doesn't exist.
There are a few paradoxes about the climate change debate. During the Eemian Interglacial, the previous one about 110,000 to 130,000 years ago, sea levels were six to nine metres above current levels. Are we to blame this on the CO2 emissions of Neanderthals and Denisovans sitting around their campfires? The climate of the Sahara flips regularly about ever 11,000 years from desert to savannah, during the North African Humid Period, and then back to desert again. How many of these climate models factor in the role of plants and photosynthesis which need carbon dioxide, water, heat and sunlight to stay alive? It's the plants that created the Earth's habitable climate and still do. Animals evolved as conveniently mobile compost makers for the plants. Should we have the plants reduce O2 emissions instead? Go figure.
*sigh* an interesting rational discussion about accuracy of complex predictive models and their limits based on a deep knowledge of the subject. What a sad world we are living in that this is called courageous. Kant would roll in his grave. Still: Sabine, huge thanks for not taking the easy route. Danke!
Tbop3 Since I read Kant in German I am not sure about the typical translation, but Kant was calling for mankinds liberation from the selfimposed immaturity by rational thinking.
Academe is infantilizing to the extreme in its current context. It's necessary for the institutions to act top-down paternalistic in order to serve their purpose as authority, problem being that the expansion of recording media into the most private and/or casual corners of conversation enforces a timidity in dialogue among the intellectually cautious that has not been a part of previous intellectual cultures. These folks are professionals having a public conversation that may very well end up spurring controversy that may harm them professionally. If you have any skin in the game at all, it's definitely a brave thing nowadays to express minority opinions on taboo or sacred-cow subjects
Tbop3 I am not totally sure what two mindsets you are referring to, but I wholeheartedly agree that you need a certain serenity and clarity in today’s world of political pressure and large scale misinformation campaigns that once were only used by oppressive regimes or in times of war but now seem to be common in everyday topics like climate change, vaccination. In Kants days it was the aristocracy, the churches and superstition controlling the population by misinformation. By adopting rational and humanistic thinking humankind made huge progress in medicine, law, science, technology. Maybe I’m getting old, but I think we lost a lot of that in the last decade or two.
I like the sense of hesitancy on commiting to an opinion, that plays out well on video. When someone writes or speaks on stage they need to feel certain about what they are saying. This makes it look like they are more certain of what they are presenting than they really are. That the facts are in. In particular it 'papers over' any weaknesses in knowledge. This style of interview, in contrast, assisted the subjects weakness to be expressed and examined. We'll done!
That‘s exactly the kind of substantial interviews we need as a source of information for the most relevant topics these days, thank you very much. I would also very much appreciate if Sabine could explain some key relations. I know that there are many other sources and channels dealing with this topic, but I think what we desperately need is more information and understanding instead of biased opinions, entertainment and gossip. I would be willing to donate for such videos.
This kind of thing is what most people need. Most people, including myself, are not trained in the various sciences that form the field we call climate science. Understanding all the basics, free of politics and ideology, is such an important basis for understanding the bigger picture including the politics. Thank you.
@@runethorsen8423 Why would you sign off your comment as chief IQ, I wonder? Ah! You want everyone to think that attempts at sarcasm on UA-cam indicate that you are... clever? You can do better if you try.
@@staninjapan07 I concede - it was wrong of me, it showed my ego and "need to" be insulting. I can explain it (not excuse it). I apologize, for what that's worth.
What wasn’t mentioned was the effect of o. The atmosphere brown cloud o. Deforestation Each of these is arguably of similar importance to CO2 in terms of climate change. Ramanathan has written extensively on the importance of particulate emissions on atmospheric convection. Convection is crucial for the Earth’s ability to dump excess heat to Space.
thankyou for stating this,,its always bothered me the deforestration and the reduction of rainfall,desertification, and other effects of deforestration on temperature and heat. The emphasis is always carbon, and the political,finacial global governance from agenda 2030 that comes from the CO2 debate.
This is precisely my argument I have been making for more than a decade. The climate will react with more convection when temperatures become warmer. This process skips the CO2 within the Troposphere and dumps the heat at the base of the Stratosphere where it escapes to space. More heat loss and more ice cloud reduces average temperatures. The machanism of the natural properties of the atmosphere opperates a bit like a safety valve. However if climate model scientists over state the value of CO2 in the modelling then they will always make CO2 the problem and the reason for political change.
I'm a scientist, and I have a theory that arsenic will cure the malfunctioning brains of climate deniers. The responsible thing to do is give it to them, right?
@@ayeone3870 I would like to remind that CO2 is a toxic gas, and there is plenty of evidence that a cronic exposure to 600-800 ppm causes several health problems and decrease of cognitive abilities. We are going to reach those values very soon if we keep on exponentially increasing CO2 emissions.
11:05 this sounds like a Turing test for climate models! „we still have to some way to go until you can‘t tell whether you are looking at a climate model or the real world“
We can't build a computer big enough (assumed that we can know all the parameters and their interactions) to model the climate so that it is "real world", because this computer already exists, and it is the Earth.
@@massecl Exactly, it's almost like what Dr. Heisenberg concluded. Interesting how in 1815 a volcano exploded which was 150 times that of Mt. St. Helens. It was equivalent to over 60 Hiroshima sized atom bombs. In Indonesia, a large mountain named "Tambora" exploded and killed over 300,000 people. Its effects lasted over two years. The Global temperature cooled by 1.5 degrees (F). Most crops in Europe didn't grow for a year and a half. Thirty-six (36) "cubic miles" or about 100 megatons of sulfur and smoke and grit encircled the Earth. There was no spring season and the summer never warmed. The following year, 1816 became known as "The Year Without Summer". There was a famine in Ireland. In New England, the year became known as "1800 and froze to death". Morning frost would last until June and almost no planted seed would grow. Livestock died. However, the 19th century was already known as "a little ice age". But after the "Tambora Event" was over after two years, the Earth's "natural thermostat" took over. Eventually, precipitation brought the smoke and dust to the ground. The "stuff" eventually went to the bottom of the ocean which eventually gets recycled into the plates and digested inside the molten magma beneath the ocean. So what do we do? Do we spend trillions and trillions of dollars to reduce carbon emissions only to have another large volcano or a huge rock suddenly fall from space and start all over again? Source and quotes: A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson
I wish there was a way to have opposing scientist defend their views on this topic at the same time. I just watched Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT say there are no tipping points (if I recall him correctly). His arguments are convincing, and I'd love to see Lindzen and Palmer have a go. Thank you, Sabine, for your insightful questioning! I feel I have a moticum of understanding of the difficulties with climate models.
: Strange how there seem to be commenters who didn’t watch the video or all the way through because they’re citing the video as somehow denying climate change and that the modeling and concerns about their projections are phony or whatever. What I saw in the 35 minutes of the video were two people discussing the science of modeling, the technology, and where it should be improved based on current developments that generally indicate the science and modeling have been on point. The discussion about global mean temperature and the necessity of shifting some to regional impact projections was particularly good and informative.
exactly, he is impressed how good the predictions are on a super complicate system, specially for long periods, yes there are errors and any educated human doesn't have issues with that, but people see errors and think is "wrong". the man says climate change is being predicted very well, then goes to talk about the science, the climate change is never challenged, lol.
@@sillysad3198 a sufficiently smart person would be able to talk about where the lack of understanding comes from. Your lack of explanation clearly points to you either being shill of for-profit companies that pollute or that you are simp for being told what to believe without sufficient data. Both reasons being good enough to ignore you.
@@sillysad3198 It's people like you who are the most destructive if the trend keeps getting worse, which it definitely seems to be. Two years ago in my region it didn't rain for a year, but now it has rained just about continually for 6 months! How is that "normal"? Climate deniers are usually religious and "know" climate change isn't a worry, period, cos of this passage... Genesis 8:22! Great science isn't it. Not convincing me, that's for sure.
I enjoy watching Dr. Hossenfelder's other videos because she is very clear about what is understood and what is not. If she ever starts talking about physics in the way that Tim Palmer talks about climate models, I'll be the first to unsubscribe...
One just has to look at the climatologists predictions of near term catastrophes during the last 40 years to get a clear answer: climatologists have been constantly getting it wrong.
I don't understand why this video has so many dislikes. I enjoyed listening to this discussion with Professor Palmer. I hope you decide on doing more of these long form discussions with scientists in their field.
@@Mevlinous - I'm a "denier" (curious wording - usually "denier" is used in religious debates), and I did find this interview interesting. It didn't make me less of a "denier" but it rather supported my views.
@@Mosern1977 To me “denier” doesn’t tell me a whole lot, because there are various groups that would fall under the umbrella of “deniers”. Some of them can be infuriating, but others are quite sensible (same can be said of proponents). Some skeptics deny the science altogether - think it’s a hoax so scientists can get that sweet grant money, while others accept that we’re warming but don’t think it’s a big enough deal to warrant drastically changing our economy. I’m a proponent of the science of anthropogenic climate change, and due to its importance and uncertainty, support efforts to minimize emissions of greenhouse gases. However, I must admit that I find much of the mainstream media coverage of this issue to be reductive and irresponsible. I can understand why this type of coverage can fuel doubt in CC. They spend so much time talking about Greta Thunberg than experts in the field, because it’s the shiny new toy. But it looks like they’re desperate and reaching. I get it. It’s Economics 101 - give audience what they want, not what they need. The demand for entertainment exceeds the demand for education. It’s as true in adults as in children. A conversation like this would not be appreciated by most. There’s a reason why Pewdie pie has 2000 times the subs that Sabine does. Admittedly, I’m a bit jaded from interactions I’ve had on this topic. Most people don’t wish to do the work but want the easy answer (right or left). They are quick to form a strong opinion on the matter, despite their ignorance. I don’t even like it when people ask me, “do you believe in climate change?” It’s a malformed question. It should be, “Do you understand the science of anthropogenic climate change?” And then go from there. Afterall, we need to know the claim and evidence for the claim, before forming a strong argument either for or against it, right? I work with many conservatives. When the topic of climate change comes up, I just want to beat my forehead against the desk - I’ve heard arguments involving Al Gore, polar bear population increase, CO2 is only a small % of atmosphere, how the medieval warm period being was amazing, satellite data showing no temperature increase, etc, etc. But not one of them know how molecules absorb energy from light, or about the carbon cycle, hydrologic cycle, radiative-forcing components or paleoclimatology. They know about Milankovitch cycles, but do not know the time scales for those cycles. They have facts that are insulated from context - Facts used to muddy the water and cast aspersion on the integrity of individuals studying the field. There are skeptics who accept that the temperature is increasing largely due to human activity, but are concerned of the economic consequences that might arise from imposing excessive regulatory constraints, incommensurate to the level of risk. They fear a situation where the antidote is potentially worse than the ailment. I share some these concerns. But that’s all the more reason to speak to the individuals who give their life to studying, painstakingly analyzing, the various aspects of the climate system and not the bloviating media/political pundits who have ulterior motives. That’s all the more reason to get educated on some of the basic aspects of the physics underpinning this phenomenon, instead of sound bites (and yes, this includes the 97% number). Listen, scientists are human and have flaws. Group think can occur in any area of life (science is no different); for this reason, peer review and public discussions like what Dr.Hossenfelder is doing are vital to keep everyone honest and also to inform the public. I just wish it was more prevalent.
@@LearningWithSuj the problem is while some people are diciding if "the antidote is potentially worse than the ailment" we quickly approaching tipping points which can not be reversed. The antidote is absolutely better than the ailment and we can't get enough of it as of now without some radical moves towards said antidote. People are afraid of change but it must happen. The science is there and economic concerns are not nearly as bad as they seem by general public, in fact there's clear advantage to the global economy and human wellbeing but it's being hold back by corporate greed of those who are unwilling to look further than their nose in future.
The models seem to have been developed for a period of 38 years. These models might well be highly accurate for that period, but to extrapolate a model from 38 years for "the future" strikes me as BS. And what reference has been made to the last 10,000 years. In terms of the earth 38 years is a mere blip, so to base a model on such a limited period seems bizarre.
Its strong cognative dissonance when he starts out describing the GCMs as being based on fundamental physics described by navier-stokes and he even mentioned quantum effects(!) only to later admit the calculated grid cells are computationally too expensive to actually perform and those grid cells have to be much larger than the effects being modelled so that the results in gridcells has to be represented by simplified calculation and even parameterisation for clouds.
I know this is 2 years later - but there's no contradiction. We do understand the basic physics. But simple physics can give rise to very complex interactions. That is not a "cognitive dissonance" it is understanding that a system is more than it's parts. Same as say - we really do understand gravity really well, and can simulate what a single object will do very accurately - but that doesn't mean it's easy to predict or calculate the movement of every last pebble in an avalanche.
@HumanAreYou But in this context we don't know clouds. We parameterise them as a fit to what we've measured and that's not physics based. Then that non physics based value is included in the calculation making the whole thing now a fit. Whether you argue simplified physics is still physics or not doesn't get around the fact the GCMs are not a physics based calculation because of clouds alone.
@@medhurstt We do know clouds. We can't compute them to the detail equivalent of a single pebble in an avalanche, but we can predict well enough what the trajectory of the avalanche is. Same as with the fact that temperature is increasing. It's irrelevant for what we need to do. Stop the avalanche, i.e. reduce CO2 and fast to know what every pebble / every cloud in detail contributes. He makes that clear too, if you actually listen.
@HumanAreYou Predicting "well enough" is fine for tomorrow's weather but not for climate. Clouds have a large impact and how they'll behave in an atmosphere that is increasingly changing isn't good enough for projection. There are many quantities in GCMs that are like that.
@@medhurstt As he made clear it's not that we can't predict at all - just not to a perfect degree. And again - for the general big picture of where we are going - it's not crucial. Both basic physics, all the way back in the 1860th, models, and real data tell us that we are warming, fast, and that CO2, Methane, etc. are the cause. There is enough info on that end to understand that we have to reduce emissions and start preparing. Science will fill further details - but that's true with any scientific field. So on that end - we are far beyond just "good enough".
If their models could show how the medieval warm period and the other pre industrial climate variations occurred these models would gain some credibility. Consensus isn’t science. It could simply reflect a shared error increasing the further forward it goes.
It's credible among the scientifically competent. There's lots of work looking at the medieval warm period etc. It wasn't a global warming event, it was a regional warming in the North Atlantic. Here's a paper on the topic for you to read if you're interested (or totally ignore if you're a fantasist) www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2
rad858 - Would you show me where CNN covered that information? Unlike typical fantasists, I know where real facts come from - and it's certainly not coffee table magazines.
Thank you Sabine and Tim. My favourite thing in the world is to listen to passionate experts. This and your interview with Subir Sarkar are amazing... More interviews with interesting passionate experts that I have never heard of. Thanks Sabine.
What I have been looking for, and have yet to find, is a laboratory demonstration that CO2 will slow down the rate of convection in our atmosphere. I envision a very tall (at least a kilometer) vacuum encased containment of atmosphere. The containment should be a highly elongated O shape with one side allowing upward convection of heated air and the second side allowing downward movement of cooled air. Heat would be added at the bottom and the exact same amount of heat would be removed at the top. Various atmospheric compositions should be tested. The key variables would be CO2 and H2O. Thermocouples should be arrayed up and down both sides of the containment to measure the distribution of temperatures. If anthropogenic CO2 is causing heating of our atmosphere, we should see a pooling of heat at the bottom of the apparatus as the percentage of CO2 is increased. I used to write computer models for a living. I know how easily they can be tweaked. Given the political supercharging involved in the global warming controversy, we need hard physical data collected under controlled conditions that can be duplicated by more than one researcher. Sorry, but computer models are much too vulnerable to scams, and too many researchers have personal vested interests to be trusted in a matter of this significance.
@grindupBaker GHG theory is wrong plus the earth does not cool at an IR spectrum affected by CO2...You describe yourself well. I cite the papers in an earlier post. Perhaps calling all them names will sooth your broken cult, it won't change the science. Please name the mechanism whereby adding 1 part of something will heat 2500 parts around it bypassing the rest of physics climate scientists bypassed.
If the climate science is settled like we are told, shouldn't we then defund climate scientists. I mean, if the science is settled, what are they working on???
there is only an end to the things you don't know for people who don't know anything. so science never reaches an end for the knowing and always is already finished for the unknowing
My guess would be that many people (myself included) weren't as much interested in how the climate model spoken about here is accomplished, but were more interested in why that climate model is inaccurate in terms of predicting whether or not CO2 is at a dangerous level now, or will likely be at a dangerous level at anytime in the future, and whether or not the amount of CO2 we dump into our atmosphere is truly a problem, or just appears to be a problem because the models commonly used are very flawed. This discussion was not about that, at all, but the title was, in my opinion, kind of a "click-bait" in its wording. That said, Dr. Hossenfelder stated what the discussion was about immediately in the beginning, and so, while many of us might have been disappointed, the video should not have been "down-voted" because it did discuss the issue as was stated by Dr. Hossenfelder.
How many years of previous temperature/climate data does this climate model take into account? Also I am very curious about how exactly Co2 causes atmospheric warming? I know that Co2 is what plants breathe and it seems to me that increased Co2 would make plants healthier and more numerous and thus producing more Oxygen therefore somewhat balancing it out.
CO2 absorbs infrared radiation at certain wavelengths, the light from the sun comes in and is absorbed then the energy is released as infra red, which is why you feel warmth radiating from roads after a hot day. More of this energy is trapped in the lower atmosphere, satellites have measured this change over the last 20 or so years.
@@killcat1971 You neglect to mention that C02 is a trace gas whose atmospheric concentration has increased by one molecule in 10 000 since pre-industrial times. The postulated forcing in computer-modeled predictions of climate has to be mediated via the overwhelmingly dominant 'greenhouse gas' which is of course water vapour. More water vapour is likely to be associated with more clouds which are poorly modeled and hence lead to the significant discrepancies we see between modeled temperatures and what are observed. Climate alarmism does not take into account the extremely beneficial effects of increased atmospheric C02 in terms of increased plant growth which has been termed global greening.
@@mrradman2986 And? "Trace" does not mean "ineffective" a "trace" of cyanide is still poisonous, do not confuse amount as a percentage with impact. CO2 has an impact far in excess of it's proportion, and if you increase it this increases.
@@killcat1971 If that were true temperatures would have run away to levels incompatible with life when C02 was 8000 ppm. The action of C02 is actually very simple based on the two bonds within the molecule and not something capable of a synergistic effect. Most IR is already absorbed with current concentrations of C02 and adding more does not potentiate the effect, rather it rapidly diminishes. You should study Wiiliam Happer who is an expert on physics of C02.
I notice that the temperature where we live started to drop in 2015. Now I know the reason, more low clouds and no rain. This is caused by a weak sun (electromagnetic, no sun spots). Cosmic rays form the clouds. During Solar cycle 25, 26 and 26 you will experience colder weather...Henrik Svensmark, Valentina Zharkova.
No sorry but svenmark already predicted cooling in the next few years in 2009...it got much warmer since than... And solar irradiance had been going down since 1970 while temperatures got warmer and warmer...
The real problem with climate modeling is the bias of the inputs, which is a natural human failing, we all do to some extent accept or discard information based on what we want the outcome to be By the way over the last couple of decades we are having a decline in extreme weather And the reason Asian African and South American are migrating is people are running away from Despotic Governments not climate change
Thank you, that was extremely informative and helped clarify a number of things I suspected, especially that these models tend to tell us very little about what is likely to happen at regional scales. One presentation I watched recently said: "We should never treat a model as a black box, and if it is a black box then we should not trust it (think LLMs). Thank you Tim and Sabine for shining a little light into the climate models box. More please.
What if you are runniing out of time and the black box is the best you have at the moment and the risk of not taking action is catastophic? Then yoiu will have to do what we all do thoughout our lives in other contexts, use the black box coupled with intelligence. Your solution is imoractical in the case of co2 caused climate change at the moment. The Prof says we have a black box and it tells us enough to know we are in deep do do re co2 and need to cut back now. he syas the black box is reliable enough for this. Then after that its the detail that is required.
So the guy in the video who talks so fluffy as to not be understandable is trying to say that c02 is bad for us? What about the science that shows we are in a co2 drought? When people talk in such fluffy ways ignore them. Total speculation based on research budget justification. Off with his head.
"The models have been remarkably accurate"....A range of 1.5 to 4.5 C warming per CO2 doubling, and an ensemble average prediction 50% higher than observation being described in such a positive light is highly optimistic.
Interesting as the CO2 started up around WW2 the temps went down for 30 years. In the 70s many were predicting an ice age. Most of the last 8000 years were warmer than today at 280PPM.
@@ColoradoHiker Nobody but sensationalist media claimed there'd be global cooling. There have been papers on the effects of global dimming because of aerosols and particles we put into our atmosphere and papers that neglected the influence of our growing co2 emissions, though. It's become more than obvious that models that do not account for our co2 emissions don't work past the industrial revolution.
@@willguggn2 Not true. There was a letter penned to Nixon in the 70s by a couple of geologists, backed by dozens of scientists, that warned of future cooling. There was a series called "In Search Of" that in the late 70s did a look into possible cooling that included scientists. There were discussions then about dumping soot in the Arctic to melt it. This was 30 years into the CO2 rise. Interesting video if you want to hear from scientists in the 70s.... ua-cam.com/video/L_861us8D9M/v-deo.html
@@ColoradoHiker Yeah, I heard about that letter a few years ago. Expert opinion which didn't reflect scientific consensus, and US media didn't bother to check iirc.
To summarize for those with little time: The scientific climate change models have proven to be very good at predicting global warming, but on tipping points, and local and temporal accuracy it could be improved. This is unfortunate as that is what society wants from science. Hence the (too critical) title of this video. Sorry Sabine, not a good title to cover the content. It is also unfortunate that this part of science is so politicized. Physics does not care about politics.
@Jim fallow i love when idiots think they do a mic drop and get owned with their own argument. If scientists were "in it for the money" as you state..why don't they alter the facts to agree with the fossil fuel industry?..it's revenue is $90 TRILLION a year...lol..what a stupid attempt at making a point..lmao
@Jim fallow And those who are against regulations on ideological grounds are motivated by their political bias to oppose climate change. You cannot appeal to bias on one side without acknowledging it on the other.
@@davidbarnstable that is possibly the STUPIDEST attempt at rebuttal EVER..so according to your "logic"..they are fighting against being the biggest industry on earth by??? ..what?..ignoring the science and raking in the bucks?..you make less sense than the other idiot..LMFAO..you are either stupid, a liar, or think people are as moronic as you...lol
@@mykehog6646 See interesting paper on renewable energy strategies of major oil companies. The issue is far more complicated than you imagine. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X19300574
We've ran ClimateModels on the BOINC platform, virtually all over-heat predictions, hence our investigations since 20+ years. We also run models for predictions in various areas of my work, which can be useful, but must also be examined for Sanity, such as does the output match reality, continually amend revise even start again from 1st principles etc. As a scientist myself, those that exaggerate the slight increase in Temps (Natural 97% & Human 3% both+/-2% if CO2 is the main forcer) for other agenda & cut off those that question assumptions does not help the debate, politics can therefore seem to be masquarading as Science. Science needs always to be provoked & questioned, which I applaud Sabine is doing, but even Wikipedia puts those who question the CAGW area in the nasty 'Denier' pot rather than debate openly. The 'cure' however to convert at such a dramatic pace to so called 'Renewables', that are Intermittent & Unrelaible is worse than the 'disease'. The Prof. mentions increased weather events, such extremes have always occured, there's no proof that Humans are the cause of such conjectured increases; there are people that document past weather event extremes from past Newspaper cuttings. Hydrocarbons are essential to mine, manufature, support to Decommissioing the Wind & Solar farms. I could go on, but also fear for a future that these models are not replicating reality and we destroy modern civilisation, as can be seen in UK leading the race to the bottom, based on Hydrocarbons society in error. Suggested reading: 1.‘Not For Greens’ by Prof. Ian Plimer 2.‘ApocalypseNever’ by Michael Shellenberger 3.'FalseAlarm' by Bjorn Lomborg 4.'FossilFuture' & 'The Moral Case for FossilFuels' by Alex Epstein 5.'The Great GlobalWarming Blunder' by Roy W. Spencer. 6. 'Challenging "Net Zero" with Science' by Richard Lindzen & William Happer CO2 Coalition 7. 'An assessment of the conventional GlobalWarmingNarrative' by Richard Lindzen, comments by Nic Lewis 8. 'Realism or Utopianism. A proposal for reform of the Net Zero policy' by John Constable & Capell Aris 9. 'Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom' by Patrick Moore 10. 'Climate Basics Nothing to Fear' by Rod Martin Jr. 11. 'Climate at a Glance for teachers & students' by Anthony Watts & James Taylor. I'd like to see a presentation & debate between experts on both sides of the story without interuption either side, done quickly, before we rely on technologies that don't even exist yet to replace Hydrocarbons (now aka FossilFuels); I'm sure it will lively! For now this is worth a read: www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/ P.S. This is the craziness being suggested if 'Climate Scientists' are left to their own devices & advising Governments: ukfires.org/absolute-zero/ just look at the infographic!
Also look up Prof Valentina Zharkova's work on the sun. Her calculations do go back in time and accurately 'predict' times such as the Medieval warm period and Little Ice age, which none of the CO2 models do. There's no real correlation between CO2 and temperature in the paleoclimate history, except a negative correlation in the current ice age where CO2 rises and falls in response to temperature. He talks about 60-70 years as if that was a long time, but it's the short time since the earth was cooling in the 50s. 60s and 70s, when they were predicting a return to glaciation.
I view the evaluation of global warming models like predicting the effect of a bomb exploding in a room. We don't need to know exactly where every piece of shrapnel will land to know that the bomb will make a huge mess.
And therein lies the problem. The whole world is too big. Not enough data collection points and not enough computing power to analyse it if we had all the data.
@@petejones4808 There's more than enough data collection points and computing power to be very confident about the basic facts of climate change. Climate science is all about assessing what can and cannot be deduced from the data we have. The answer is lots. Obviously more would be better, but there's no excuse for pathetic conspiracy theories or pretending an entire scientific discipline is incompetent. Pretending is for children.
@@rad858 I thought Prof Palmer spent the last 10 mins explaining that much more computing power was needed to be able to reliably predict local events, as this is what is important to people, rather than say a 2 deg rise in overall temperature.
Peter, You raise the Chicken and Egg Dilemma. Does the Egg come before the Chicken or Vice Versa. Does the Weather come before the Climate or Vice Versa.
I live in central Ohio. A few thousand years ago my house would have been buried beneath a glacier that reached all the way to Cincinnati. Those worldwide glaciers have been receding ever since and continue to do so. This all started long before man started burning fossil fuels to any significant extent. I posted this comment before and UA-cam took it down. Hey UA-cam, afraid much?
Thank you, Dr. Hossenfelder. There are a lot of scientists and engineers who enjoy hearing conversations at this level of detail, something that can be rare when things get political. Keep up the great work.
This was a really good conversation that explains the nuance of modeling something as complex as The earths climate. To me, world leaders need to understand this and say “we need to install wind and solar everywhere ASAP so that we can start turning off fossil fuel generators and avoid the nuclear waste problem that comes with nuclear generation.“ We know what the trend is, the models have shown us that. We know that the results will be extinction of the human race if we don’t act soon enough. We need leaders to act immediately. We don’t need perfect models to tell us exactly the day the north pole will be ice free. It just doesn’t matter. We need to hold our public officials accountable. Thanks again, Sabine!
The risk is not extinction of the human race! We are incredible resilient and adaptable. The real risk (apart from the enormous cost that climate change will incur for us) is the resulting extinction of countless other species.
@@gibbogle If earth gets too warm humans can not survive. That’s just a fact. They will not evolve fast enough as a species to stay alive. That’s called extinction. Within the last few days we have heard flooding in northern California and also the East Coast. Weather events are getting more extreme by the day. It should be noted that Although Northern California has flooding, Southern Cal is worried about the fire season. We’ve got different cataclysmic weather events happening at the same time In the same state. Global warming is increasing exponentially. These are facts and well-documented. Species do go extinct. there’s nothing magical about the human species that makes them exempt. If you’re thinking that we’re so clever that we will just engineer our way out of this while still burning fossil fuels, think about this: we can’t even get people to get a vaccine or wear masks during a pandemic. or this: in 2016 and 2020 more than 60 million people voted for Donald Trump for president United States. I have much more faith in horseshoe crabs avoiding extinction than humans.
@@solarwind907 That's just silly. It has nothing to do with evolution. We have brains, we are resourceful, we can live in any environment, hot or cold. Look where people are living all over the world. By the way, solar and wind are not going to do it, we need nuclear power, the cleanest, least carbon-emitting power source.
@@gibbogle I like science fiction myself but when people don’t understand evolution and call nuclear waste “clean energy” there’s no reason to continue.
@@solarwind907 Who doesn't understand evolution? I have a good understanding of it - some genetic mutations improve survival and passing on of the genes. I didn't call nuclear waste clean energy, you are making things up. Storage of radioactive waste is not a show-stopper, we already store many kinds of toxic waste. The point is that nuclear energy is the least bad option, and is the only feasible way to reduce atmospheric carbon. Mark my words, solar and wind will prove to be insufficient, although they will be an important part of the mix.
I agree with @hanksnow5470 in that there is too much detail in the explanation which will lead a lot of people either to say what is this guy saying because he lost me, or most likely to stop watching. When Prof. Hassenfelder asked about the fact that the models didn't indicate what their uncertainties were for the predicted temperature, Prof. Palmer stated (eventually) that the variance between the different models could be seen as the uncertainties of the models. A point was made that while the models of the global average temperatures have been fairly good at predicting the rise in the global average temperature they cannot predict the temperature in a given region. They also cannot predict how the temperature rise will affect local climate. Prof Palmer talks about how the models predictions can't be more accurate because of the "grid size". He also says that local climate predictions are also hampered by the grid size. "Grid Size"? Think of the grid size being like pixel size in a digital image. It is hard to recognize what an image composed of large pixels is when looking at it close up, one could characterize the picture as "blurry". But when you increase the distance from the image, it becomes "clearer" meaning easier to identify. The smaller the pixel size the "clearer" an image appears, and the smaller the details that can be seen. So with the current grid size used in the models the predictions are clear if you stand back to look at them but if you move closer, they become "blurry" and you can't see any detail. Increase the grid size and models become clearer and smaller details can be seen. The big limitation for the models is the grid size, but reducing the grid size requires more calculations, i.e. longer computer runs, or larger supercomputers, or both. Prof Palmer makes several good observations. The attitude that we just need to wait for some miracle technology -- fusion power --- to be developed at some later date is something we can't rely on. In prehistoric times (late 1970s) when I was at university fusion power was 20- 30 years away. 20 years later, fusion power was 20 years away, 20 years later, it was only 10 years away and 10 years later it is only 10 years away. Yes they are getting closer, but I don't think the traditional approaches will succeed in time if at all. There are some newer, less complicated approaches that might actually work, but as always they need to be developed further and it is not clear at how long it would take before grid scale electrical energy production is available. He talks about maybe putting together a "Marshall Plan" to help poorer and emerging countries fight global warming rather than have them follow the "traditional" route of burning fossil fuels. That's worth exploring, if the political will is there. He talks about getting carbon emissions fast enough to keep from crossing the identified critical tipping points, and that once a tipping point has been crossed, there is no going back. That is an existential danger for many current living species, including man, but not for life. Whether humans survive our own self destructive behavior, or not, life will continue. It will look very different though just as it always has after a mass extinction. Another point that was hinted at is that global warming is like a freight train or a huge ship. You cannot stop them on a dime. Lock the brakes of a freight train and depending on how fast it is moving and how massive it is, it can take one or more miles for it to come to a stop. Right now global warming has a lot of momentum so even if we eliminated carbon emissions today (which is impossible) global warming will continue for several centuries, just not as fast as it is and it will peak at a lower temperature rise. The longer we go without slowing it, the worse the rise and the resulting consequences.
From ice, ocean sediment core samples, and other measures we have both temperature and CO2 atmospheric levels over millions of years. Clearly the C02 and temperature measures have a high correlation. However, to say that this correlation means that C02 levels are "driving" or causing temperature changes is presumptuous, in that mathematically this correlation could just a validly indicate that temperature changes are responsible for C02 changes. Clearly, the two measures are related. Certainly it is well understood that global temperatures are driven by multiple periodic astrological phenomena (eccentricity, gravitational effects of Jupiter and Saturn, etc. all modifying global warming/cooling from the sun at the multiple frequencies related to the respective cycles ). Further, as the solubility of CO2 in both salt and fresh water is diminished with increasing temperatures, it is well understood that warming will result in release in C02 from these vast reservoirs of carbon dioxide in the earth's oceans and lakes. So the question remains: which comes first - the chicken or the egg? Correlation can NOT answer this. However, spectral analysis can. The cross-spectrum between temperature and C02 changes over millions of years demonstrates significant interaction between these signals. The Coherence function (related to the correlation, but not its Fourier transform), gives both the degree of this relation as well as the precedence between the spectral components of the cross-spectrum. When this analysis is done, temperature is seen to lead CO2 in the broad range of coherent frequencies. That is, CO2 changes follow temperature changes.
Aw... Tim Palmer could have gone on for longer. He sounded disappointed straight at the end. "Time's up? Already?" Wouldn't have minded a longer video.
I read a few years ago that the increase in vegetation as a consequence of increased atmospheric CO2 was re-absorbing half of the increase in human-induced emissions. This was from a mainstream source. So how do we know that the greening of the planet as a result of increased atmospheric CO2 won't ultimately offset *all* of human CO2 emissions?
Because it isn't doing so yet, and studies (in a lab where conditions can be controlled) have indicated that they won't be capable of absorbing it all.
@@johnmcleodvii So it will never do it because isn't doing so yet? Very sound logic. I'm not sure what sort of experiment could test the hypothesis that the greening of the earth can't offset man-made CO2 emissions. That's not even an experimental question. It's a mathematical question. All of the fossil fuels we're burning now were once biomass on earth's surface. What reason is there to think that all of this extra carbon can't be reabsorbed into the biosphere that it originated from?
Good to hear from a real expert (not a journnalist) on climate modeling. Much more complex with less precise data so variability understandable. And his job compared to a physicists is much more complex both scientifically and the societal recommendations. Good needed video.
@johnlocke445 Really. He knows more than any other person? How convenient. Then we should simply believe what he says. And where do I find the scientific evidence for such a claim?
Short answer for those who don't take the time to watch: He is saying yes the planet is definitely warming due to human emissions, nobody is doubting that but the earth's weather is very complicated so saying exactly what crisises will happen and when is very difficult. We need to improve that.
It's not linear. The 20th century had cooling periods and warming periods, even as CO2 continued to rise. It didn't warm at all for the first 20 years of the 21st century. If the solar physicists are correct, we are going into a cooling period of many decades because we're entering a Grand Solar Minimum. Check out Valentina Zharkova.
Seems to be global phenomenon. In the Netherlands there was a row because the official government agency for meteorology adjusted the temperature data before 1950. For those who understand Dutch see the recent discussion on this subject in the parlement of the Netherlands. see ua-cam.com/video/dxQuORT5Tmk/v-deo.html
Atmospheric models are naturally chaotic, “the butterfly effect”. More to the point is to analyze specific issues , loss of arctic ice, danger of methane ‘burp’, stalling hurricanes as a function jet stream movement. I think it’s more productive to work on specialized models for these type of anomalies rather than a fully integrated single global model
Nonsense. You are a moron. The models don't have the resolution to identify genuine climate issues. Their only use is as a propaganda tool with which one can arrive at any eventuality they can imagine. And that is just what they do. Some unscrupulous pretenders, like that fraud Bill McKibben, have made a career out of their claimed ability to see impending calamity in tea leaves of data.
@@jamesmcginn6291 Don’t call me a moron, direct your name calling to those scientists who dedicate their lives to climate research, especially those working in the Arctic regions. Let them know they are morons so they can give up and go home. I am only a mathematician who works on chaos theory.
What I don't understand is how there can be a several hundred year delay between the temperature increase and the CO2 levels, with the temperature increase occurring first. To me, that would demonstrate that increasing temperatures result in increasing CO2 levels and not the other way around. This data also lines up with the medieval warming period, which happened roughly 800 years ago. Meaning that what we're seeing today is a direct result of the natural cycle that happened 800 years ago, and not from carbon emissions now. If this were truly a feedback loop, then we are long since doomed.
Historically (typically): Milanković cycle heats the earth slightly. CO2 is released from the ocean. CO2 heats up the earth more. Now you are in a feedback loop Now: Oceans become acidic (hence no outgassing), RF of sun is statistically not increasing (hence sun cycles or Milanković cycle are not the cause), C13/C12 and C14/C12 ratios in CO2 indicate fossil fuels as the main reason of increasing CO2,...
@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos Sorry the universe is not that easy - watch this - Milankovic cycle has nonexistent effect - we got HUUUUGE human made (blink blink) effects - ua-cam.com/video/Y-mRJmfFjFE/v-deo.html
Which would be consistent with a simple model of changing heat transfer from under the oceans and affecting the carbonization (CO2CaCO3) inside the water. Of course not answering why the heat transfer into oceans from inside the earth changed on a 100year time scale.
@@musaire Not educated in science like it seems from your link. Science is so interesting. Read about science. Search for data and analyse them yourself. Educate yourself about statistics. UA-cam videos are entertainment. They are no replacement for scientific education.
This is like interviewing Cumrun Vafa to answer the question of whether string theory is overhyped. If Sabine where to be a bit more honest and true to her principles, she would at the very least interview the scientists who have raised the very question she purports to be answering.
Good article today in the Guardian on Dr Tom Beer’s pioneering 1980s research into bushfires and climate change. In Australia we are currently experiencing massive fires earlier in the season than ever before, with fires burning in areas previously considered most unlikely to burn so ferociously, such a the temperate rainforest in Tasmania, where I live, or the tropical areas of Queensland. Beer's findings and predictions were prescient of what is occurring over thirty years later...and that it's not just higher temperatures, but especially low humidity and drought that has the biggest impact. 'What could I have done?' The scientist who predicted the bushfire emergency four decades ago: www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/17/what-could-i-have-done-the-scientist-who-predicted-the-bushfire-emergency-four-decades-ago
Aaand 8 months later, it's been raining heavily since then, one of the wettest years on record. I guess Guardian and Dr Tom Beer’s will have to wait bit longer for their dooms day prophesies to come true.
I appreciate the complexity of the problem and the frustrations that Prof Palmer exhibits in trying to explain why they exist, however it doesn't change the reality that when the figures are quoted in media soundbites they don't mention uncertainty at all. The number is treated as accurate and precise once it is quoted in this manner. I have no doubt climate change is real, as does Sabine and Prof Palmer, but scientists need to do more to ensure that the public understands these models are useful but have limitations. The fact that you can even make a guess at future climate states of such a complex system is an astounding achievement in itself.
> "scientists need to do more to ensure that the public understands these models" I wouldn't say scientists are to blame for the sloppy reporting the that so much of mainstream media is doing. I've seen so many news articles about science topics that misrepresent the scientific paper they claim to report on, that I now consciously try to avoid reading any of them.
Just cast your mind back to your school days .Those in the class who were good at Physics maths chemistry they are now Engineers science boffins The bunch that weren't good at science .but were good at English ,they are in journalism ans sales of course . Most current information comes from people who don't fully understand the situation but they construct convincing narratives to info-entertain those who never got into reading books. Not many people can wrap there head around simple statistical information or chaos theory and they project in a linear fashion but the climate will react chaotically.Small increases of energy have high peak effects prediction is not possible, projection of trends is as good as we get . It is better than a guess . Nobody is guessing we are all going to live happily ever after .
Tim P sez "global" vid zooms in on spinning globe. [1:45]... But Oh boy, the sheer paucity of data point density "...it's really really hard to model climate."... later...: most migration in recent years have been politically motivated. Not climate related.
@@rad858 Is this scientist a sociologist or anthropologist and has he done research into why people are migrating? FFS it's pretty obvious most people are migrating because they are being invited WHICH THEY ARE and/or they see the developed Europe as an economically better place to live rather than scratching a living in the dirt. The irony is, fossil fuel made the 'western' world and EVERYONE wants in. In fact, if you look at globalist agendas, even the UN, they want people living in cities. They want people in office and factories. They want people propping up economies. This has zero to do with climate change. Just so you know, I am an immigrant. I moved from the UK to a south american country where I now live and work. Yes we have a shit economy, and believe it or not, I earn way less money and food is way more expensive but life is so much better. The further you get away from civilization the better it gets.
@@TheCompleteGuitarist He's a climate science professor at Oxford university. He has access to the best human geographers on the planet. Some of them probably within walking distance, or at regular conferences, they can read each others' papers, they may work together on research. The overlaps of these subjects are so blatantly obvious. He's not going to live in a tiny box writing code. It doesn't diminish or contradict your experience if someone knowledgeable understands that the broader global picture for the future is something different.
I don't get it. Sabine is asking the good doctor some legit, scientific questions that any scientist may ask, but all his answers without exception start with, "climate science is well-established and true beyond doubt" (did she ask?) and then he goes on to lecture about how hard it is to satisfy the premise of her questions, etc. Do people praise this interview because they really understand it or because actually they don't?
Yes they are. That's common practice for any finite element analysis (and climate computer models are nothign else): build your model, run it and compare the results to a known or documented result. If you find differences, then the problem is in your model. Standard in civil and mechanical engineering, especially when upgrading software.
@@johnscaramis2515 I do a lot of modelling with a software called NetLogo especially in sociology. It's nothing like software used to model the climate, but my experience with modeling very simple things and seeing how far from reality it can be makes me doubt the results obtained with simulations of much more complex systems.
@@betepolitique4810 Sabine pointing out the big differences in total predicted temperatures between the models, and the missing error ranges are a small glimpse into that... He quickly switched back to politics. Those models have neither the resolution, nor precise enough initial data to predict climate changes over those long periods. Their secret sauce it simply tinkering with the variables long enough until it fits the recorded data.
Again, all this was said all along. Models plainly said they couldn't factor in everything. For example, just two years ago they said they didn't figure that any time soon there would be any change in the Gulf Stream. Then suddenly they started noticing that it is changing. THey ALWAYS said that things could be far worse than predicted, and largely that has been the case. While governments and media go along as if the status quo is just fine, things are much worse, and forget about STOPPING climate change, there aren't even any plans on dealing with the growing EFFECTS. I'm in Canada where the western part of the country had fires all through the spring and summer, and still ongoing, and its not even treated as NEWS.
Skepticism is the basic tenet of a Real Scientist! Always doubt! Always test! THERE IS NEVER SETTLED SCIENCE!!! You may have Intuition, but never Prejudice. Openness to new ideas is wonderful, but gullibility and political bias is a Scientific sin.
He's trying to save his watch... And she lets him swim.. and drown.. CO2 does not cause temperature rise. Climate change is a religion... and a business model. My five cents. Find the science behind it in my books. In german... Regards from Europe.
Like stock market charts, you can make a climate graph say anything you want depending on whether you zoom in or out. A big problem with climate science is ridiculous predictions by politicians that haven't come true. That and the immense number of variables and feedback loops that probably couldn't be handled by the largest computer in the world. Add to that the economic pain the politicians want to inflict on the average person based on what looks like a leap of faith, and no wonder there is no consensus on what, if anything, to do.
They got it wrong in a sense that they highly underestimated just how devastating it would be and how quickly. "Sooner than expected" is a meme for a reason. Now we've moved on to "Venus by Tuesday".
I’ll say you’re demonstrating your courage once again.
Don't worry, she's interviewing an expert. If she spoke about the uncertainty in climatology herself, to an Internet which does not necessarily grasp any credibility she offers: No matter how accurately she spoke, she'd probably be subject to scorn and ridicule, simply due to the way this 'sounds' to those who claim to promote science. Furthermore, she might likewise find herself the host of many deniers who flocked in to ignorantly promote the literal notion in the title of this video.
Current migration patterns have nothing to do with climate.
My criticism is aimed at the expert not our lively host.
Why courage ? Are you saying this video has more to it than just being an informative and semi-technical interview with a climate scientist ? From the comments section it looks like the title of this video has attracted a lot of AGW skeptics. Maybe I am too dense, but I kind of feel that Sabine put up this video to show that this field isn't very reliable.
sowrabh sudevan I meant that this field of study is perhaps the most politicized of all. It’s almost impossible to avoid making enemies.
Sabine let's him speak, uninterrupted, no judgement, "simple" questions, no antagonizing. I like that very much.
He does sound like he’s caught lying and he’s still digging the hole.
*lets [no apostrophe]. Let's agree not to take offence, OK?
I didnt find this to be a problem tbh.
@@MrMichaelFire that is the thing about idiots like you. You have a fixed idea of how knowledgeable and confident people speak and classify other ways of speaking as "lying".
@@catmatism Ah yes, the ever credible "body language analysis" experts.
As a physics professor (ret) myself, this video suffers from the inevitable problem that scientists find it difficult to explain things without falling into the trap of getting lost in details that are important to the scientist but are difficult to put in perspective. Sabine is usually good at avoiding this, a rare talent. The scientist will tend to emphasize the inaccuracies and limitations of his methods, whereas the skeptic will cherry-pick the factors that reinforce his pre-conceived notions.
Thanks well stated and thought out...
Hank Snow ....Well, all models (and virtually everything humans know are models) try to emulate/forecast reality and reality is extremely complex. So, all models have assumptions, approximations, and, indeed, errors (or residuals) and are thus imperfect.
Some models are better at forecasting (or producing forecasts that are reasonably close to observed future value), but this is often because they are modelling simpler phenomena. Hard science models can often produce good forecasts, for example car crash dynamics can produce results close to what is modelled, similarly for laboratory chemical reactions...( add chemical X to chemical Y, under controlled conditions and the result is pretty easy to forecast and reproduce.) On the other hand, social science models have horrible predictive power. This is especially true for subjects such as economics, whose models have about as much predictive power as a circus fortune teller. (Mainly because they rely so heavily on human behaviour or interactions with the systems being studied.)
@Tracchofyre As a non-retired physicist, I'll offer that Hank's assessment is accurate and eloquent, while RA is living up to his name.
@Reckless Abandon The problem is that people like you are claiming that C02 is a problem .
@@chatteyj It is a problem. If humans want to live healthy and prosperous lives into the future, it's a huge problem.
That's an objective fact, not a claim.
It's sad that searching for the truth and analysing widespread assumptions is seen as courageous rather than just standard practice.
@D R It is not courageous what Sabine is doing. She is not being critical at all. If she where critical she would challenge the narrative that Co2 would cause global warming. That is challenge the suggested causal effect, or even turn it around and suggest higher temperatures cause higher CO2 levels (which in part is true). She does nothing of the kind so no, this is not courageous...it is just a big nothing burger....
a powder puff interview and a garble of garbage from the so called scientist,, He contradicted himself at least 10 times,,
Brian you sound very resentful of what amounts to minor scrutiny. The truth should not fear investigation.
@@RWin-fp5jn In short, she would be critical, if she would reafirm your opinion?
@@scribblescrabble3185 We have to distinguish between facts and opinions. Fact is that we we have glaciers melting currently. That is true. But fact is also that under these melting ice sheets we are finding 2000 year old well preserved and rooted tree trunks, dating back to the Roman era. Not just in the Alps, but also in Siberia and Iceland. This unambiguously proofs it was at LEAST 5 degrees warmer 2000 years ago on a global scale. Now, since CO2 levels were much lower back than (which I am happy to accept) we simply cannot hard-link rising CO2 levels (for which indeed humans have a strong influence, and yes it is a greenhouse gass) to the short term rise in Earth's temperature. So by posting video's like this Sabine is supporting the notion that human induced rise of CO2 levels would be crucial to predict future rise of temperature and thus that having reliable CO2 predictions is important . Fact is that the current warming (which is mostly regional by the way) is by and large a cyclical event, possibly even linked to solar output cycles. Much as Marxists want to believe, we humans are not always the dominant factor (whether in the economy or in Nature), nor can thus steering our habits have a major impact on the grander cycles. Yes we must stop polluting our planet and stop cutting trees in the Amazone, but we should also not overestimate our impact in Global wether cycles, or even solar Cycles. Bottom line, either Sabine is incapable of logical thought or she is deliberately letting herself be used as an alarmist in the marxist push for centralized government. To some extend it is sad to see one of the very few critical thinkers in the scientific world not being able to distinguish facts from fiction. Humanity is letting itself get hyped and perhaps we don't deserve a brighter future because of our proven incapability of opinion-free judgement...So whatever...:-)
If there were more of this kind of honest, nuanced discussion instead of oversimplified propaganda and fearmongering, it would be a lot easier to get traction on problems like this. People can handle nuance, and some people require it in order not to feel manipulated. Great job Sabine.
did you even watch the article?
@@Anax100 😂 I'm waiting for the movie
The manmade-climatechange hoax has been made into a cashgrab by ''the elites'' to sell the masses green energy crap, and nothing more. They don't give a fuck about climate-change caused disasters, why else not simply build higher and stronger dykes to prevent floods? Dig canals so water gets more space? Plant more trees/make more forests?
Those are all not too hard to realize right? But no, it is not about that, at all..
@@MarshallMathersthe7th It doesn't have to be a hoax in order to become a cash grab. Both things can be true, and whether it's man-made is ultimately irrelevant. The only important question is whether we let it happen, and if not, how to pragmatically address it without it becoming another scammy wealth transfer.
@@musicalfringe I agree, and it's true. Combatting climate-change is so simple, but what do i know i'm not a scientist. My ideas would be, bigger and stronger dykes for any country or coastal area that is below sealevel if possible, move people from places at risk (below sealevel, coastal areas)
Plant trees, lots of them to catch the Co2 out of the air, reducing the supposedly warming effect. More ''green'' as in plants around you also makes people feel better (supposedly)
I have nothing against coalplants, matter of fact i think they are a great cheap and reliable source of energy. But.. Nuclear power is the best sort of power there is imo. Building more nuclear powerplants, and getting most of our energy from nuclear power (and from LNG) would decrease Co2 levels massively.
And yes.. Have less people walking this damn planet, more people means more Co2 it's that simple, but obviously, and rightfully so, people don't want to hear this.
Anyway, i don't know why i am typing this to you, you already know and seem like a smart person.
Nothing particularly controversial here. The scientists are doing the best they can to model a really hard problem,
The models only serve a propaganda function. Any idiot can realize that the atmosphere is too complex and too poorly understood for the models to produce anything useful. It's just a scam. Don't be dumb.
@@jamesmcginn6291 What if one wasn't "any idiot". What if someone spent their life dedicated to this complex problem?
@@jonmalachowski7126 You are describing me. My name is James McGinn. I am president of Solving Tornadoes.
The controversy is many scientists say there is no problem, just a cyclic change in temperature
I think many people don't realise that the atmosphere, despite having several million of square km area, it is about 80km width. It is thin as a contact lens and can easily by afected.
As far as that globe rotating in the background is concerned, do you know if the manufacturers make a flat one?
Ha!
Just glue a map onto a record player.
Frisbee's have more freedom of movement
But the image is flat!
Will it come with a 23 degree tilt?
Sabine i admire your clean concise direct speech when you explain things. You are straight to the point it is a really impressive quality to have.
Paraphrasing the lovely Sabine, “I find it peculiar that we are not presented with the uncertainty from each model.” What is even more peculiar is Tim’s response. We must see the estimate and the bounds on the estimate. It would also be nice to see prior model estimates versus actuals. If we can’t get near perfect decade length extrapolations, how will we be able to estimate much further out, given fan shaped errors? If you are leaning on ensembles, isn’t that just ARIMA?
I don't think with the standard political impotence of handling this a more refined & longer-term prediction model is a pressing issue any more. :)
If he can't explain it in terms a layman could understand... I heard nothing but saw a great deal of smoke. That one bothered me too but not enough to go back for another try.
@@2nostromo Nobody wants to say we're basically toast. I don't think we have many decades to come as Tim suggested. All one will get from scientists are different outlooks without commitment to any.
That was a really nice way of saying that all Tim’s doublespeak and misdirections amounted to a pile of rubbish.
In the first few minutes he said the models were pretty accurate but needed a lot more work. Wait, if they’re accurate, why do we need to work on them?
I would like to see Sabine either stay away from this topic or be brave [risk demonitization] and really dig for the truth. I KNOW she’s plenty smart to smell the BS.
He explained that clearly. If you have models with just one or a few runs there is no possibility to give a reasonable standard deviation. Including those models appears to be sort of a political question, not wanting to exclude the „poorer“ institutes with less computing power. Instead the means of all the models are used to represent a range of spread. I see no basic fault in that decision.
This is the first time in my life that i actually heard a scientist talk about climate change rather than politicians and the media... thank you very very much prof Sabine
Absolutely! Notice, he knows he can't bullshit her.
Come off it, There are hundreds of seminars, talks, doco's that are on UA-cam with hundreds of scientists presenting the data. Seek and you will find.
Rrobert Garnett Are you trying to be a troll or just come off it?
Gregory Jones Apart from the first sentence, you should have posted that as another comment, not a a reply to me. I am not sure you were even addressing me.
what's up with all the trolls
Freeman Dyson concluded, "Climate models solve the equations of fluid dynamics. They might do a good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry, and the biology of fields, farms, and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in."
And Dyson was not in his lane and became a climate chang e denier.
Yeah, that's a poor assessment I'm afraid.
@@thalesnemo2841 - Dyson is a lifelong leftist. He is not a climate change denier. He has stated that the earth is warming. He agrees that the carbon emissions have warmed the planet, and this may be wrong, he thinks there is a limit to the warming to be done by carbon. If I interpret him correctly, he thinks there are benefits to increased carbon, one of them being the increased vegetation worldwide. However, he is for reducing carbon emissions because carbon in the atmosphere attacks the ozone layer.
@@zoeherriot - Dyson has been interested in the atmosphere for decades. You might want to watch one or more of his interviews to get a better idea of what and
why he has his opinions. Not all scientists will agree that the models have been correct. One of the problems is that most scientists are trying to make a living, and they
may see their walking papers if they don't dance around the facts a little. What seems to be consistent is that most of the scientists who disagree with the current global warming scare are retired, and not connected to our left leaning universities. Politics is affecting science. You can see this when there is the debate about men becoming women. There are no scientists speaking up. In our cancel culture environment, scientists want their paychecks, because they have house payments, wives, and children to support and send to university.
@mu99ins
Not what I’ve read and seen some interviews where he denies climate change .
Global climate is incredibly complex. We understand the physics and chemistry pretty well (perhaps not quite so well where chemistry is concerned), but the complexity of the system makes simulation extremely difficult. Just think of clouds. I don't think we can simulate clouds very well at all. When he says "We still have some way to go" that is a great understatement, IMO.
"Cloud seeding"
However, at the larger scale, our simulations actually do work quite well. Heck, at the scale of changes in the total Earth energy balance a model you can write down on a piece of paper and compute out by hand is pretty accurate... And was done about 100 years ago.
So many people seem to think that the extreme difficulty building up a detailed model mostly based on first principles means we are just clueless about the bigger picture... That is simply not the case, as is pointed out repeatedly in this interview.
It's a criminal understatement. The "tipping point" predictions have been all wrong and he won't admit it. Increased CO2 might be keeping us from enduring an ice age. It might cause sporadic bad weather of the kind we have experienced for thousands of years. Instead of addressing the issues directly, drought with reservoirs, water filtration, aqueducts, and heat and cold with better power generation and better disaster preparedness and construction we are being told we must address "root causes" which aren't fully understood, are impossible to address globally, may be having a beneficial effect globally and are apparently impossible to predict the results. This isn't an understatement, it's a criminal misdirection.
@@musashi9873 Well said, I couldn't agree with you more. All this interview did for me was to confirm the models the climate scientists rely upon are little better than useless at predicting future global temperatures with any accuracy. They're about as useful as 'Tits on the proverbial Bull!' What an absolute waste of valuable time in watching this inane interview.
@@MarathonSimmo I agree. Sabine has become a political activist just like Snake in DeGrasse Tyson, Shill Nye and Mucho Kaka. Very disappointing.
I have previously observed that science died on 9/11 after a protracted illness and I am yet to see evidence to the contrary. :(
The questions were very good ones as you might expect, but the answers too. What I feel didn’t come out clearly enough is that there are very few decisions we can afford to make only after achieving the “six-sigma statistical significance required” to accept a finding in particle physics. Events would tend to overwhelm us while we were still studying our confidence intervals. Also the purpose of the IPPC reports was to inform AND communicate; and to a political audience with severe attention deficit disorder. Its really hard to be neutral and informative in this area, and I get it - sometimes a central estimate is the way to communicate even if, for a more rigorous mind, its hard to interpret without knowledge of the variance.
"the purpose of the IPPC reports was to inform AND communicate" translation" - sell and convince the people with the purse strings that we need more money or you're all gonna die...maybe, uh if this and that and worst case and...or maybe not...but, it might already be too late if you don't give us more money... Underlying it all are poorly defined "assumptions" that the models are based on ("the most important being cloud cover"). Then the model's are referenced to support the assumptions - saying they may not be entirely correct regionally (translation" don't correlate well with the real world data) due to computational resolution issues, but nevertheless we believe them to be correct globally (which assumes the assumptions to be correct "on average") so you should believe us too. The uncertainty rationalization and methodology discussion ends up being a tangent that gives him room to gloss over and move on from the uncertainty of the assumption validity and it's impact on the overall model uncertainty.
When the margin of error in a variable is greater than its value, it is not statistically significant.
@@JA238979 It's true, but it's far from being the case here.
@@luismartinslopes8900 The data in this video was generated in paradigms of the Fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, and CMIP5 was upgraded to CMIP6. This video precedes the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report and the corresponding Synthesis Report. Thank you for your comment; it led to more recent information.
@@JA238979 - The public (the electorate) doesn't understand how weather works. How climate changes is a far more difficult subject.. It seems hopeless to me as a meteorologist.
As soon as Palmer said, at 2:43, that the historical models have been "remarkably accurate", I knew he was either lying through his teeth, or he is utterly brainwashed and delusional. No reasonable, honest scientist would dare call any of the current climate models "accurate". The models have all been embarrassing, ALWAYS substantially exaggerating the amount of warming. How would Palmer explain the periods in Earth's history when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times higher than now, at the same time that the Earth was much colder it is than today? And how would Palmer explain the periods in Earth's history when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was lower than now, at the same time that the Earth was much hotter than it is today? The fact that he intentionally ignores reality in his own field of study, including ignoring the intentional falsification and selective deletion of critical climate data in his own country, speaks volumes. Sabine, would you ignore proven falsification of data regarding the nature of photons, or the nature of dark matter, or the falsification of similar astronomical topics? Merely the fact that he is employed in this field in England, indicates his fraudulence - they would never tolerate any scientist who doesn't say that the Earth is not in imminent danger. For Palmer to not stress that the output from the IPCC is manufactured by ignorant, utterly corrupt politicians, and not by scientists, is very damning. For Palmer to not even mention the variability of the Sun's output and variabilities in the Earth's orbit, is also very damning. For Palmer to state at 31:44 that the forced mass migration into Europe and the U.S. was due to climate change , rather than a truly evil political plan by those nations' leaders to institute a permanent, global, totalitarian communist government, was an extreme insult to all those who value the truth and freedom. And for Palmer to just assume, out of the clear blue sky and based on no evidence or reasoning what-so-ever, that the Earth being a few degrees hotter will be a net negative to mankind, rather than a net positive, is very damning. Everything this lying fraud says should be ignored. It is so very, very tiresome to repeatedly see jackasses like him being interviewed. Sabine asking, at 21:50, "So, what can be done about it?" is such a disappointment. That question assumes a scientific reality that even Palmer admits is absolutely not known. Sabine, to your credit, you are so honest and logical that you have a hard time recognizing (or believing) how utterly corrupt the scientists and politicians are in the field of climate science. This is a fascinating example that even your iron-grip on scientific rationality can be corrupted. Please use the same level of scientific skepticism for climate science that you used when you analyzed the need for a larger supercollider. You are so much smarter than this.
Yes i stopped the video at that point - this is an intelligent man so he is lying. He lies to keep his job.
"As soon as Palmer said, at 2:43, that the historical models have been "remarkably accurate", I knew he was either lying through his teeth, or he is utterly brainwashed and delusional."
Agreed. Even the IPCC no longer uses the models for support of the conclusions. Given that it can't rely on empirical evidence (which falsifies the AGW hypothesis) all it has left is 'expert judgment.'
@@alanlowey2769 Your hypothesis is interesting but I have a bit of trouble with the idea of dark matter without any evidence of it. I know that the cosmology people have had many problems that have thrown the field in disarray and expect to have the chaos last for a very long period of time. That is why I am not ready to examine your idea at this time. But if you have a few references I would be glad to take a look.
The driver that interests me is the change in cosmic ray flux in the lower atmosphere. A great overview was provided in a popular book called The Chilling Stars. But there is a great deal of literature on the subject that is accessible to anyone interested. I am far more convinced of the cosmic ray connection than of the claim that CO2 is the driver.
www.sciencebits.com/weatherphys
www.amazon.ca/Chilling-Stars-New-Theory-Climate/dp/1840468661
Sabine is a good science educator as long as she's not talking about climate change, so I'm not sure what you expected from here. This video is an example of an echo chamber.
Very proud to call him my uncle! The intelligence gene skipped my generation unfortunately .... and he is genuinely the nicest man as well as super intelligent... 🤓🙂
Very nice yes, but he also seems very bored. If he was so intelligent he would realise that he is doing bs for a bs institution, well maybe he does know, but then he is too nice, or not very brave.
@Stanley Goddard The ipcc is no university and there is no advancement in knowledge regarding the CO2 climate sensitivity after 30 years. Or is there? I do not devide the debate into pro trump or anti trump. I am from Germany and consider myself a leftist.That you immediatley peg me into a political camp, is part of the problem with this "debate".
@Stanley Goddard What do you think of the climate models, for example the on called INMCM4? images.app.goo.gl/su77uVqVRAdzLtQU7
@@nyoodmono4681 he is bored cause physics and computer science is yet to catch up to do what he wants
@@Tbop3 If you really want i can give you a long talk about the history, the mandate and the structure of the ipcc. But i think the "climategate" e-mails they speak for themself: www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf Palmer made one crucial point himself: Why are the climate models not compared in a stochastic manner, would that not just be the next logical step to compare them and ask why the lowest ones meet the observations by now, asking for the "ingredients" causing these different results? Being a scientist like him stumbling about this question i would truly ask myself if what i am doing here is science after all. The list of former scientists that left the ipcc for scientific reasons is pretty impressive. Him asking these questions himself, maybe after Hossenfelder pointed them out, show that he is not discussing these things with other parts of the ipcc, which is sad and wierd and in the end bs, nothing but bureaucracy, collecting data, modelling and only the political bureau will interpretate everything. There is no room for theorizing and debate whithin the ipcc, it lacks an organ of falsification. This role of falsification is put to fringe, experts like Lindzen, Christy, Curry, Shaviv are named and shamed and excluded since the debate got extremely polarized. So there is no debate by succsfully avoiding a debate, claiming a consensus and defending it ferocious.
My goodness. There is absolutely no falsifiable methodology for determining precisely, or roughly, the effect of CO2 levels on climate temperature. There is no laboratory model of planet Earth upon which CO2-temperature experiments can be run.
Where are the facts in this video? I hear unproven theories and speculation.
The reference to tipping points has no basis in observed or historical reality. In the paleo climate record, when CO2 has been 5 or 10 or 15 times higher that the current levels, we have not discovered previous tipping points.
It annoys me to hear so-called experts demonstrate such a lack of critical, integrated thinking and such a inexplicable inability to distinguish between observable facts and speculation.
Anyone, who points to climate models as evidence of anything we can count on as being representative of the future, might as well be looking into a crystal ball-for all that climate models are worth.
If you look through history you will see that the climate often changes relatively fast due to some initial forcing. My understanding of this goes something like this:
- To start you have a some forcing (f.x. big eruption, asteroid strike, Earths orbit or tilt changes a little, ocean currents suddenly change, etc.).
- After that the feedback loops take over and a small initial cooling or warming ends up freezing or thawing the planet. Those are of course the extremes and due to the multitude of factors, this process can be different at different times and end at a different equilibrium.
- That means that the tipping points would be those that the initial forcing has to exceed to get the feedback loops going.
About CO2, we know it catches infrared radiation, the type Earth radiates when heated. So it stands to reason that increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere should have a heating affect. It is only part of the puzzle of course, but it is the part we have the biggest effect on.
You mention that CO2 has been higher in the past which is absolutely true and the correlation is not perfect. But when you factor in the sun as well (which was cooler in the past), the correlation gets very good.
So I think this in not a lack of critical thinking, but of this being a very complicated problem and there being a lot of misinformation out there that makes this conversation a mess.
@GreyGeek
Ok, that became a lot longer than intended.
The Sun:
-When you state that the Sun is *THE* driver, what exactly do you mean by driver? I see multiple ways of understanding that.
Do you mean driver of climate or climate change or both?
-The way I use it in this context is to mean the most significant factor that is forcing the climate at that time.
-The Sun has been getting warmer during the history of the Earth. The temperature on Earth has not followed this trend through history. So the other factors are clearly relevant.
About Data:
Well, that depends on how and why you change the data and if you are transparent about it.
If you have to compare two different data sets from different instruments, you may need to homogenize (I think that is the term) the data to make sure you are comparing apples to apples.
Or you may need to account for local variables, such as with heat reading near cities.
-Take the example of ocean temperature reading. The had ships to do it and then switched to buoys, but temperature readings from the ships had a bias because of the ships, showing slightly higher temperature. This was not a problem because the objective was to look at change in temperature, so they added the bias to the buoys readings because there were far fewer measurements and it was less work.
- If you have any evidence of deliberate misleading, please point to it.
Water vapor more potent:
You are correct in that water vapor is more potent. But that does not allow you to ignore CO2. If water vapor is 7 times more potent, that still means that CO2 would be ~12.5% percent of the potency of water. That little extra heating allows the air to hold more water vapor, causing more heating, more release of CO2 and more water in the air. So, feedback loop.
It also absorbs a little different range of radiation compared to water, narrowing the window for infrared radiation to escape.
And yes, the more heat the more the Earth radiates, which is one of the factors that prevents the Earth from going full Hellhole.
@@bjornheiarrunarsson7517 "Freezing or thawing (of) the planet" is completely cosmic in origin, any "forcings" are results of that, not the cause.
I'm not a physics professor, but it seems to me all he is saying is, in effect, yes, climate change from human activity is real, but the specific models measuring it have a certain amount of uncertainty so we need to work on getting more accurate models. I don't see how this undermines the idea that climate change is a problem, but it does suggest that we need to be careful about accepting some of the more "sky is falling immediately" statements. He certainly IS NOT saying that climate change caused by CO2 is a myth.
I find the arguments behind the belief that warming is an impending catastrophe to be dubious for three reasons.
One:
If we are close to a "tipping point" where the current "delicate balance" will become disrupted if we don't take drastic action right away, then why hasn't any of the historic climate excursions already caused such a latchup? If positive feedback in the climate system is so dominant, then why didn't previous CO2 levels that were TEN times current levels cause disaster? The fact that we haven't experienced a tipping point event already is evidence that negative feedback mechanisms may dominate the Global climate instead of positive feedback mechanisms.
Two:
How can we be sure that the current climate is ideal for humanity? Couldn't raising global temperatures, and liberating much of the buried carbon back into a potentially lush biosphere be a good thing? The assertion that the global climate right now is ideal for life on Earth is more of an article of faith than an honest assessment of the likely outcome.
Three:
Time Scales. If sea levels rise to the levels predicted in the worst case, people aren't going to wakeup one day and find their house floating away. Houses get torn down and rebuilt on a much shorter timescale than the predicted rise. Multiple generations will come and go while we are waiting for the rising oceans. On the scale of human existence, I doubt anyone besides historians will notice sea level rise
A rise in temperature always PRECEEDS a rise in CO2. It's always been that way.
exactly, they keep using the word change , when they always mean limit warming, so whatever happens its change.
back to the reason that temperature leads co2 content, presently at 0.49 grams/m³, at sea level.
Co2 has high solubility in cold water and very low solubility at warmer conditions in the tropics, where it is expelled in great quantities, after seawater circulation removed the co2 enriched arctic water. In both polar regions it was absorbed readily,
This absorption can easily be observed by cooling a bottle with warm water and co2 above it, after cooling the plastic bottle crumbles, there is a pressure reduction caused by the absorption process.
This oceanic circulation proves your point.
What I particularly love about Sabine’s videos is when they investigate rather than just advocate for a specific point of view. So many videos start with the conclusion and then provide limited data to support that. If you agree with the premise, the data will be convincing, if you disagree then it’s easy enough to find holes in the data. I’m heading to Patreon now; I’ve put it off long enough. As someone has said, “show me what you spend your money on and I’ll show you what you care about“.
I live in central Ohio. Just a few thousand years ago my house would have been buried under a glacier that reached all the way to Cincinnati. Those glaciers have been receding ever since then and continue to do so. It all started long before man started burning fossil fuels to any significant extent. When that glacier started receding, blessedly there were no politicians around to use it as a crisis to implement their agenda. On second thought, there probably were! Those bastards are always with us!
I am certain a professor of climatology is aware of past ice ages.
What really puzzles me is, why a kid from Ohio thinks he knows more about climate than thousands of professors, doctors, and Phd students, most of whom have dedicated their lives to studying the subject.
@@clive373 Funny how they never talk about it. Like stock market graphs, you an make climate change graphs say whatever you want depending on whether you zoom in or out. There are so many variables and feedback loops that affect the climate that no model or computer is large enough and sophisticated enough to generate reliable predictions. UA-cam didn't like me making this point earlier and they took down my comment. They don't believe in free speech. They will probably take down this comment, too. Doing so is a sign of cowardice and lack of confidence in their position, of course. Sad. And scientists are people who are subject to all the flaws and weaknesses that people have. I can recognize groupthink when I see it.
@@clive373 check temperature of earth over its entire existence and you will see
It can be surprisingly hard for people to comprehend that multiple things can be true at the same time.
Global temperatures may shift over time due to processes that have nothing to with human activity.
Human activity can also affect the environment.
Because summer exists does not negate the existence of space heaters. It's not a coincidence that the room gets even hotter in the summer when you also turn on the space heater.
Glad I found you channel months ago. We can feel how serious and careful you are for every subject you talk about.
now I am dizzy by looking at the spinning globe the whole time without realizing it.
His wife should iron the cable ... :)
So I guess what he is saying is the computer models are not that accurate due to complex variables
No.
The issue is with the underlying process or "model", which is highly non-linear, and the need to use linear approximation in order to make the *modelling* of the processes computationally tractable
@@iii-ei5cv Yes, the model for ENSO/El Nino is non-linear but it can be solved and tidal forcing factors can be applied to model the erratic cycles of El Nino.
@@coreyander286 - so I program my computer model in such a way that human C02 emissions cause global warming over time.
Then I run my computer model, and publish the fact that in 100 years time, the computer model predicts that we will have global warming.
Can I get a Nobel Price now please, like Al Gore did?
@@PaulPukite Last I checked, predicting El Nino over the season change is no better than a coin toss at the moment.
@@coreyander286 If you have an incentive to produce tails like that, getting a model to spit them out is utterly trivial. In fact, if you are not above a little curve fitting they are inevitable products of modelling. Even linear models with an unconstrained input will inevitably lead to such outcomes. It tells you nothing whatsoever about the climate, past, present or future. It is just an artifact of your method. The fact that the models all show the same output artifact is evidence only of the consensus of the linear modelling approach they all use.
The simple fact is that there is no evidence for such runaway effects on the basis of CO2 changes in the empirical record.
The so-called "average surface temperature" is not a physical quantity: it is just a construct that means nothing from the thermodynamic viewpoint and which cannot be measured directly or indirectly as one deals with a highly complex open nonequilibrium system (Earth + atmosphere). So, making comparisons with what this "surface average" was supposed to be before the "pre-industrial revolution era" (whatever this overused, yet extremely vague term means) to derive conclusions about atmospheric CO2 concentration effects, is absolutely ridiculous: not only the boundary conditions vary greatly over time, but they are systematically ill-defined at best. Models are not accurate.
It's not enough that the politicians have the information on the risks of continued CO2 emissions. In democracies, we need the voting public to understand those risks otherwise politicians who are willing to take the needed action to reduce CO2 emissions won't be voted in.
Only WASPS are stupid enough to pretend climate change doesn't exist.
It's really nice hearing a discussion about it at this kind of level! Thank you!
judgement without arguments promotes dumbification
There are a few paradoxes about the climate change debate. During the Eemian Interglacial, the previous one about 110,000 to 130,000 years ago, sea levels were six to nine metres above current levels. Are we to blame this on the CO2 emissions of Neanderthals and Denisovans sitting around their campfires? The climate of the Sahara flips regularly about ever 11,000 years from desert to savannah, during the North African Humid Period, and then back to desert again. How many of these climate models factor in the role of plants and photosynthesis which need carbon dioxide, water, heat and sunlight to stay alive? It's the plants that created the Earth's habitable climate and still do. Animals evolved as conveniently mobile compost makers for the plants. Should we have the plants reduce O2 emissions instead? Go figure.
Very understandable! The sub-grid parameterization to deal with iteds that "slip through the grid" was fascinating. You picked a great guest.
gxulien .. If you mean he was perfect at showing what a writhing pit of snakes the climate cons are, I agree!
@@MrMichaelFire "Climate Cons" - you mean the business leaders that purposefully confuse the science on climate change since the seventies?
*sigh* an interesting rational discussion about accuracy of complex predictive models and their limits based on a deep knowledge of the subject.
What a sad world we are living in that this is called courageous.
Kant would roll in his grave.
Still: Sabine, huge thanks for not taking the easy route. Danke!
Orwell would not.
Tbop3 Since I read Kant in German I am not sure about the typical translation, but Kant was calling for mankinds liberation from the selfimposed immaturity by rational thinking.
Academe is infantilizing to the extreme in its current context. It's necessary for the institutions to act top-down paternalistic in order to serve their purpose as authority, problem being that the expansion of recording media into the most private and/or casual corners of conversation enforces a timidity in dialogue among the intellectually cautious that has not been a part of previous intellectual cultures. These folks are professionals having a public conversation that may very well end up spurring controversy that may harm them professionally. If you have any skin in the game at all, it's definitely a brave thing nowadays to express minority opinions on taboo or sacred-cow subjects
Tbop3 I am not totally sure what two mindsets you are referring to, but I wholeheartedly agree that you need a certain serenity and clarity in today’s world of political pressure and large scale misinformation campaigns that once were only used by oppressive regimes or in times of war but now seem to be common in everyday topics like climate change, vaccination. In Kants days it was the aristocracy, the churches and superstition controlling the population by misinformation. By adopting rational and humanistic thinking humankind made huge progress in medicine, law, science, technology. Maybe I’m getting old, but I think we lost a lot of that in the last decade or two.
Tbop3 now I understand. Thank you.
Thanks Sabine and Tim for an excellent discussion.
I like the sense of hesitancy on commiting to an opinion, that plays out well on video. When someone writes or speaks on stage they need to feel certain about what they are saying. This makes it look like they are more certain of what they are presenting than they really are. That the facts are in. In particular it 'papers over' any weaknesses in knowledge.
This style of interview, in contrast, assisted the subjects weakness to be expressed and examined.
We'll done!
That‘s exactly the kind of substantial interviews we need as a source of information for the most relevant topics these days, thank you very much. I would also very much appreciate if Sabine could explain some key relations. I know that there are many other sources and channels dealing with this topic, but I think what we desperately need is more information and understanding instead of biased opinions, entertainment and gossip. I would be willing to donate for such videos.
I don't see why any further discussion is needed. ??
This kind of thing is what most people need.
Most people, including myself, are not trained in the various sciences that form the field we call climate science.
Understanding all the basics, free of politics and ideology, is such an important basis for understanding the bigger picture including the politics.
Thank you.
@buymebluepills Really. That's how it works with gender science. And when I say "works", I mean, of course, "isn't allowed to work".
This is in no way free of politics -try again chief IQ.
@@runethorsen8423 Why would you sign off your comment as chief IQ, I wonder? Ah! You want everyone to think that attempts at sarcasm on UA-cam indicate that you are... clever? You can do better if you try.
@@staninjapan07 I concede - it was wrong of me, it showed my ego and "need to" be insulting. I can explain it (not excuse it).
I apologize, for what that's worth.
What wasn’t mentioned was the effect of
o. The atmosphere brown cloud
o. Deforestation
Each of these is arguably of similar importance to CO2 in terms of climate change.
Ramanathan has written extensively on the importance of particulate emissions on atmospheric convection. Convection is crucial for the Earth’s ability to dump excess heat to Space.
thankyou for stating this,,its always bothered me the deforestration and the reduction of rainfall,desertification, and other effects of deforestration on temperature and heat. The emphasis is always carbon, and the political,finacial global governance from agenda 2030 that comes from the CO2 debate.
@@chrismast5626 Yeah, people seem to forget that there is more to climate than CO2. There's more than one greenhouse gas peeps.
This is precisely my argument I have been making for more than a decade. The climate will react with more convection when temperatures become warmer. This process skips the CO2 within the Troposphere and dumps the heat at the base of the Stratosphere where it escapes to space. More heat loss and more ice cloud reduces average temperatures. The machanism of the natural properties of the atmosphere opperates a bit like a safety valve. However if climate model scientists over state the value of CO2 in the modelling then they will always make CO2 the problem and the reason for political change.
I’ve built probabilistic models most of my career. The complexity of the entire climate system is impossible to forecast with any accuracy.
One of the most worthwhile interviews I’ve seen in years. Now if only the media and politicians could act responsibly.
Let’s all go to sugar rock Mountain
Yeah...
Wonder why they're not...
Oh because CO2 doesn't affect temperature.
I'm a scientist, and I have a theory that arsenic will cure the malfunctioning brains of climate deniers. The responsible thing to do is give it to them, right?
@@Bob_Adkins ……. arsenic ? what an unpleasant idea
@@ayeone3870 I would like to remind that CO2 is a toxic gas, and there is plenty of evidence that a cronic exposure to 600-800 ppm causes several health problems and decrease of cognitive abilities. We are going to reach those values very soon if we keep on exponentially increasing CO2 emissions.
11:05 this sounds like a Turing test for climate models!
„we still have to some way to go until you can‘t tell whether you are looking at a climate model or the real world“
Absolutely. This kind of tenterhooks way of speaking sounds like a hostage trying to impart secret information whilst having a gun to their head.
“... tell weather” - I see what you did there.
We can't build a computer big enough (assumed that we can know all the parameters and their interactions) to model the climate so that it is "real world", because this computer already exists, and it is the Earth.
@@massecl Exactly, it's almost like what Dr. Heisenberg concluded.
Interesting how in 1815 a volcano exploded which was 150 times that of Mt. St. Helens. It was equivalent to over 60 Hiroshima sized atom bombs. In Indonesia, a large mountain named "Tambora" exploded and killed over 300,000 people. Its effects lasted over two years. The Global temperature cooled by 1.5 degrees (F). Most crops in Europe didn't grow for a year and a half. Thirty-six (36) "cubic miles" or about 100 megatons of sulfur and smoke and grit encircled the Earth. There was no spring season and the summer never warmed. The following year, 1816 became known as "The Year Without Summer".
There was a famine in Ireland. In New England, the year became known as "1800 and froze to death". Morning frost would last until June and almost no planted seed would grow. Livestock died. However, the 19th century was already known as "a little ice age". But after the "Tambora Event" was over after two years, the Earth's "natural thermostat" took over. Eventually, precipitation brought the smoke and dust to the ground. The "stuff" eventually went to the bottom of the ocean which eventually gets recycled into the plates and digested inside the molten magma beneath the ocean.
So what do we do? Do we spend trillions and trillions of dollars to reduce carbon emissions only to have another large volcano or a huge rock suddenly fall from space and start all over again? Source and quotes: A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson
"Palmers indeterminacy principle" Palmer 2019 et.al
My main takeaway -- Tim Palmer says we need bigger computers.
No. We need way fewer STUPID demented people.
@regivos Please point me to the timecode in the video where he says that.
@@GordoGambler "The problems in the world are caused by everyone but me."
It doesn't matter how powerful the computers are if the models and inputs are sloppy and incomplete
I say : he believe models with zero ability to be tested
I wish there was a way to have opposing scientist defend their views on this topic at the same time. I just watched Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT say there are no tipping points (if I recall him correctly). His arguments are convincing, and I'd love to see Lindzen and Palmer have a go. Thank you, Sabine, for your insightful questioning! I feel I have a moticum of understanding of the difficulties with climate models.
: Strange how there seem to be commenters who didn’t watch the video or all the way through because they’re citing the video as somehow denying climate change and that the modeling and concerns about their projections are phony or whatever. What I saw in the 35 minutes of the video were two people discussing the science of modeling, the technology, and where it should be improved based on current developments that generally indicate the science and modeling have been on point. The discussion about global mean temperature and the necessity of shifting some to regional impact projections was particularly good and informative.
because she let him expose his own lies, but not in the way you could understand.
exactly, he is impressed how good the predictions are on a super complicate system, specially for long periods, yes there are errors and any educated human doesn't have issues with that, but people see errors and think is "wrong". the man says climate change is being predicted very well, then goes to talk about the science, the climate change is never challenged, lol.
@@sillysad3198 sis u even understand? and no, sabine is not like that.
@@sillysad3198 a sufficiently smart person would be able to talk about where the lack of understanding comes from. Your lack of explanation clearly points to you either being shill of for-profit companies that pollute or that you are simp for being told what to believe without sufficient data. Both reasons being good enough to ignore you.
@@sillysad3198 It's people like you who are the most destructive if the trend keeps getting worse, which it definitely seems to be. Two years ago in my region it didn't rain for a year, but now it has rained just about continually for 6 months! How is that "normal"? Climate deniers are usually religious and "know" climate change isn't a worry, period, cos of this passage... Genesis 8:22! Great science isn't it. Not convincing me, that's for sure.
I enjoy watching Dr. Hossenfelder's other videos because she is very clear about what is understood and what is not. If she ever starts talking about physics in the way that Tim Palmer talks about climate models, I'll be the first to unsubscribe...
i will follow
Well said
Its a religion to him.
twiggered
Thank you Sabine.
10 mega danke meiner geschätzten, respektiert, und geehrt Frau Professor Doctor!
As Keynes once said, “when the facts change, I change my mind”.
More like " When those who pay me change their minds, I change my mind"
Jacob Zondag that makes no sense
"when the facts change, I try to find a way to phase back into my own universe"
Facts don't change, they come to light.
@JZ's Best Friend Quoting Keynes anywhere and not expecting to be mocked like the darn mug you are is pretty much a blasphemy against intelligence.
One just has to look at the climatologists predictions of near term catastrophes during the last 40 years to get a clear answer: climatologists have been constantly getting it wrong.
Yeah, I'm half way into this video and they haven't addressed what actually matters regarding Global Warming.
I don't understand why this video has so many dislikes. I enjoyed listening to this discussion with Professor Palmer. I hope you decide on doing more of these long form discussions with scientists in their field.
The reason is there is a bunch of deniers on here who can’t handle the truth
@@Mevlinous - I'm a "denier" (curious wording - usually "denier" is used in religious debates), and I did find this interview interesting. It didn't make me less of a "denier" but it rather supported my views.
@@Mosern1977 To me “denier” doesn’t tell me a whole lot, because there are various groups that would fall under the umbrella of “deniers”. Some of them can be infuriating, but others are quite sensible (same can be said of proponents). Some skeptics deny the science altogether - think it’s a hoax so scientists can get that sweet grant money, while others accept that we’re warming but don’t think it’s a big enough deal to warrant drastically changing our economy.
I’m a proponent of the science of anthropogenic climate change, and due to its importance and uncertainty, support efforts to minimize emissions of greenhouse gases. However, I must admit that I find much of the mainstream media coverage of this issue to be reductive and irresponsible. I can understand why this type of coverage can fuel doubt in CC. They spend so much time talking about Greta Thunberg than experts in the field, because it’s the shiny new toy. But it looks like they’re desperate and reaching.
I get it. It’s Economics 101 - give audience what they want, not what they need. The demand for entertainment exceeds the demand for education. It’s as true in adults as in children. A conversation like this would not be appreciated by most. There’s a reason why Pewdie pie has 2000 times the subs that Sabine does.
Admittedly, I’m a bit jaded from interactions I’ve had on this topic. Most people don’t wish to do the work but want the easy answer (right or left). They are quick to form a strong opinion on the matter, despite their ignorance. I don’t even like it when people ask me, “do you believe in climate change?” It’s a malformed question. It should be, “Do you understand the science of anthropogenic climate change?” And then go from there. Afterall, we need to know the claim and evidence for the claim, before forming a strong argument either for or against it, right?
I work with many conservatives. When the topic of climate change comes up, I just want to beat my forehead against the desk - I’ve heard arguments involving Al Gore, polar bear population increase, CO2 is only a small % of atmosphere, how the medieval warm period being was amazing, satellite data showing no temperature increase, etc, etc. But not one of them know how molecules absorb energy from light, or about the carbon cycle, hydrologic cycle, radiative-forcing components or paleoclimatology. They know about Milankovitch cycles, but do not know the time scales for those cycles. They have facts that are insulated from context - Facts used to muddy the water and cast aspersion on the integrity of individuals studying the field.
There are skeptics who accept that the temperature is increasing largely due to human activity, but are concerned of the economic consequences that might arise from imposing excessive regulatory constraints, incommensurate to the level of risk. They fear a situation where the antidote is potentially worse than the ailment. I share some these concerns. But that’s all the more reason to speak to the individuals who give their life to studying, painstakingly analyzing, the various aspects of the climate system and not the bloviating media/political pundits who have ulterior motives. That’s all the more reason to get educated on some of the basic aspects of the physics underpinning this phenomenon, instead of sound bites (and yes, this includes the 97% number).
Listen, scientists are human and have flaws. Group think can occur in any area of life (science is no different); for this reason, peer review and public discussions like what Dr.Hossenfelder is doing are vital to keep everyone honest and also to inform the public. I just wish it was more prevalent.
@@Mosern1977 I know, I know, “You talk too much.” :)
@@LearningWithSuj the problem is while some people are diciding if "the antidote is potentially worse than the ailment" we quickly approaching tipping points which can not be reversed. The antidote is absolutely better than the ailment and we can't get enough of it as of now without some radical moves towards said antidote. People are afraid of change but it must happen. The science is there and economic concerns are not nearly as bad as they seem by general public, in fact there's clear advantage to the global economy and human wellbeing but it's being hold back by corporate greed of those who are unwilling to look further than their nose in future.
The models seem to have been developed for a period of 38 years. These models might well be highly accurate for that period, but to extrapolate a model from 38 years for "the future" strikes me as BS. And what reference has been made to the last 10,000 years. In terms of the earth 38 years is a mere blip, so to base a model on such a limited period seems bizarre.
Its strong cognative dissonance when he starts out describing the GCMs as being based on fundamental physics described by navier-stokes and he even mentioned quantum effects(!) only to later admit the calculated grid cells are computationally too expensive to actually perform and those grid cells have to be much larger than the effects being modelled so that the results in gridcells has to be represented by simplified calculation and even parameterisation for clouds.
I know this is 2 years later - but there's no contradiction. We do understand the basic physics. But simple physics can give rise to very complex interactions. That is not a "cognitive dissonance" it is understanding that a system is more than it's parts. Same as say - we really do understand gravity really well, and can simulate what a single object will do very accurately - but that doesn't mean it's easy to predict or calculate the movement of every last pebble in an avalanche.
@HumanAreYou But in this context we don't know clouds. We parameterise them as a fit to what we've measured and that's not physics based. Then that non physics based value is included in the calculation making the whole thing now a fit. Whether you argue simplified physics is still physics or not doesn't get around the fact the GCMs are not a physics based calculation because of clouds alone.
@@medhurstt We do know clouds.
We can't compute them to the detail equivalent of a single pebble in an avalanche, but we can predict well enough what the trajectory of the avalanche is. Same as with the fact that temperature is increasing.
It's irrelevant for what we need to do. Stop the avalanche, i.e. reduce CO2 and fast to know what every pebble / every cloud in detail contributes.
He makes that clear too, if you actually listen.
@HumanAreYou Predicting "well enough" is fine for tomorrow's weather but not for climate. Clouds have a large impact and how they'll behave in an atmosphere that is increasingly changing isn't good enough for projection. There are many quantities in GCMs that are like that.
@@medhurstt As he made clear it's not that we can't predict at all - just not to a perfect degree.
And again - for the general big picture of where we are going - it's not crucial. Both basic physics, all the way back in the 1860th, models, and real data tell us that we are warming, fast, and that CO2, Methane, etc. are the cause.
There is enough info on that end to understand that we have to reduce emissions and start preparing. Science will fill further details - but that's true with any scientific field. So on that end - we are far beyond just "good enough".
Thank God that there was no extreme weather before money could be made from carbon credits.
If their models could show how the medieval warm period and the other pre industrial climate variations occurred these models would gain some credibility. Consensus isn’t science. It could simply reflect a shared error increasing the further forward it goes.
It's credible among the scientifically competent. There's lots of work looking at the medieval warm period etc. It wasn't a global warming event, it was a regional warming in the North Atlantic. Here's a paper on the topic for you to read if you're interested (or totally ignore if you're a fantasist) www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2
rad858 - Would you show me where CNN covered that information? Unlike typical fantasists, I know where real facts come from - and it's certainly not coffee table magazines.
@@thom1218 Nature is one of the world's top scientific journals, you dumb goon.
Thank you Sabine and Tim. My favourite thing in the world is to listen to passionate experts. This and your interview with Subir Sarkar are amazing... More interviews with interesting passionate experts that I have never heard of. Thanks Sabine.
What I have been looking for, and have yet to find, is a laboratory demonstration that CO2 will slow down the rate of convection in our atmosphere. I envision a very tall (at least a kilometer) vacuum encased containment of atmosphere. The containment should be a highly elongated O shape with one side allowing upward convection of heated air and the second side allowing downward movement of cooled air. Heat would be added at the bottom and the exact same amount of heat would be removed at the top. Various atmospheric compositions should be tested. The key variables would be CO2 and H2O. Thermocouples should be arrayed up and down both sides of the containment to measure the distribution of temperatures.
If anthropogenic CO2 is causing heating of our atmosphere, we should see a pooling of heat at the bottom of the apparatus as the percentage of CO2 is increased.
I used to write computer models for a living. I know how easily they can be tweaked. Given the political supercharging involved in the global warming controversy, we need hard physical data collected under controlled conditions that can be duplicated by more than one researcher.
Sorry, but computer models are much too vulnerable to scams, and too many researchers have personal vested interests to be trusted in a matter of this significance.
@grindupBaker GHG theory is wrong plus the earth does not cool at an IR spectrum affected by CO2...You describe yourself well. I cite the papers in an earlier post. Perhaps calling all them names will sooth your broken cult, it won't change the science. Please name the mechanism whereby adding 1 part of something will heat 2500 parts around it bypassing the rest of physics climate scientists bypassed.
Take a bottle, breathe co2 into it, watch it heat up differently than a bottle filled with "air". It's been done and is a school children's project.
@@SECONDQUEST Well the temperature of your breath, which is mostly nitrogen, will be at body temperature Ca 36degrees C.
If the climate science is settled like we are told, shouldn't we then defund climate scientists. I mean, if the science is settled, what are they working on???
😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂
Wait... You are serious?
🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
there is only an end to the things you don't know for people who don't know anything. so science never reaches an end for the knowing and always is already finished for the unknowing
@@ForChiddlers Sounds a lot like the science isn't settled..
@@trucid2 They discussed this. But you have to watch it and have an attention span.
@@rad858 You guys, always with the insults...
Why so many dislikes? I'd genuinely would like to hear about what it is supposed to be wrong about this discussion.
My guess would be that many people (myself included) weren't as much interested in how the climate model spoken about here is accomplished, but were more interested in why that climate model is inaccurate in terms of predicting whether or not CO2 is at a dangerous level now, or will likely be at a dangerous level at anytime in the future, and whether or not the amount of CO2 we dump into our atmosphere is truly a problem, or just appears to be a problem because the models commonly used are very flawed.
This discussion was not about that, at all, but the title was, in my opinion, kind of a "click-bait" in its wording. That said, Dr. Hossenfelder stated what the discussion was about immediately in the beginning, and so, while many of us might have been disappointed, the video should not have been "down-voted" because it did discuss the issue as was stated by Dr. Hossenfelder.
Denialists.
How many years of previous temperature/climate data does this climate model take into account? Also I am very curious about how exactly Co2 causes atmospheric warming? I know that Co2 is what plants breathe and it seems to me that increased Co2 would make plants healthier and more numerous and thus producing more Oxygen therefore somewhat balancing it out.
CO2 absorbs infrared radiation at certain wavelengths, the light from the sun comes in and is absorbed then the energy is released as infra red, which is why you feel warmth radiating from roads after a hot day. More of this energy is trapped in the lower atmosphere, satellites have measured this change over the last 20 or so years.
@@killcat1971 You neglect to mention that C02 is a trace gas whose atmospheric concentration has increased by one molecule in 10 000 since pre-industrial times. The postulated forcing in computer-modeled predictions of climate has to be mediated via the overwhelmingly dominant 'greenhouse gas' which is of course water vapour.
More water vapour is likely to be associated with more clouds which are poorly modeled and hence lead to the significant discrepancies we see between modeled temperatures and what are observed.
Climate alarmism does not take into account the extremely beneficial effects of increased atmospheric C02 in terms of increased plant growth which has been termed global greening.
@@mrradman2986 And? "Trace" does not mean "ineffective" a "trace" of cyanide is still poisonous, do not confuse amount as a percentage with impact. CO2 has an impact far in excess of it's proportion, and if you increase it this increases.
@@killcat1971 If that were true temperatures would have run away to levels incompatible with life when C02 was 8000 ppm. The action of C02 is actually very simple based on the two bonds within the molecule and not something capable of a synergistic effect.
Most IR is already absorbed with current concentrations of C02 and adding more does not potentiate the effect, rather it rapidly diminishes.
You should study Wiiliam Happer who is an expert on physics of C02.
I’m seeing nasa data with >150%
I notice that the temperature where we live started to drop in 2015. Now I know the reason, more low clouds and no rain.
This is caused by a weak sun (electromagnetic, no sun spots). Cosmic rays form the clouds. During Solar cycle 25, 26 and 26 you will experience colder weather...Henrik Svensmark, Valentina Zharkova.
No sorry but svenmark already predicted cooling in the next few years in 2009...it got much warmer since than... And solar irradiance had been going down since 1970 while temperatures got warmer and warmer...
@@Dundoril I trust thermometers: www.dropbox.com/s/1pm1oq7i95mvfsc/AA.jpg?dl=0
Dunning Kreuger again!
So you live on the tenerifa airport?
Dundoril Muy cerca del airopuert Reina Sofia, que si.
She does a wonderful job of explaining things.
The real problem with climate modeling is the bias of the inputs, which is a natural human failing, we all do to some extent accept or discard information based on what we want the outcome to be
By the way over the last couple of decades we are having a decline in extreme weather
And the reason Asian African and South American are migrating is people are running away from Despotic Governments not climate change
Thank you, that was extremely informative and helped clarify a number of things I suspected, especially that these models tend to tell us very little about what is likely to happen at regional scales. One presentation I watched recently said: "We should never treat a model as a black box, and if it is a black box then we should not trust it (think LLMs). Thank you Tim and Sabine for shining a little light into the climate models box. More please.
What if you are runniing out of time and the black box is the best you have at the moment and the risk of not taking action is catastophic? Then yoiu will have to do what we all do thoughout our lives in other contexts, use the black box coupled with intelligence. Your solution is imoractical in the case of co2 caused climate change at the moment. The Prof says we have a black box and it tells us enough to know we are in deep do do re co2 and need to cut back now. he syas the black box is reliable enough for this. Then after that its the detail that is required.
So the guy in the video who talks so fluffy as to not be understandable is trying to say that c02 is bad for us? What about the science that shows we are in a co2 drought? When people talk in such fluffy ways ignore them. Total speculation based on research budget justification. Off with his head.
"The models have been remarkably accurate"....A range of 1.5 to 4.5 C warming per CO2 doubling, and an ensemble average prediction 50% higher than observation being described in such a positive light is highly optimistic.
Interesting as the CO2 started up around WW2 the temps went down for 30 years. In the 70s many were predicting an ice age. Most of the last 8000 years were warmer than today at 280PPM.
@@ColoradoHiker
Nobody but sensationalist media claimed there'd be global cooling.
There have been papers on the effects of global dimming because of aerosols and particles we put into our atmosphere and papers that neglected the influence of our growing co2 emissions, though. It's become more than obvious that models that do not account for our co2 emissions don't work past the industrial revolution.
@@willguggn2 Not true. There was a letter penned to Nixon in the 70s by a couple of geologists, backed by dozens of scientists, that warned of future cooling. There was a series called "In Search Of" that in the late 70s did a look into possible cooling that included scientists. There were discussions then about dumping soot in the Arctic to melt it. This was 30 years into the CO2 rise. Interesting video if you want to hear from scientists in the 70s.... ua-cam.com/video/L_861us8D9M/v-deo.html
@@ColoradoHiker
Yeah, I heard about that letter a few years ago. Expert opinion which didn't reflect scientific consensus, and US media didn't bother to check iirc.
@@willguggn2 Interesting as about 40 scientists backed the letter. So what is "consensus" when it comes to science? 51 out of 100 can be a consensus.
I didn't know that Bob Dylan was now working at Oxford University.
He has a better singing voice than Bob Dylan.
@Yolo 2.0 It's a wonder that you still know how to breathe.
@@guepardiez Just about everyone has a better voice than Dylan.
"You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows"
@@Cryptonymicus Dylan's voice got bad only after the 90s before that he had one of the best voices for his songs.
Sabine gently asks all the questions the skeptics have been asking. Palmer's basic answer is "it's complicated".
No that is _not_ his answer.
They've gotten wrong with every prediction for a hundred years.
Thank you Sabine and Tim. Thank you so much.
To summarize for those with little time: The scientific climate change models have proven to be very good at predicting global warming, but on tipping points, and local and temporal accuracy it could be improved. This is unfortunate as that is what society wants from science. Hence the (too critical) title of this video. Sorry Sabine, not a good title to cover the content. It is also unfortunate that this part of science is so politicized. Physics does not care about politics.
@Jim fallow i love when idiots think they do a mic drop and get owned with their own argument. If scientists were "in it for the money" as you state..why don't they alter the facts to agree with the fossil fuel industry?..it's revenue is $90 TRILLION a year...lol..what a stupid attempt at making a point..lmao
@Jim fallow And those who are against regulations on ideological grounds are motivated by their political bias to oppose climate change. You cannot appeal to bias on one side without acknowledging it on the other.
@@mykehog6646 Because the 'fossil fuel industry' is also making money out of the CO2/ climate change scam. Next question?
@@davidbarnstable that is possibly the STUPIDEST attempt at rebuttal EVER..so according to your "logic"..they are fighting against being the biggest industry on earth by??? ..what?..ignoring the science and raking in the bucks?..you make less sense than the other idiot..LMFAO..you are either stupid, a liar, or think people are as moronic as you...lol
@@mykehog6646 See interesting paper on renewable energy strategies of major oil companies. The issue is far more complicated than you imagine. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X19300574
Excellent presentation from Mr Palmer.
Many of the comments here display a huge ignorance of basic climate science.
We've ran ClimateModels on the BOINC platform, virtually all over-heat predictions, hence our investigations since 20+ years.
We also run models for predictions in various areas of my work, which can be useful, but must also be examined for Sanity, such as does the output match reality, continually amend revise even start again from 1st principles etc.
As a scientist myself, those that exaggerate the slight increase in Temps (Natural 97% & Human 3% both+/-2% if CO2 is the main forcer) for other agenda & cut off those that question assumptions does not help the debate, politics can therefore seem to be masquarading as Science.
Science needs always to be provoked & questioned, which I applaud Sabine is doing, but even Wikipedia puts those who question the CAGW area in the nasty 'Denier' pot rather than debate openly. The 'cure' however to convert at such a dramatic pace to so called 'Renewables', that are Intermittent & Unrelaible is worse than the 'disease'.
The Prof. mentions increased weather events, such extremes have always occured, there's no proof that Humans are the cause of such conjectured increases; there are people that document past weather event extremes from past Newspaper cuttings.
Hydrocarbons are essential to mine, manufature, support to Decommissioing the Wind & Solar farms. I could go on, but also fear for a future that these models are not replicating reality and we destroy modern civilisation, as can be seen in UK leading the race to the bottom, based on Hydrocarbons society in error.
Suggested reading:
1.‘Not For Greens’ by Prof. Ian Plimer
2.‘ApocalypseNever’ by Michael Shellenberger
3.'FalseAlarm' by Bjorn Lomborg
4.'FossilFuture' & 'The Moral Case for FossilFuels' by Alex Epstein
5.'The Great GlobalWarming Blunder' by Roy W. Spencer.
6. 'Challenging "Net Zero" with Science' by Richard Lindzen & William Happer CO2 Coalition
7. 'An assessment of the conventional GlobalWarmingNarrative' by Richard Lindzen, comments by Nic Lewis
8. 'Realism or Utopianism. A proposal for reform of the Net Zero policy' by John Constable & Capell Aris
9. 'Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom' by Patrick Moore
10. 'Climate Basics Nothing to Fear' by Rod Martin Jr.
11. 'Climate at a Glance for teachers & students' by Anthony Watts & James Taylor.
I'd like to see a presentation & debate between experts on both sides of the story without interuption either side, done quickly, before we rely on technologies that don't even exist yet to replace Hydrocarbons (now aka FossilFuels); I'm sure it will lively!
For now this is worth a read: www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/
P.S. This is the craziness being suggested if 'Climate Scientists' are left to their own devices & advising Governments:
ukfires.org/absolute-zero/ just look at the infographic!
Also look up Prof Valentina Zharkova's work on the sun. Her calculations do go back in time and accurately 'predict' times such as the Medieval warm period and Little Ice age, which none of the CO2 models do. There's no real correlation between CO2 and temperature in the paleoclimate history, except a negative correlation in the current ice age where CO2 rises and falls in response to temperature. He talks about 60-70 years as if that was a long time, but it's the short time since the earth was cooling in the 50s. 60s and 70s, when they were predicting a return to glaciation.
I view the evaluation of global warming models like predicting the effect of a bomb exploding in a room. We don't need to know exactly where every piece of shrapnel will land to know that the bomb will make a huge mess.
@Bruce Sanders Any competent scientist can do that. It's not rocket science.
So guessing
@@deant3980 No, Dean. Not guessing.
@@rad858 there are many competent scientists that would beg to differ, it's far more complex than current models allow for.
@Ken Mathis Well then you are already way off base
Weather extremes are local weather, not climate. Climate is the whole world, not your local weather.
And therein lies the problem. The whole world is too big. Not enough data collection points and not enough computing power to analyse it if we had all the data.
@@petejones4808 There's more than enough data collection points and computing power to be very confident about the basic facts of climate change. Climate science is all about assessing what can and cannot be deduced from the data we have. The answer is lots. Obviously more would be better, but there's no excuse for pathetic conspiracy theories or pretending an entire scientific discipline is incompetent. Pretending is for children.
@@rad858 I thought Prof Palmer spent the last 10 mins explaining that much more computing power was needed to be able to reliably predict local events, as this is what is important to people, rather than say a 2 deg rise in overall temperature.
Peter, You raise the Chicken and Egg Dilemma.
Does the Egg come before the Chicken or Vice Versa.
Does the Weather come before the Climate or Vice Versa.
I live in central Ohio. A few thousand years ago my house would have been buried beneath a glacier that reached all the way to Cincinnati. Those worldwide glaciers have been receding ever since and continue to do so. This all started long before man started burning fossil fuels to any significant extent. I posted this comment before and UA-cam took it down. Hey UA-cam, afraid much?
We entered an interglaciation where the atmosphere is warmer. Then we've made it even warmer still.
@@glennmartin6492 If you bothered to look at the data, you'd know we don't know if we made atmosphere any warmer, outside paving everything.
@@LecherousLizard I have looked at the data. We've warmed the atmosphere.
@@glennmartin6492 Which data?
@@LecherousLizard The data that's been collected about carbon dioxide sine 1856.
Thank you, Dr. Hossenfelder. There are a lot of scientists and engineers who enjoy hearing conversations at this level of detail, something that can be rare when things get political. Keep up the great work.
This was a really good conversation that explains the nuance of modeling something as complex as The earths climate. To me, world leaders need to understand this and say “we need to install wind and solar everywhere ASAP so that we can start turning off fossil fuel generators and avoid the nuclear waste problem that comes with nuclear generation.“
We know what the trend is, the models have shown us that. We know that the results will be extinction of the human race if we don’t act soon enough. We need leaders to act immediately. We don’t need perfect models to tell us exactly the day the north pole will be ice free. It just doesn’t matter.
We need to hold our public officials accountable.
Thanks again, Sabine!
The risk is not extinction of the human race! We are incredible resilient and adaptable. The real risk (apart from the enormous cost that climate change will incur for us) is the resulting extinction of countless other species.
@@gibbogle If earth gets too warm humans can not survive. That’s just a fact. They will not evolve fast enough as a species to stay alive. That’s called extinction.
Within the last few days we have heard flooding in northern California and also the East Coast. Weather events are getting more extreme by the day. It should be noted that Although Northern California has flooding, Southern Cal is worried about the fire season. We’ve got different cataclysmic weather events happening at the same time
In the same state. Global warming is increasing exponentially. These are facts and well-documented.
Species do go extinct. there’s nothing magical about the human species that makes them exempt.
If you’re thinking that we’re so clever that we will just engineer our way out of this while still burning fossil fuels, think about this: we can’t even get people to get a vaccine or wear masks during a pandemic. or this: in 2016 and 2020 more than 60 million people voted for Donald Trump for president United States.
I have much more faith in horseshoe crabs avoiding extinction than humans.
@@solarwind907 That's just silly. It has nothing to do with evolution. We have brains, we are resourceful, we can live in any environment, hot or cold. Look where people are living all over the world.
By the way, solar and wind are not going to do it, we need nuclear power, the cleanest, least carbon-emitting power source.
@@gibbogle I like science fiction myself but when people don’t understand evolution and call nuclear waste “clean energy” there’s no reason to continue.
@@solarwind907 Who doesn't understand evolution? I have a good understanding of it - some genetic mutations improve survival and passing on of the genes.
I didn't call nuclear waste clean energy, you are making things up. Storage of radioactive waste is not a show-stopper, we already store many kinds of toxic waste. The point is that nuclear energy is the least bad option, and is the only feasible way to reduce atmospheric carbon. Mark my words, solar and wind will prove to be insufficient, although they will be an important part of the mix.
Sabine, you rock!
"rock" is a noun or verb here?
Sabine, you physicist, you rock-of-the-ages!
Sabine, thou art cool and thou rockest (doth she not?)
@@ReasonableForseeability You rock, you stone, you worse than senseless thing!
Hopefully that's NOT what Michael Szabados was saying.
I agree with @hanksnow5470 in that there is too much detail in the explanation which will lead a lot of people either to say what is this guy saying because he lost me, or most likely to stop watching. When Prof. Hassenfelder asked about the fact that the models didn't indicate what their uncertainties were for the predicted temperature, Prof. Palmer stated (eventually) that the variance between the different models could be seen as the uncertainties of the models.
A point was made that while the models of the global average temperatures have been fairly good at predicting the rise in the global average temperature they cannot predict the temperature in a given region. They also cannot predict how the temperature rise will affect local climate. Prof Palmer talks about how the models predictions can't be more accurate because of the "grid size". He also says that local climate predictions are also hampered by the grid size.
"Grid Size"? Think of the grid size being like pixel size in a digital image. It is hard to recognize what an image composed of large pixels is when looking at it close up, one could characterize the picture as "blurry". But when you increase the distance from the image, it becomes "clearer" meaning easier to identify. The smaller the pixel size the "clearer" an image appears, and the smaller the details that can be seen. So with the current grid size used in the models the predictions are clear if you stand back to look at them but if you move closer, they become "blurry" and you can't see any detail. Increase the grid size and models become clearer and smaller details can be seen. The big limitation for the models is the grid size, but reducing the grid size requires more calculations, i.e. longer computer runs, or larger supercomputers, or both.
Prof Palmer makes several good observations. The attitude that we just need to wait for some miracle technology -- fusion power --- to be developed at some later date is something we can't rely on. In prehistoric times (late 1970s) when I was at university fusion power was 20- 30 years away. 20 years later, fusion power was 20 years away, 20 years later, it was only 10 years away and 10 years later it is only 10 years away. Yes they are getting closer, but I don't think the traditional approaches will succeed in time if at all. There are some newer, less complicated approaches that might actually work, but as always they need to be developed further and it is not clear at how long it would take before grid scale electrical energy production is available.
He talks about maybe putting together a "Marshall Plan" to help poorer and emerging countries fight global warming rather than have them follow the "traditional" route of burning fossil fuels. That's worth exploring, if the political will is there.
He talks about getting carbon emissions fast enough to keep from crossing the identified critical tipping points, and that once a tipping point has been crossed, there is no going back. That is an existential danger for many current living species, including man, but not for life. Whether humans survive our own self destructive behavior, or not, life will continue. It will look very different though just as it always has after a mass extinction.
Another point that was hinted at is that global warming is like a freight train or a huge ship. You cannot stop them on a dime. Lock the brakes of a freight train and depending on how fast it is moving and how massive it is, it can take one or more miles for it to come to a stop. Right now global warming has a lot of momentum so even if we eliminated carbon emissions today (which is impossible) global warming will continue for several centuries, just not as fast as it is and it will peak at a lower temperature rise. The longer we go without slowing it, the worse the rise and the resulting consequences.
From ice, ocean sediment core samples, and other measures we have both temperature and CO2 atmospheric levels over millions of years. Clearly the C02 and temperature measures have a high correlation. However, to say that this correlation means that C02 levels are "driving" or causing temperature changes is presumptuous, in that mathematically this correlation could just a validly indicate that temperature changes are responsible for C02 changes. Clearly, the two measures are related. Certainly it is well understood that global temperatures are driven by multiple periodic astrological phenomena (eccentricity, gravitational effects of Jupiter and Saturn, etc. all modifying global warming/cooling from the sun at the multiple frequencies related to the respective cycles ). Further, as the solubility of CO2 in both salt and fresh water is diminished with increasing temperatures, it is well understood that warming will result in release in C02 from these vast reservoirs of carbon dioxide in the earth's oceans and lakes. So the question remains: which comes first - the chicken or the egg? Correlation can NOT answer this. However, spectral analysis can. The cross-spectrum between temperature and C02 changes over millions of years demonstrates significant interaction between these signals. The Coherence function (related to the correlation, but not its Fourier transform), gives both the degree of this relation as well as the precedence between the spectral components of the cross-spectrum. When this analysis is done, temperature is seen to lead CO2 in the broad range of coherent frequencies. That is, CO2 changes follow temperature changes.
being willing to delve into the subtleties of this is so important and I wish more people would care about it.
Aw... Tim Palmer could have gone on for longer. He sounded disappointed straight at the end. "Time's up? Already?" Wouldn't have minded a longer video.
I read a few years ago that the increase in vegetation as a consequence of increased atmospheric CO2 was re-absorbing half of the increase in human-induced emissions. This was from a mainstream source. So how do we know that the greening of the planet as a result of increased atmospheric CO2 won't ultimately offset *all* of human CO2 emissions?
Because it isn't doing so yet, and studies (in a lab where conditions can be controlled) have indicated that they won't be capable of absorbing it all.
@@johnmcleodvii
So it will never do it because isn't doing so yet? Very sound logic.
I'm not sure what sort of experiment could test the hypothesis that the greening of the earth can't offset man-made CO2 emissions. That's not even an experimental question. It's a mathematical question.
All of the fossil fuels we're burning now were once biomass on earth's surface. What reason is there to think that all of this extra carbon can't be reabsorbed into the biosphere that it originated from?
Thank you Both. This is a very helpful and important interview. I hope many people can listen and understand what is being said.
judgement without arguments promotes dumbification
Good to hear from a real expert (not a journnalist) on climate modeling. Much more complex with less precise data so variability understandable. And his job compared to a physicists is much more complex both scientifically and the societal recommendations. Good needed video.
@johnlocke445 Really. He knows more than any other person? How convenient. Then we should simply believe what he says.
And where do I find the scientific evidence for such a claim?
Did his explanation for the absence of error bars on individual models remove your concerns? I found it wanting and too hand wavey.
His answer was.. 22:50
Short answer for those who don't take the time to watch: He is saying yes the planet is definitely warming due to human emissions, nobody is doubting that but the earth's weather is very complicated so saying exactly what crisises will happen and when is very difficult. We need to improve that.
It's not linear. The 20th century had cooling periods and warming periods, even as CO2 continued to rise. It didn't warm at all for the first 20 years of the 21st century. If the solar physicists are correct, we are going into a cooling period of many decades because we're entering a Grand Solar Minimum. Check out Valentina Zharkova.
Why are old temperature measurements are almost always adjusted to colder? Urban heat islands are getting more today, not in the past🤔
Seems to be global phenomenon. In the Netherlands there was a row because the official government agency for meteorology adjusted the temperature data before 1950. For those who understand Dutch see the recent discussion on this subject in the parlement of the Netherlands. see ua-cam.com/video/dxQuORT5Tmk/v-deo.html
To scare people. Make it look like temperatures are rising...
because they're not "adjusted to colder".
Atmospheric models are naturally chaotic, “the butterfly effect”. More to the point is to analyze specific issues , loss of arctic ice, danger of methane ‘burp’, stalling hurricanes as a function jet stream movement. I think it’s more productive to work on specialized models for these type of anomalies rather than a fully integrated single global model
Nonsense. You are a moron. The models don't have the resolution to identify genuine climate issues. Their only use is as a propaganda tool with which one can arrive at any eventuality they can imagine. And that is just what they do. Some unscrupulous pretenders, like that fraud Bill McKibben, have made a career out of their claimed ability to see impending calamity in tea leaves of data.
@@jamesmcginn6291 Don’t call me a moron, direct your name calling to those scientists who dedicate their lives to climate research, especially those working in the Arctic regions. Let them know they are morons so they can give up and go home. I am only a mathematician who works on chaos theory.
@@xqt39a ua-cam.com/video/N7wrRmJ8n5w/v-deo.html
What I don't understand is how there can be a several hundred year delay between the temperature increase and the CO2 levels, with the temperature increase occurring first. To me, that would demonstrate that increasing temperatures result in increasing CO2 levels and not the other way around.
This data also lines up with the medieval warming period, which happened roughly 800 years ago. Meaning that what we're seeing today is a direct result of the natural cycle that happened 800 years ago, and not from carbon emissions now.
If this were truly a feedback loop, then we are long since doomed.
For sure there is no man made global warming, and now we are getting colder already anyway (using real f**n data) because of Sun cycles.
Historically (typically): Milanković cycle heats the earth slightly. CO2 is released from the ocean. CO2 heats up the earth more. Now you are in a feedback loop
Now: Oceans become acidic (hence no outgassing), RF of sun is statistically not increasing (hence sun cycles or Milanković cycle are not the cause), C13/C12 and C14/C12 ratios in CO2 indicate fossil fuels as the main reason of increasing CO2,...
@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos Sorry the universe is not that easy - watch this - Milankovic cycle has nonexistent effect - we got HUUUUGE human made (blink blink) effects - ua-cam.com/video/Y-mRJmfFjFE/v-deo.html
Which would be consistent with a simple model of changing heat transfer from under the oceans and affecting the carbonization (CO2CaCO3) inside the water. Of course not answering why the heat transfer into oceans from inside the earth changed on a 100year time scale.
@@musaire Not educated in science like it seems from your link.
Science is so interesting. Read about science. Search for data and analyse them yourself. Educate yourself about statistics. UA-cam videos are entertainment. They are no replacement for scientific education.
This is like interviewing Cumrun Vafa to answer the question of whether string theory is overhyped. If Sabine where to be a bit more honest and true to her principles, she would at the very least interview the scientists who have raised the very question she purports to be answering.
Good article today in the Guardian on Dr Tom Beer’s pioneering 1980s research into bushfires and climate change. In Australia we are currently experiencing massive fires earlier in the season than ever before, with fires burning in areas previously considered most unlikely to burn so ferociously, such a the temperate rainforest in Tasmania, where I live, or the tropical areas of Queensland. Beer's findings and predictions were prescient of what is occurring over thirty years later...and that it's not just higher temperatures, but especially low humidity and drought that has the biggest impact.
'What could I have done?' The scientist who predicted the bushfire emergency four decades ago:
www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/17/what-could-i-have-done-the-scientist-who-predicted-the-bushfire-emergency-four-decades-ago
@R Dubya You need your nuance topped up.
Aaand 8 months later, it's been raining heavily since then, one of the wettest years on record. I guess Guardian and Dr Tom Beer’s will have to wait bit longer for their dooms day prophesies to come true.
There is also the unconsidered fact that almost any prediction will prove accurate, given a long enough time span.
I appreciate the complexity of the problem and the frustrations that Prof Palmer exhibits in trying to explain why they exist, however it doesn't change the reality that when the figures are quoted in media soundbites they don't mention uncertainty at all. The number is treated as accurate and precise once it is quoted in this manner.
I have no doubt climate change is real, as does Sabine and Prof Palmer, but scientists need to do more to ensure that the public understands these models are useful but have limitations. The fact that you can even make a guess at future climate states of such a complex system is an astounding achievement in itself.
> "scientists need to do more to ensure that the public understands these models"
I wouldn't say scientists are to blame for the sloppy reporting the that so much of mainstream media is doing. I've seen so many news articles about science topics that misrepresent the scientific paper they claim to report on, that I now consciously try to avoid reading any of them.
Just cast your mind back to your school days .Those in the class who were good at Physics maths chemistry they are now Engineers science boffins The bunch that weren't good at science .but were good at English ,they are in journalism ans sales of course .
Most current information comes from people who don't fully understand the situation but they construct convincing narratives to
info-entertain those who never got into reading books. Not many people can wrap there head around simple statistical information
or chaos theory and they project in a linear fashion but the climate will react chaotically.Small increases of energy have high peak effects
prediction is not possible, projection of trends is as good as we get . It is better than a guess . Nobody is guessing we are all going to live happily ever after .
Its on the people, they need to stop listening to the media, on anything.
They are all coked up buffoons.
Tim P sez "global" vid zooms in on spinning globe. [1:45]...
But Oh boy, the sheer paucity of data point density "...it's really really hard to model climate."...
later...: most migration in recent years have been politically motivated. Not climate related.
Yes, the ludicrous assertion that migration is caused by the climate could only been put forward by an unbelievably deluded and biased person.
@@SkylersRants Or maybe... maybe experienced researchers know more about the topic of their research than you? (Surely not!)
Whenever you see a levitating spinning globe in a video, you know it is real scientists when the globe spins the right way round.
@@rad858 Is this scientist a sociologist or anthropologist and has he done research into why people are migrating? FFS it's pretty obvious most people are migrating because they are being invited WHICH THEY ARE and/or they see the developed Europe as an economically better place to live rather than scratching a living in the dirt.
The irony is, fossil fuel made the 'western' world and EVERYONE wants in. In fact, if you look at globalist agendas, even the UN, they want people living in cities. They want people in office and factories. They want people propping up economies. This has zero to do with climate change.
Just so you know, I am an immigrant. I moved from the UK to a south american country where I now live and work. Yes we have a shit economy, and believe it or not, I earn way less money and food is way more expensive but life is so much better. The further you get away from civilization the better it gets.
@@TheCompleteGuitarist He's a climate science professor at Oxford university. He has access to the best human geographers on the planet. Some of them probably within walking distance, or at regular conferences, they can read each others' papers, they may work together on research. The overlaps of these subjects are so blatantly obvious. He's not going to live in a tiny box writing code.
It doesn't diminish or contradict your experience if someone knowledgeable understands that the broader global picture for the future is something different.
I don't get it. Sabine is asking the good doctor some legit, scientific questions that any scientist may ask, but all his answers without exception start with, "climate science is well-established and true beyond doubt" (did she ask?) and then he goes on to lecture about how hard it is to satisfy the premise of her questions, etc. Do people praise this interview because they really understand it or because actually they don't?
The only thing governments are concerned about is how much power they can get.
Aren't the models "fine tuned" using past data?
If they are, it's not surprising that they would agree to some degree.
Yes they are. That's common practice for any finite element analysis (and climate computer models are nothign else): build your model, run it and compare the results to a known or documented result. If you find differences, then the problem is in your model. Standard in civil and mechanical engineering, especially when upgrading software.
@@johnscaramis2515 I do a lot of modelling with a software called NetLogo especially in sociology. It's nothing like software used to model the climate, but my experience with modeling very simple things and seeing how far from reality it can be makes me doubt the results obtained with simulations of much more complex systems.
@@betepolitique4810 Sabine pointing out the big differences in total predicted temperatures between the models, and the missing error ranges are a small glimpse into that... He quickly switched back to politics. Those models have neither the resolution, nor precise enough initial data to predict climate changes over those long periods. Their secret sauce it simply tinkering with the variables long enough until it fits the recorded data.
Yes. The models typically start around 1850 or 1900. If they don't match to the present, they are discarded.
Thank you, this was very interesting. It gave me a greater appreciation for the incredible work that climate scientists do.
Again, all this was said all along. Models plainly said they couldn't factor in everything. For example, just two years ago they said they didn't figure that any time soon there would be any change in the Gulf Stream. Then suddenly they started noticing that it is changing.
THey ALWAYS said that things could be far worse than predicted, and largely that has been the case. While governments and media go along as if the status quo is just fine, things are much worse, and forget about STOPPING climate change, there aren't even any plans on dealing with the growing EFFECTS.
I'm in Canada where the western part of the country had fires all through the spring and summer, and still ongoing, and its not even treated as NEWS.
This Woman is a Real Scientist .....doubt everything . love her . ❤
Skepticism is the basic tenet of a Real Scientist! Always doubt! Always test!
THERE IS NEVER SETTLED SCIENCE!!!
You may have Intuition, but never Prejudice. Openness to new ideas is wonderful, but gullibility and political bias is a Scientific sin.
He's trying to save his watch... And she lets him swim.. and drown.. CO2 does not cause temperature rise. Climate change is a religion... and a business model. My five cents. Find the science behind it in my books. In german... Regards from Europe.
Like stock market charts, you can make a climate graph say anything you want depending on whether you zoom in or out. A big problem with climate science is ridiculous predictions by politicians that haven't come true. That and the immense number of variables and feedback loops that probably couldn't be handled by the largest computer in the world. Add to that the economic pain the politicians want to inflict on the average person based on what looks like a leap of faith, and no wonder there is no consensus on what, if anything, to do.
Sabine Hossenfelder, and Tim Palmer. True Academics. +100 Respect
I saw one scientist, and one semi-corrupted scientist.
They got it wrong in a sense that they highly underestimated just how devastating it would be and how quickly. "Sooner than expected" is a meme for a reason. Now we've moved on to "Venus by Tuesday".
Except historic CO2 levels have been more than 10X higher and the dinosaurs survived just fine through that.