The bias problem with climate satellites
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 лис 2023
- How are climate satellites biased, and what can we do about it? This video was sponsored by Upper Story and Spintronics. Learn more about the game and see it in action at upperstory.com/spintronics?ut...
Use the coupon code SIMONCLARK for 10% off your total purchase
Earlier this year I had the opportunity to visit the European Space Agency's climate office, and speak to scientists about their work monitoring the Earth from above. In this video I discuss how they handle biases around climate satellites, what an essential climate variable is, and why there was controversy around ground temperature this summer.
* if such warming exists and can be validated through an independent ground-based measurement
My previous video on satellite verification in Africa: • The surprising bias in...
You can support the channel by becoming a patron at / simonoxfphys
--------- II ---------
More about me www.simonoxfphys.com/
My second channel - / simonclarkerrata
Twitter - / simonoxfphys
Threads - www.threads.net/@simonoxfphys
Insta - / simonoxfphys
Twitch - / drsimonclark
--------- II ---------
Music by Epidemic Sound: nebula.tv/epidemic
Some stock footage courtesy of Getty.
Edited by Luke Negus.
Are climate satellites biased? Yes. But what does that actually mean? In this climate science video essay I speak to climate scientists at the European Space Agency about the Sentinel 3 programme, and how space agencies monitor the climate. What is the difference between ground temperature and air temperature? Are climate scientists biased? What is a bias in climate science? All this and more in this climate science video.
Huge thanks to my supporters on Patreon: Adam Scott, Felix Winkler, CC, Rebecca Rivers, Thomas Charbonnel, Mark Moore, Philipp Legner, Zoey O'Neill, Veronica Castello-Vooght, Heijde, Paul H and Linda L, Marcus Bosshard, Liat Khitman, Dan Sherman, Matthew Powell, Adrian Sand, Dan Nelson, The Cairene on Caffeine, Cody VanZandt, Igor Francetic, Daniel Irwin, bitreign33 , Thusto , Andy Hartley, Lachlan Woods, Dan Hanvey, Andrea De Mezzo.
Tony M Parker, Tingus Pingus from Lativia, Mathias Hüttenmüller, RomanConsul, Ave Jonathan Cahyadi, John Bate, Diaffixx , Kevin Gillard, Chris Conrey, Christian Weckner, Frida Sørensen, Ned Funnell, Aleksa Stankovic, Meagan, Indira Pranabudi, Chaotic Brain Person, Simon H., Julian Mendiola, Ben Cooper, Mark Injerd, dryfrog, Justin Warren, Angela Flierman, Alipasha Sadri, Calum Storey, Mattophobia, Riz, The Confusled, Simon Stelling, Gabriele Siino, Bjorn Bakker, Ieuan Williams, Tom Malcolm, GordonV47, Leonard Neamtu, Brady Johnston, Louise K., Rapssack, Kevin O'Connor, Timo Kerremans, Thomas Rintoul, Lars Hubacher, Ashley Wilkins, Samuel Baumgartner, ST0RMW1NG 1, Morten Engsvang, Cio Cio San, Farsight101, Haris Karimjee, K.L, fourthdwarf, Stormchaser007 , Sam Ryan, Felix Freiberger, Chris Field, Kolbrandr, Vinni, Shane O'Brien, Alex, Fujia Li, Jesper Koed, Jonathan Craske, Albrecht Striffler, Jack Troup, Sven Ebel, Sean Richards, Kedar , Alastair Fortune, Mat Allen, Krisztián Török, Colin J. Brown, Mach_D, Keegan Amrine, Simon Donkers, Kodzo , James Bridges, Liam , Wendover Productions, Kendra Johnson. - Наука та технологія
"we might say they have a bias towards reality" - lol
just wish the guardian (/observer) applied that same bias on some other topics😅
In fine with reality, but I'm hot fine with pie in the sky solutions unless they involve pumpkin pie 🎃 🥧 (since it's November).
Since 1985 they have been falsifying all of the world weather station and sain people no it so now they have to resort to bigger lies!
"Bias toward reality" is such a smooth line. Gonna have to mentally write that down.
I'll be using it too! I decidedly have that. Along with facts and truth, and theories supported by them.
So we have some journalists confuse the terms 'surface temperature' and 'surface air temperature' which led some skeptics to jump up and cry "see?? see?? they've tried to switch measurements in order to fool us". I think the more pragmatic view is that the subtle difference in the name of these parameters went unnotice by some writers and not some dark, secretive plot to push some agenda.
And just like some other words such as 'theory', the term 'bias' has a very specific meaning in science but a wider, and perhaps more negative connotation in general use.
From satellites you do not even get surface air temperature but rather lower troposphere temperature, an average of several kilometers, usually contaminated by the surface temperature.
The problem is that we have 200 years of surface temperature. What the satellites are measuring is something completely new. And often uncorrelated with what is measured by contemporaneous ground measurements. Thus, there is absolutely no efficacy or predictability from them. New articles were yelling from the rooftops about HOTTEST DAY ON RECORD. Well that record goes back to when the current methodology to clean up the extremely noisy satellite data was introduced...so 2 years or so.
@@seanwoods647 The problem is much deeper as changing satellite sensors mean that calculating trends from them is more art than science. We have much more experience in homogenizing weather station data after station placement or sensor changes (we use neighboring station for that).
We do not have 200 years of surface temperatures,some parts of the world,eg usa Australia and new zealand have around 150 years of records, uk and much of western europe up to 300 years, but much of the rest of the globe has very poor sporadic records if any at all
Also of note a wet bulb themometer has an (in labaratory conditions) accuracy of+/- 0.42 degrees celcius, obviously during in field opperation the accuracy is more compramised, yet we are expected to believe that the ground based temperature data set is accurate to within .02 deg C with a wholly incomplete data set. The problem here is the error bars in the measurement are as broad as what is trying to be measured.
8:25 I was actually looking forward for the general idea of the algorithms 😮
Same. smh
google cross-correlation
@@andrewcheadle948 Stupid comment from a stupid troll.
I'd bet it's Fourier transforms. It's always Fourier transforms.
@@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721 yes, cross-correlation somehow can be calculated via FFT
I was wondering why Simon just kept going on about about the callibration ofnthe satellites. For me it seemed obvious that if you are using different instruments in different locations (one on earth, one in space), using different measurement methods; of course you are going to have to find their relationship in proportion to each other to calibrate them.
Then halfway through the video he explains that apparently this was the source of a conspiracy theory, and I said "ahh...".
Yes, that's the world we live in now: an unpleasant truth is ALWAYS attacked by bullshiters, even if you have all the necessary evidence, because these liars are just going to make up stories (here: invent that scientists manipulate data to lie to the people). Some call it the "post-truth era".....
Me, whenever a smart person says stupid shit: This is you talking to people who don't know better... Right???
Satellites don't measure surface temperature. They measure infrared radiation from the atmosphere. This infrared radiation depends on the state of the atmosphere itself (temperature, humidity, pressure, cloud cover) and infrared radiation from the ground, which in turn depends on.surface temperature and emissivity.
The "boring algorithms and statistics" the knucklehead was in a big hurry to skip over, are actually some very complex computer models.
The satellites look through the atmosphere at all angles - not just straight down - to allow the model to isolate the contributions from different layers in the atmosphere.
A big problem - which was alluded to - is how to properly determine the emissivity of the ground. It varies with geography, soil composition, biosphere and time-of-year. Models can produce very rough guesses from satellite data alone, but accurate values can be much better inferred with reference temperature measurements taken at the ground.
I know this from reading NASA, NOAA, etc websites - not from randos on youtube.
by not *introducing* the subject a conspiracy theory, he was low-key supporting it, and frankly, destroying the value of the discussion
@@cbboegh by randos on youtube are you referring to Simon? The guy who has a PhD in theoretical atmospheric physics? The guy who is not just some rando but a highly educated individual on the very topic being discussed?
Video suggestion: what would happen if governments stopped subsidising oil and used that money to make battery recycling economically viable?
Fucking SPOT ON.
8:19 : I object!!! The algorithms used for combining multiple overlapping time series, taken by different sensors, at different sampling rates, using different reconnaissance methods and geometry, and thus possessing different kinds of statistical "impurities" - are the *MOST INTERESTING* thing here!!!
Applied Mathematician
10:09. This is part of what annoys me about academia. The other scientists who read it will understand the difference (or if they don't, they understand that the onus is on them to make sure they lean the difference), but for those who aren't already experts they will be confused. I get that adding a paragraph or a footnote saying "these two things should not be confused, this one means abc and this one means xyz, the difference is rst" would be irrelevant to the academics, but it would help so much for the non-academics who aren't experts. A friend of mine said that the goal of papers was to present the content and it was the responsibility of the reader to put in as much effort as it takes to understand it, which I agree with, but I think the goal should be different and they should actually be comprehensible.
This is why, in the current system, explainers like Simon are sooo important - we need informed people who also know how to teach to help spread their knowledge on any given subject (especially one this important)
Yes, that's definitely an issue. Authors tailor their writing for their intended audience, and in academia, the intended audience is not the general public. The performance and success of academic researchers are measured in the number of citations they receive on their papers; and those citations only come from other academic papers. So they all keep writing papers for each other, and the public can only learn by means of science communicators.
@@seanrrr It's actually slightly worse than that. I have moaned about this to several academics and they say that often they need to read a paper multiple times before they start to understand it. It isn't even as if these people can actually interpret those papers easily either, it just seems bad for everyone involved
Bias towards reality 😂, guess the microphone analogy earlier in the vid is a foreshadowing for all the mics that got dropped at that part of the vid
There seem to be two types of biases at work here, one from the sensor readings the other from climate skeptics! As such both thus need to be accounted for.
What a GREAT video!!! The analogy to recording music is such a wonderful way to describe this process. Yet another concise and easy to understand explanation of a difficult topic.
Except a recording studio will change calibration parameters of each microphone's output to make the best sounding music, not necessarily the most accurate representation of reality, and that is good for selling music. Not so with scientific data which will be used do determine who keeps or get trillions of dollars. Complex non-public models should be highly suspect when the rewards for fraud are so high.
@@normanhosford2506 Blah blah blah. Thanks for trying to keep those old tired worn out, made up and mishievous contrarian tropes going. LOL.
But you go on gullibly consuming those silly made up stories if you must.
The OP post was perfectly fine and on point.
Wow fantastic video! The analogy with combining recordings from different mics really illustrated how easily the problem can get out of hand.
Great Video!
Might be interesting to mention that bias can actually be preferred when estimating some parameters, due to effects like the bias-variance tradeoff. Still, i guess making sensors as unbiased as possible would be the most sensible approach in this applications.
You definitely should prefer a low bias. higher variance thing. An extremely precise but totally biased measurement is less useful than a larger interval but around the actual value
Yes definitely. I would also guess that the reduction in variance that is achieved by the type of bias discussed in this video is probably minimal at most. It was more a general comment on biases.
can you give an example of how this works? With the bias-variance tradeoff. You have peaked my interest, sir/madam!
@@Quadr44t every measurement has an error associated with it. It's possible to show that error squared can be divided into "how far would we be from the true value if this instrument had 0 variability" and "instrument variability". The first one is the bias, the second one represents the interval within which you expect to fall when doing several measurements of the same thing with the same instrument (for example, using a ruler to measure the length of your desk: every time you will get a slightly different value).
This is not really correct, and in statistics it's a more abstract thing, but maybe useful to give you an idea. The proper name is "bias-variance decomposition" and you can look it up in Wikipedia.
@@Anankin12 I disagree. We should always strive to balance bias and variance.
- A low bias and high variance indicates that the model is overfitted to the data and leads to loss of generalization (i.e. it may be used to make highly misleading predictions).
- A high bias and low variance model indicates underfitting, which means the model inadequately describes the phenomena (for example, using a linear model to describe a nonlinear relationship, which underestimates the strength of the relationship).
I hate that this video had to be made, but I’m grateful you made it 👏
Great video! Clarifying and explaining things well is what you do so well. Thanks so much, I really enjoyed this!
This is a great video! One small comment: in the field of Earth Observation -- and maybe further afield -- in the U.S. we use "validation" to indicate the process you term "verification" here. The way I was taught to think of it: "verification" is testing to see if the results are "reasonable" (e.g., within the expected and/or possible range for the physical phenomenon under investigation; correct sign of the slope), whereas "validation" is testing for the strength of the relationship (coefficient of determination) and for the precision of the estimates (e.g., root mean square error, or similar metric of scatter away from the 1:1 line). Upshot in practical terms: we can do verification without collecting a lot of data -- but not validation. Validation requires numerous data points covering the domain of interest. Maybe they use "verification" to mean "validation" in Europe (ou bien, L'Hexagone) and it was just lost in translation?
So the entire process is often called "Cal/Val" (calibration/validation).
Nice video. I'll be giving a lecture at the University of Exeter this week on how in-situ and satellite observations are combined with state of the art NWP models to create the most accurate representation of Earth's climate since 1940 - the ERA5 dataset.
This process has the brilliant name of: "Ground Troth". You cannot take a satellite instrument back to the lab for calibration. Instead make an extra instrument and take data looking up as the satellite passes over looking down. This effort is now standard practice.
Lovely to see you again - hope you had a great time with pixel baby, congratz again 😊
Great video, than you for your work Sir
ok i gave a thumbs up, for a sponsor ...what universe am i living in? then realised that addressing the bias in bias differentiation, calibration, verification & validation was actually useful to clarify & worthy of a vid
Simon, would you kindly make a video about being a father in this warming world? How do you feel about it? Maybe talk about climate anxiety as well.
I wouln't want to stop Simon from answering you or making a video, however I believe each specialist has his own role. Scientists like Simon talk about.... Science. But concerning the consequences of this climate change (technology to be developed, political decisions / who pays for what, psychological consequences....) need to be answered by specialists of these respective fields.
Btw, concerning the political part (who should be making most efforts, how to pay for the transition, how to control this....) we citizens are all "specialists" after all, we live in democracies (provided that our politicians do add this unpleasant but essential topic on their agenda....).
@@franckr6159I'd say that (if he *is* a father, idk if he is) it'd be an interesting perspective to hear. I wouldn't want him to dedicate a lot to it, or make definitive statements on how to parent... But I'd love to hear how he discusses (or doesn't) climate change with his own kids and how his expertise informs the decisions he makes with them.
As someone who isn't Simon, I'd say that in general, climate change is probably not going to be so apocalyptically bad that most people would believe they're better off dead. Doubly so for people who live in a first world country, and triply so for people born in the earlier half of the century.
@@General12th I believe it's going to be very bad. The issue is that we are collectively making a huge experiment on our (only) planet, injecting Gtons of CO2 in our atmosphere each year. So your bet may be that consequences will be rather mild. But what if you are wrong? Do you have children? If so what are you going to tell them: sorry boys, Daddy made a little mistake.....
@@andrewcheadle948 Nothing but a stupid troll.
It's so frustrating when technical language and everyday language disagree on the meaning of a word! I suspect a lot of problems would have been avoided if instead of talking about "bias" they'd used the word "calibration", since more folks can grok that calibration would be necessary for accurate, consistent measurement. But when you're used to using words in their technical sense, it can be hard to remember that those aren't necessarily the best words to use when communicating with a general audience!
Really one of your most clear videos! Well done
Good to see you back Simon!
You mean people debated the issue of air temp vs. ground temp? It's mind numbing how stupid people want to be. Being a person who grew up in the 60s - 70s in the DFW area of Texas which already had a lot of development, and LOTS of parking lots and swimming pools, and OMG even public swimming pools which I guess because of lawsuits got ripped away sadly (could no longer afford insuring the pools), I'm glad the air temp was never the same as the ground temp of black asphalt in the middle of a sunny summer afternoon.
4:35 do people think this? Damn. It is very much true that you go blind for miscommunication when you're working in STEM. I wouldn't even have guessed this was something people would conclude.
Unfortunately yes, I've seen this "bias angle" taken several times - notably I remember a blog post complaining about a debiased dataset being proof of scientists fitting the data to their conclusions.
I bought Turing tumble and spintronics for our kids in October for there birthdays.... Could have used a 10% code then Simon! Side note Turing tumble is great for 8 year olds but I think spintronics is probably more aimed at young teens. You can work through it with them but it doesn't have the same pachinko immediacy of turing
Could you add some information? E.g. the measurement uncertainty according to the GUM (JCGM-100:2008) of the ESA temperature measurements.
I think that Scientist at ESA was very good looking.
Thank you.
I know what I'm getting my granddaughter for christ mass! Thanks for that. And also, as per usual, a rather excellent video. Really love your work Simon. Keep it up!
"A bias toward reality" :-)
Very interesting ad in this! I would buy those toys for me.
Thanks for the video
For temperature trends we have direct measurements from weather stations and sea going ships. Satellites measure brightness of the lower troposphere in the infrared bands. We can roughly calculate the temperature from this but this is a very indirect measurement. Also, degrading satellite orbits influence the resulting values. So this is no surprise. Not at all.
Bingo. Also, if you compare the RSS and UAH datasets the RSS is obviously more reliable. The UAH dataset has a bias introduced by inclination to the sun during two periods of the day. There are multiple papers on it, but Roy Spender and Christy have continually failed to implement the necessary algorithms into the RSS dataset, knowing it would harm their credibility.
@@jaykanta4326 True. They tweaked it constantly making UAH completely useless for trends. Some people believe it was on purpose as its creators are climate skeptics.
Really interesting!
Funny, I always understood bias as it is used in electronics.
Meaning that having some bias can be good in some case, and really bad in other.
Also, you want sensors to have as little bias as possible, unless you want to use the bias to cut some of the noise.
Bias against Bias.
Funny enough, that is how a fermi estimation works, throw a lot of variable in such way that their biases cancels each other out.
Is not perfect, but it can get with +- 50% deviation.
Nice to have you back, Simon! Another great video which helps clarify the issue of satellite “bias”. Extremely useful!
Unfortunately, the UA-cam algorithm then “recommended” that I view the following interview of Steven Koonin, by Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institution: ua-cam.com/video/l90FpjPGLBE/v-deo.htmlsi=0K_emPsq9sjxLAmh. For us non experts it gets really hard, because while some skeptics are just plain obviously crazy, others have what appears to be a serious argument and they have what appear to be serious credentials. You have to dig a bid to discover that they also have their own “biases”! But most people don’t go to that trouble.
The vast majority of people who deny human caused climate change that I've engaged with lack anything remotely resembling curiosity, and I've had hundreds of exchanges with such folk. It seems science deniers across the spectrum of scientific topics are convinced they know the truth and demonstrable facts be damned. Even something seemingly as basic as the volume of water produced by melting ice is not worth their time to investigate.
That last line of the video proper reminds me of a climate question that I don't know the answer to, once we (hopefully) get emissions under control, what do we actually want the situation to be long term? Do we want stable temperatures? If we want temperatures to drop, how much and how fast? I kind of assume that by that point it would actually be bad to make global temperatures drop back to pre-industrial levels (since both humanity and the natural world will have adapted a bit to warming), but maybe I'm wrong, and I would love to see a video on that.
Stability. It's about the rate of change, and that rate is beyond the rate of adaptation. We can adapt to a warmer world, given enough time.
@@jaykanta4326 that's certainly one reasonable possibility based on what I know
The push will be to return to pre industrial temperatures. Not because these are actually best, but because a growing number of people have a very cynical view of humanity, and are convinced the world was perfect before we started changing it, and that every change we had made has been bad.
What we should actually do is first ensure as quickly as possible that the global climate is cool enough to avoid a wet bulb 35 event in India. Climate change will displace a few people here, cause a rise in food prices there, but a wet bulb 35 could kill tens of millions in a week with almost no warning.
Honestly we should be investigating using stratospheric aerosol injection to do this right now, so that we don’t have to scramble to deploy it later, but environmentalists don’t like actual solutions that don’t involve making everyone’s lives worse so…
Once wet bulb 35 safely off the table, it’s a question of finding the optimal target temperature. If the sea level rise has stopped, and everyone has already moved inland to the new shoreline, or otherwise adapted, you don’t want to drop the sea level too far, or you’ll just have the same problem backwards. However if equilibrium hasn’t yet been reached, and the sea levels will continue to rise while the temperature remains stable, dropping the temperature is probably a good idea. And this is a pretty good analogy for everything else as well. If climate change has forced migrations, then reversing it will force the same migration back again. But if the migration pressure exists but the migration hasn’t happened yet, you drop temperatures.
The technology exists to do all this on short timescales, environmental groups just don’t want it to be used because they’d be out of a job, and governments are hesitant because if it had localised negative impacts that could cause diplomatic consequences. So we aren’t testing shit and we aren’t learning about it’s impacts on a small scale. When it finally is used, probably by India when 20 million people drop dead of heat exhaustion and diplomatic consequences be damned that’s not happening again next year, it will be full scale from day 1, and a little cruse, with worse localised negatives.
@@HALLish-jl5mo decreasing sunlight is not the same at all as reducing how much heat the Earth is radiating. It's not that environmental groups are "too scared" of your plan, it's that your plan would make things even worse than what we have now
@@joshuahillerup4290 We don't want to reduce the heat the earth is radiating, that would make earth warmer... Increased CO2 and Methane in the atmosphere reducing radiated heat is exactly the fucking problem.
We want to increase the radiated heat.
However, that requires changes to the atmospheric composition of earth, which in turn requires changing over all our industry and then either waiting for the atmospheric composition to return to equilibrium, or build an entire parallel industry to change the atmosphere back. Either way it's going to take many decades.
But if your objective is to control temperature directly, rather than radiated heat you can reduce incident heat by increasing reflectivity, such that our current levels of radiative heat are sufficient to achieve stability, or even reduce temperature. That can be done on a timescale of a few years.
If high temperature is a problem, this fixes that problem. Global warming can be stopped dead or reversed.
It will also cause other changes as well of course. Reduced sunlight reaching the surface, if only by less than 1%, would fractionally reduce crop yields, for example. Of course, reducing CO2 to pre industrial levels would also reduce crop yields...
But I find it hard to believe that someone who's capable of asking what temperature we should be aiming for is incapable of understanding the tradeoffs here. Whatever we do, including the option of doing nothing, there will be climate CHANGE. Dismissing everything as "but that's change and change bad" is not an option. It's a question of what specific changes you want.
Your blanket dismissal of a reduction or stabilisation in temperatures via an increase in reflectivity as "worse" than the alternative, after I specifically outlined how that alternative could easily kill 20 million Indians in a week, is... Disappointing
this is very interesting
One question, when you were talking about climate skeptics where you saying that the authors of that website (which I always have considered reliable on its sources), were confusing people on purpose, or were they trying to clarify the difference between land and earth temperatures?
Does somebody have a pic of those 55 variables or knows where to find it? Would be great to look at it without having to pause the video
Please is it possible to have the name of the scientist clément. .. i don't clearly understand ...
This listener is not sponsored, but more of that later.
I love your videos, I often link them to deniers trying to argue their pointless and by the denial playbook rhetoric with me.
Why do they launch new sensing satellites? The hypothesis is settled. Correct? I only responded to your comment because of the “denier” comment. I teach research methods. I don’t have a dog in this fight, but have seen the “denier” smear in all kinds of fields. Climate, pharmacology, nutrition, COVID. Here’s a short hand. “Denier”=“Not science”.
@@jamesdellaneve9005 Ah, another uneducated denialist trying to hide behind "Just asking questions".
@@andrewcheadle948 Why are you such a troll?
To the end, while we're talking different biases, we should mention bias in lawn bowls. It is a green discussion after.
Sorry, couldn't help myself...
thanks
Damit Simon, I have a two year old, don't be showing me toys to buy her!
Great video.
I'm curious about the accuracy of the statement made at 11:54 "we know that the climate is warming far faster than anything in the historical record." What is the rate of change over the past 100 years compared to what we might surmise from tree ring histories and ice core samples in centuries past?
Just extraordinarily faster from what i can recall, but
that's not a conclusive statement
I believe that the most common shift in glacial and interglacial periods come from Milankovitch cycles which occur over thousands of years. The fast one I can think of is axial precession (which causes season to be more or less extreme) happens over 20000 years.
@@_Quxyz This only speaks to the period of a given oscillation, not it's magnitude, which is also relevant for the overall rate of change of temperature. Milankovitch cycles are incredibly small vs the impact of climate change
@@tsawy6 That's quite hard to answer and your comment is quite confusing. All the data I know of spans over hundreds of thousand years, to the point where industrial era warming is invisible on the time axis (but would make up a large chunk of the temperature axis). In general, it looks like we were nearing the "peak" of this cycle as the temperature was stabilizing. As for an entire Milankovitch cycle, it can raise the temperature up by a few degrees over a few thousand years.
@@_Quxyz Huh, Milankovitch cycles are less well documented than I thought, there isn't just a conclusive: This is how big the effect is answer out there. My point was that a small, fast change, just like a large, slow change, don't necessarily induce fast rates of warming. Milankovitch cycles are very very slow, the claim I was kinda parrotting was that the effects of Milankovitch on recent timescales is very very small
This is a standard metrology problem if you have multiple metrology tools measuring the same observable.
The title is rather confusing, especially for 'biased people'... who don't look beyond the title of the video.
You don't suppose that the satellite measurements would have been validated by surface measurements?
I want one! Do they have a triode valve made of plastic cogs? Can I make a valve amplifier from Spintronics? But back to the topic - I think Climate Denying is dying out. Climate Denyers are rapidly retreating to "meh, what can I do about it now? You should have told us decades ago." Frustrating.
TLDW --- the word bias can refer to known and well understood systematic deviation which can be removed or calibrated for using cross comparison of parallel datasets.
Thanks for this. It is a shame that the climate denialists are so desperate they are now reduced to conspiracy theorising, and that you therefore have to explain all this boring science.
To be fair, even the climate approvers have plenty of conspiracy theories to make it sound worse than it is. In other words, "everyone" sucks.
It is not just the climate deniers that are muddying the public debate.
@@andrewcheadle948I mean, what is a flat earther?
Someone who dares to ask questions when "the science is settled"?
Perish the thought!
-----
Okay, to be serious... The science is settled, anthropogenic climate change is real, and predictions and models have only become better since the 70s.
Be free to ask questions, and ask plenty of questions... but when the questions start being equivalent to "If Earth is a sphere, why aren't they upside down in Australia?", be prepared to be mocked or looked down upon.
Like I have GENUINELY heard the arguments that climate change isn't real because they had snow in the winter.
@@andrewcheadle948 apologies for using it as shorthand for the many (though thankfully decreasing number of) people who have a pre-determined position (usually driven by their politics and not their concern with scientific truth) whereby they highlight any irrelevance that seemingly supports their pre-determined position yet do not engage with climate science in any honest and good faith manner. Hope that helps.
Climate alarmism has been built around climate models trying to demonstrate that x amount of co2 will lead to x amount of warming, The problem is the models do not agree with the observed outcome ie the hypothesis has been falsified by the data. AS Gavin Schmit (recently retired senior scientist at nassa's climate devision) said in an interview 'our models are running far too hot and we don't know why'. This clearly demonstrates that the mechanisms which control our climate system are poorly understood.
So what you’re saying is your child is going to have to compete with you for access to toys. ;)
could ESA measure/simulate/predict subcooled water droplets, ground level fog at
The bias doesn't matter if the bias remains constant, it is the rate of change that matters. If the bias remains constant the rate of change will show up in the data. Many of the surface temperature measuring stations are being over taken by urban development thus are being biased by heat island effects. Satellites measure temperature over broad areas it is less susceptible to bias.
Obviously adjustments are made for the urban heat island affect.
@@byrnemeister2008 Adjustments may be made in some cases, obviously the adjustments are not made in all cases. With incremental encroachment of a weather station by urban sprawl the adjustments may never be made.
@@opossumlvr1023 "You are completely entitled to opinions that are not supported by evidence. But the moment you spread that opinion as fact, you are a liar. And if you spread it as fact knowing it is not supported by evidence, you are both a liar and a fraud". -- Occam's Barber.
@@andrewcheadle948 It matters that you're a troll with no scientific evidence.
Except that the bias isn't constant. And that the measurements really only produce useful data when "cleaned up" with a statistical model that makes a stock market predictor look staid. There's also the embarrassing tendency that these model have be be backwashed through ground measurements to produce anything resembling plausible figures. Each of these steps has the potential to add bias into the data above and beyond any bias in the original measurement.
We're toast
Buy your kid a tactical Ultramarines squad + dice
0:35 Oww shiit, greece is on fire.
Crazy conservatives would deny the fry pan cooking their feet. "Oh no the pain is just caused by the vaccine microchips"
What a foolish comment.
I'm having difficulty imagining how the mechanical circuitry toy is a good analog for electric circuits. A battery not connected to any circuitry doesn't short, dumping all of its energy at once, it is an open, and delivers no current. And there is no actual circuit, because mechanically driven loads don't require a return path for any electron analogs. What I have thought of as a good analog for electricity is water flowing through pipes, and perhaps turning turbines or something as loads. The recirculating pump would be the battery. That said, it does look like a fun toy to demonstrate mechanical principles.
I'm 3 minutes in and I still don't understand what this video is supposed to be about.
It's about how scientists correct measurements made by imperfect tools. Basically 95% of the job, but boring & unsexy so science communicators rarely talk about it.
In science there are two kinds of errors. Systematic errors are those like the example of the measuring jug which has a 10 ml error. That can be corrected by subtracting 10 ml from every measurement.
Random errors may give a result that is either too large or too small. For instance, a 100 ml volume may shrink or expand depending on whether the temperature falls or rises.
Surface temperatures on land are measured in boxes called a Stevenson screens or enclosed instrument shelter protecting meteorological instruments against precipitation and direct heat radiation from outside sources, while still allowing air to circulate freely around them. They are set at between 1.25 and 2 m above the ground.
Sea surface temperatures are these days measured of water intakes inside the ships. Inside the ships the temperatures are warmer due to engines etc. That results in a systematic error giving a warmer reading than the actual sea surface temperature.
Before about 1940 temperature was measured by dropping a bucket over the side, hauling it up on deck, sticking a thermometer in the water, waiting for the mercury to register the temperature and recording it. But in that time, the wind on the bucket caused evaporation, cooling the bucket resulting in a recorded temperature lower than the sea surface.
So if you are wanting loo look at changes over time for climate studies, adjustments have to be made. Contrary to the claims of climate 'skeptics', those adjustments result an a LOWERING of the temperature change over the last century compared to the raw data.
so the planet is getting COLDER?
@@mrunning10 No. How did you arrive at that conclusion?
you need to get sponsored by ground news 😂
Nah, they’re already annoying as heck
...or the WEF... 🔥
I understand the concept of bias in this situation and do not think it is some kind of conspiracy. I also agree that the climate is changing and, to some degree, human activity has a negative impact on it. I do not doubt that the Earth has warmed over the past century or so. What I don't understand is what is being measured and how is it being measured in order to come to the conclusion that it's getting hotter on average. In order to know if warming has occurred between, say, 100 years ago and now, one must have accurate measurements of specific items at specific locations at specific times of the year from 100 years through today. So my confusion is:
1. What is being measured to conclude that we are warming? The temperature of the ground? The air? What locations? Which day of the year?
2. Were the temperatures taken 100 years ago measured with an instrument of an equal sensitivity and calibration to those used today?
And yes, I understand that much of the data, such as past CO2 levels compared to today's, can be accurately measured using current day technology such as measuring dissolved gasses in ice core samples. That CO2 has risen and continues to rise I have no doubt.
Scientists use pseudoproxies to gauge past temperatures. There are scientific videos on pseudoproxies that you should go check out.
ua-cam.com/video/C8a0cqmlr4o/v-deo.htmlsi=yYFQ8fSrAK-YhCj7
Calibration against what standard?
Reality.
Against history. As the guy said we need long term records that are aligned with each other to measure change over long periods. Eg climate. It’s change over time that matters rather than a specific number.
@@byrnemeister2008 all of the instruments have significant statistical variability in their design and unless they are calibrated against a verifiable repeatable technical spec the variability is enough to disqualify the data. A shrug and a "thats good enough" is not acceptable when your decision process involves the consequences of forcing billions in to poverty and famine.
@@BB-cf9gx everything has significant statistical variability, and what the previous commenter said is probably true. There will be historical overlap of ground data and other sources like that which provides the callibration
It has been acknowledged (a) that many of fires that hit the headlines were started by arsonists - maybe the hot weather caused the arsonists to start fires!!!!!!? Also, (b) disregarding the arsonists variable, the number of forest fires that hot summer did not constitute an outlier above the historical trend.
On a scientific topic ignorant people choose to believe what suits them better, wise people believe what science says. If you were even only mildly interested to understand what caused the wildfires, you might accept to read this scientific study (abstract attached):
"Observed Impacts of Anthropogenic Climate Change on Wildfire in California" by A. Park Williams et al.
Abstract : Recent fire seasons have fueled intense speculation regarding the effect of anthropogenic
climate change on wildfire in western North America and especially in California. During 1972-2018,
California experienced a fivefold increase in annual burned area, mainly due to more than an eightfold
increase in summer forest‐fire extent. Increased summer forest‐fire area very likely occurred due to
increased atmospheric aridity caused by warming. Since the early 1970s, warm‐season days warmed by
approximately 1.4 °C as part of a centennial warming trend, significantly increasing the atmospheric vapor
pressure deficit (VPD). These trends are consistent with anthropogenic trends simulated by climate models.
The response of summer forest‐fire area to VPD is exponential, meaning that warming has grown
increasingly impactful. Robust interannual relationships between VPD and summer forest‐fire area
strongly suggest that nearly all of the increase in summer forest‐fire area during 1972-2018 was driven by
increased VPD. Climate change effects on summer wildfire were less evident in nonforested lands. In fall,
wind events and delayed onset of winter precipitation are the dominant promoters of wildfire. While
these variables did not change much over the past century, background warming and consequent fuel drying
is increasingly enhancing the potential for large fall wildfires. Among the many processes important to
California's diverse fire regimes, warming‐driven fuel drying is the clearest link between anthropogenic
climate change and increased California wildfire activity to date.
Wow, that was an incredibly stupid comment.
To date, our efforts to help the oceans have not been properly monitored. In my climate crisis novels, we have a large fleet of a hundred converted sailing yachts to take the ground truth for any proposed effort to address such problems. The stories of these crews are then the stories of young people in effective action on our climate crisis.
Meh. My novel has the Earth abandoned by the present day in an alternate reality because the great powers unleashed so many Kaiju, self-replicating artifacts, and undead armies. In that history they discovered radiation about 40 years earlier than in ours, which led to the development of the occult instead of thermodynamics. (I do have a lot of fun explaining General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics as competing magical systems...)
I'm surprised he's left comments open on this video. He does have a knack of disabling comments on his Shorts
so the fuck what? manmade climate change leading to global warming, real? or a "scam?"
Claiming that the scientists don't have reason to have bias is ridiculous.
Their entire career depends on convincing people that there is a problem .
I'm not denying the problem exists because I have not conducted any research on the subject my self.
I'm just pointing out that they have every incentive to manufacture a problem and no incentive to find evidence that the problem doesn't exist.
If there is no problem, they have no job.
No. There's plenty of good reason to have accurate and up-to-date recordings of the earth's climate and that'd still be the case if there wasn't a looming crisis.
How is it a sun synchronous orbit if it orbits earth every 100 minutes?
"Sun synchronous" refers to the fact that the orbital 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘦 of the satellite precesses at about the same speed around the planet as the planet orbits around the Sun, so it's always seeing the surface below each point in the orbit at a fixed "local solar time", defined by the angle of the Sun relative to the ground at that spot. This is very useful for building up a map of, for example, land surface temperature over a long period of time, as you are avoiding the diurnal variation you'd normally see throughout the day at any given point on Earth.
In the case of the Sentinels (and a number of other Earth-observation satellites, depending on what variables they're trying to measure), their orbits are also oriented over the Earth's poles and approximately perpendicular to the Sun-Earth axis, so they're always able to see the Sun because they never go "behind" the planet into its shadow - which, for a solar-powered spacecraft, is quite useful as you can imagine
@@EuropaMilkshake Thanks for the explanation. For me the sun synchronous orbit was the coolest thing I learned in this video. On Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun-synchronous_orbit, it is also mentioned that the orbit is designed in a way such that the equatorial bulge gives rise to the desired precession.
Atmospheric CO2 does not control global temperatures. We are in a Milankovich cycle that always increases in temperature at this point in the cycle. We have not reached the peak temperatures of the past cycles yet. We are about to enter into a glaciation period. The temperatures always plummet from their peak.
You don't know what you are talking about.
@oleonard7319 Look at the data from any ice core sample you want. The information is all right there. Look at a spectroscopic analysis of CO2 vs water vapor. Look at an atmospheric composition analysis of water vapor vs CO2. Look at the atmospheric CO2 content vs temperature on the geologic record. Have you done all of this? If not, you don't know what you are talking about. All you have put forth is an argument from incredulity, which is no argument at all.
I was hoping to hear why parts of the earth are warming twice as fast as other parts.
There are a lot of people though that do have biases, journalists on both sides want to make extreme views and get clicks, scientists in offices might have a result they expect and might incidentally take extra time to check results that look funny, where other results face less scrutiny. Scientists aren't purely objective, nor are they purely good at their jobs (I've met people and every job has dropkicks). But also I'm fairly sure that any university scientist has to tow the party line as it were as their job might be in jeopardy if they disagree with the professor or say something that undermines the university's position . Just to play devils advocate.
No, most of my professors were very perceptive to opposing ideas and discussing them thoroughly. Well, up and until people start saying blatantly racist things.
Good video. However nothing about outliers and leverages. Nothing about ground truthing . In all the work I did in this area remote sensing we always performed ground truth as this is the way to verify the true difference in the measurements. Every measurement we take, has an error. There was nothing about confidence intervals, RMS root mean square error.
The question is "what magnitude of these errors can we allow" and how this impacts on overall outcomes.
These sensing systems are critical in our understanding of the state of the planet, so we must know the precise accuracy and precision of the data or its a waste of time.
I experienced this sort of thing before. Many time scientists working an area go on about how wonderful there work is, and then you drop the bombshell ask the question "What confidence do you place on you data" You get a blank look.
Hey I got this message challenging climate change data: I’m a Geologist so I have some scientific knowledge by the way.
There have been 2 significant changes in climate within the last thousand years-the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 950-1250 A. D.) and the Little Ice Age (roughly 1300-1850 A. D.). Because these changes in climate occurred before humans could have caused them, the mere existence of these two periods is a real problem for any attempt to dismiss the possibility of natural changes in climate.
I don’t know a any older than human history climate data 🤷🏼♂️. I hope you get this.
It is very debatable that the medieval warm period and the ice age were global, phenomenon. They seem to be isolated to western Europe and they weren't as extreme changes in the climate as today either. The medieval warm period spanned 300 years and was 1.8 degree f hotter than the previous period, the industrial revolution happened about 150 years ago and the Earth has warmed 2 degree f since then and this warming has only gotten faster.
These "natural changes" you deniers like to quote also totally fail to prove what the natural change could be. Most of the stuff you say has already been disproven to not be the cases. It's not volcanic activity, it's not earth's orbit, neither the earth's axis. On the contrary, you can fact check it, these factors mean we should be cooling down, the Earth has already gotten to about the warmest possible stage of the climate cycle and should be heading towards the next ice age in about a couple thousand years.
It is THIS: 2,400 gigatons of CO₂ have been emitted by human activity since 1850.
sustainabilitymath.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/cropped-original.jpg
@@genericjoe4082
Well the little ice age only occurred in Europe. That was caused by the gulf stream moving northwards, making Europe cooler without it. Its hotter now than it ever has been in recorded history. CO2 in the atmosphere is at higher concentration than it has been. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes heating. No climate skeptic has offered a reason for there to be this much CO2 other than humans burning fossil fuels.
"satellites biased' is just nonsense, as there is something called 'calibration' which is used to calibrate standards for each satellite prior to and during launch, and after launch of the satellite. The video just makes up a new word, another video 'are humans really behind the extra CO2 in the atmosphere?" tells you about the author of the video.
Bruh go to the Wikipedia page for Bias (statistics), its an incredibly important concept that's old as dirt. Christ.
"Statistical bias, in the mathematical field of statistics, is a systematic tendency in which the methods used to gather data and generate statistics present an inaccurate, skewed or biased depiction of reality." Calibration is used to remove statistical errors and create precision and accuracy of measurement. The application of Bias here is misused, as calibration removes the variance being measured. Notice how the noise that was introduced in the video, did not contain any measurement of the noise being examined. Learn about Calibration
@@johnhodgson4216Did you watch a different video? This was about the need to calibrate hence the mic analogy. Doh!
Calibrations are already performed prior to launch and maintained remotely in orbit for satellites. Your mic analogy don't matter, also you are ignoring that the illustrated example did not have any number to indicate what values. The video is just conjecture. So when you learn about calibrations, then respond with an educated response.
@@johnhodgson4216what if it becomes uncalibrated?
- This is an AMAZING toy for… huh… my daughter.
- Isn’t she, like, eight weeks old?
- The box says “8 to 12”: they don’t specify the unit. Anyway, SHE is going to LOVE IT! Haha!
- So it’s for _children_?
Simon, now visibly upset we are interrupting him playing alone:
- Yes. Why do you ask?
I'm really confused. There seems to be a great battle in science over the Standard Model of the Universe and Climatology. Why is it so? A friend told me that the Church has been interfering with science since Copernicus until today.
When people and institutions try to disparage science (and this often happened and still happens now) this is for various possible reasons, mainly ideology or financial interests.
I won't answer concerning the Standard Model, but on Climatology, the answer is obvious: man-made climate change (hence our CO2 emissions) implies we will have to strongly modify (and reduce) our life-style and strongly reduce our use of fossil fuels, while fossil fuels generate huge profits: 1000 Billion dollars per annum on average. So you can expect both individuals (you never easily accept a life-style reduction) and fossil fuel companies (which want to maintain their huge profits for as long as feasible) to negatively react. Individuals will just deny reality, while institutions will sponsor a handful of crooked scientists (you can always find a few percent of dishonest people in any job) to invent stories and create "doubt" on climate science results.
Nota: high CO2 emissions will have a hugely detrimental effect on our climate, and our children and grand-children will have their lives strongly affected, a good reason to accept climate science results even if these results are obviously a very bad news for all of us. For me, denialists are ignorant or frightened people (likely rather stupid too) and these institutions are frankly acting like bast...ds when you think about the nasty consequences for our children.
@@franckr6159I dislike your focus on the climate deniers. The climate doomsdayers are also really bad, and muddies the discussion heavily. They speak doomsday and terrible shit, and end up making so many false claims that it fuels the deniers.
Arguably they are far worse than deniers.
@@SioxerNikita 1- Man-made climate change is REAL, and this is for all of us a VERY BAD NEWS. You may call us "doomsdayers", still reality is what it is, like it or not !
2- You state : they "end up making so many false claims" : --> no, climate scientist do NOT make false claims, rather they are rather cautious in their statements. You may find a few people exagerating the issue, but they are NOT scientists.
3- Also "false claims that it fuels the deniers": --> let's be clear, most deniers are simply liars and will state whatever suits them, even if people defending climate were not producing one single excessive statement. Deniers are the ones lying, the ones trying to mud the water, for the simple reason they want to prevent this very bad news to spread, so they will never be forced to act (reduce use of fuels, modify their life-style.....).
@@SioxerNikitaFun fact: if all the ice covering Greenland melts it will raise the oceans 7 metres. If Antarctica melts it will be 70 metres. Just a couple of facts.
@@DavidOfWhitehills Fun fact: All the ice covering Greenland will take hundreds of years to even raise the ocean by a significant margin. The issues that will be worse is storm surges, more extreme weather, etc, long before the ocean height being an issue.
Your fun fact is what climate deniers will use as fuel for "catastrophism"/"Doomsayers", because we aren't even close to that issue now, so that "fun fact" is irrelevant at the moment.
This is EXACTLY the problem I mentioned.
this is a losing battle. no matter how many videos like this or how much information of the sort exists, the masses are still scientifically illi tera te.
Hannah Arendt in my own words: "A system based on lies can be logical within it's own world view but can never be without contridiction. To cover this up there are lies beeing made to fill the gaps. Over time it gets inevitable that the system fails to be sufficient to react on reality. Only truth can. That's the moment where truth can unfold it's graitest power. Since it never changes (in regards to scientifict truths, logical truths and moral truths) truth can allways be found."
Proof of scientific consensus about man-made global warming is here (pdf to download):
"Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature", Mark Lynas et al.
so the fuck what? manmade climate change leading to global warming, real? or a "scam?"
It’s only warmed .002C at the bottom of the Mariana Trench.
And the earth's core hasn't warmed up at all.
BTW the bottom of the Marianas Trench isn't where people live.
Great! I'd move there, but I don't think I could stand the humidity.
@@DavidOfWhitehillsYou’re wrong they’ve spliced a deep sea fish gene into GMO corn and we can grow corn in the deep sea now.
It's warmed up even at the bottom of the Mariana Trench? 5h1t. We are in trouble.
[INSERT COMMENT TEXT HERE]
Utter nonsense it will. It will nor change what time I have breakfast, which dunny I use, and why should it?
It will change how much your breakfast costs as the unstable climate makes it harder to farm crops. It will increase the number of immigrants fleeing unpleasant climates. It will increase taxes because public infrastructure will be damaged by weather it was not set up to resist (for example, some of the UK's roads and rails are being damaged by the heat); and if the infrastructure is private, it will increase their costs.
@@Zift_Ylrhavic_Resfear Your outlook is as pleasant as that of economist.
@@petefluffy7420
Ignoring problems may result in a more pleasant outlook, but it's only going to make your life worse down the line.
Unless you're old i guess, so you won't have to deal with these problems.
@@Zift_Ylrhavic_Resfear What did I say that prompted that particular remark? Nothing at all,, right, read it again, better yet, get someone with a little comprehension to read it and explain it to you.
@@petefluffy7420
You first said climate change wouldn't impact your life. I pointed out ways in which it will.
You then compared my outlook to that of an economist. Since you didn't address what i said, i assumed you dismissed the problems i pointed out by saying my outlook was unpleasant.
If you think i misunderstood you, then consider providing more context when talking on the internet.
Do scientist not cherry pick the date? It's important to state I'm in no way a climate change denier. It's here and I see it. I ask my question because we are currently in a state where scientist in several key positions across academia and industry are being called out for modifying data in that papers to get them published so they can pull in more money to keep doing research. I'm not a scientist but for whatever reason the algorithm is sending me content that discussed this issue of poisoned research. Anyway, that's my question and my contribution to the algorithm.
You always have a small percentage of dishonest people in every job, so are there scientists that cheat on data? it does exist but in a very limited amount. Why? Because science is a TRANSPARENT process, in publications you need to describe the base data you will use (ref to other previous publications), your assumptions, the tests made, the methods used and accuracy, results, discussion of results and conclusions. So if you cheat you will get caught, earlier or later.
Now, why do you get so much content relative on science cheaters? I guess because scientific results (on climate change in particular) do annoy a few people and organisations (petrol industry....), which in turn do their best to disparage science in order to get people "doubt" on what science says. And sadly this works quite well....
I think scientists don't cherrypick data. When they get a result nobody expected (including them) they are usually pretty delighted. It challenges the status quo. In the case of the vast amounts of data coming from satellites, they don't have the chance to cherrypick anything. It's all processed by computers that have no preference for the result.
Well it's easy, just provide genuine evidence that supports your claims against these supposed scientists. Until then your claims can be ignored.
I am betting your are just parroting what you heard on a blog or social media.
In general they do not lie (because cherrypicking is a statistical lie) but I'd definitely start off by asking what the incentive to lie is. In some parts of the social sciences, where they face the replication crisis, their work is already so tenuous that in order to keep themselves going they may face an incentive to do this statistical lying. However, physics is very different because it is based on components that everyone can agree on (or disagree, if they were initially wrong). If the Earth gets hotter (or one of the 55 climate variables mentioned in the video) it doesn't make it more likely they'll get another satilite, hence there is even less reason to statistically lie.
When you pluralize bias, you don't have to say biaseez. It's not like analyses or hypotheses, it's just biases. Like how you say houses. You wouldn't say houseez.
Be careful what you wish for, ie. cooling. Ice ages are tough. Even now according to Lancet, cold kills people 10x more than heat.
Oh dear! You really said that. What a silly comment.
Bruh we're shooting to over one and ba half degrees undoing that is almost impossible for now.
Also people dying from cold is not that common, and preventing that is not worth the thousand other issues caused by warming
@@tsawy6 What is hilarious about the comment by @donready119, is that we are already in an Ice Age which is ongoing. They obviously don't even know what defines an Ice Age. Their comment is just silly born of ignorance.
What is a death from cold or heat?
@@tsawy6you better go look up the stats for deaths due to cold vs heat.
This all hinges on trust in scientists. I'd prefer to trust in science, rather than the people conducting it.
The nature of science requires untrust... untrust IS how science is conducted. You are refering to an ideology... ideologies are truated, science is understood. This man gives zero understanding to thr whoch he claima to explain. Yall be clownin' 🤡😎🤣🤣🤡
When I look to see who I should believe, scientists or “deniers”, I follow the money. I ask, “who will profit most?” When looking at climate change, I look at academia, the science, and what profit that can make from their research. I don’t think it’s all that much. Then I look at the deep pockets of the fossil fuel industry and the massive profit they make by fostering denial and I know who to believe.
@@kevinmhadley Spot on ! Fossil fuel industries generate yearly on average 1000 Billions dollars of profit. More than enough to sponsor a handful of dishonest scientists to spread lies and create "doubt" in people's minds concerning climate science.
If the climate science industry,( which is now a multi billion dollar industry) were to say ,actually there is no problem here, do you not think that would have a catastrophic effect on the amount of funding it recieves? What about the incentives from the renewable's industry which is recieving billions of dollars of tax payers money to provide very expensive and unreliable energy to the consumer?
@@shanecollie5177 So your assumption is that everyone is inherently crooked, scientists included, so you conclude that all scientists lie and cheat on their results. This is a bold statement ! So if one day you visit your doctor and he tells you that you have a serious illness, you will just disregard his advices for a treatment because he is benefitting from the situation and this is the obvious proof he is lying to you ! OK, good luck to you....
What I see is that more than 99% of climate scientists do support the fact that human activities create climate change (personnally I don't swallow that 99% scientists are crooked !), the proof of the scientific consensus, like it or not, is here: (pdf to download):
"Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature", Mark Lynas et al.
Also besides climate change, there is a good reason to study and develop renewable energy, this is because anyway fossil fuels production is already peaking, extraction is becoming more expensive and new energy sources will soon be needed.
Reality is that the richest and largest industry is not the renewable energy, this is the fossil fuel energy, which generates yearly on average 1000 Billion dollars of profits. And this industry started the same disinformation program as the tobacco industry half a century ago: fund a few scientists (as a matter of principle a few may be crooked, but not 99% !) to spread lies and create "doubt", and only doubt because in truth they will never be able to prove anything of course. And when you are addict to a product, tobacco or fossil fuels, "doubt" is enough to deter you from changing your habits.
Hi i would like to point out that I agree that the climate is changing but I would like to know why at the end of the last day of a month this year the bbc weather stated that it was not the hottest month on record & proceeded to explain & prove why then the next day stated that it was the hottest month on record & at the bottom of the background there's a NASA badge? But with no explanation of why & no reason for the totally different results? In less than 24 hours?.
Where do i look to see that? Are the videos on youtube? UA-cam tend to erase links, so can you cite their titles? Or at least say which month it was, and on which day each segment aired?
post the link to this or otherwise YOU are a god damned LIAR.
This is misleading, because you are looking for trends, not just reproducing a signal and the error that you are claiming in this particular series is larger than the trend you are claiming to be able to identify. The error is also systematic, not statistical, so statistical methods cannot be used to correct for them.
Climate scientists are absolute terrible at the relationship between error and information.
4:53 This is typical. Statistical bias is one thing, but climatologists try to use this method to correct for systematic bias, which is terrible science. You can't correct for systematic bias if don't know what the bias is independently and don't have a gold standard method for measurement. Statistical techniques CANNOT be used for this task. You cannot automate correction for systematic bias.
The satellites are supposed to support the narrative "by design".
Unlike actual physical measurements on the ground, we (the people) have no access to the raw dat OR the meta data/processing algorithms and have to accept without question the "pay us higher taxes OR the world will burn"
If we have only been measuring "long term global datasets" since 1990s ... we've hardly had time to establish the baseline "30-year average"
Most of the raw data is available. You're just a conspiracy theorist.
You're uneducated, aren't you?
This feels like a wasted opportunity. Your 'Africa' video; whilst not beyond criticism, hit the mark much better. The water jug anology made the point but the microphone stuff was weak and the rest felt like filler and straw man. Your presentation and editing is excellent but please focus on substantiating your content.
Climate is always changing, as we know we are still coming out of an ice age, it's logical temperatures are rising. But this is just a benefit for humans, it's much easyer living in a warmer climate
Got to bate them clicks.
I comment here for your Short video that says there are tons of evidence proving there is a global warming because you turned off the comments on that Short. So, yes, temperature may have increased of 1.1 Celcius degrees since year 1850, but it is natural causes, like the cycles of the Sun.
Citations required
ua-cam.com/video/y35Lzgc9iJk/v-deo.htmlsi=JA9Dm1dG9OZ7DJrg
Check out Simon's video, 'Why the sun cannot be behind global warming'
He goes into quite a lot of detail of how we know that global warming is caused by factors on earth
"natural causes, like the cycles of the Sun": nope, not the sun (assumption dismissed, see proposed video above).
Which other natural causes then? Any clue?
And no, not even hot air spat by hateful MAGA supporters would be likely to cause warming.
So how do we calibrate the opinions of the idiots running the world.
Well, this video was a waste of time, not much actual facts given; just speculation.
I thought the clarification was really useful
The irony of your comment. LOL.