Sabine refuses to reply to any comments that are in opposition to her views or a Q&A video where she will answer 150-200 questions from commenters or hold a live stream to answer viewer and commenter questions.
I honestly think the best practice to battle political/religious dogma in science is the heavy suspension of credentials. Engage in fraud or bad practice once = 6 months of academic suspension, twice 3 years and third strike you're out. The only problem is the faculty and admin are probably more politically biased.
@@Apistevist But then what is the "scientific court" that will decide which is fraud, which is bad science and which is just an honest mistake? Who will decide literally the livelihood of scientist around the globe? How will you create such an organisation that its members won't just remove their ideological opposition? Also, what do you even mean by "suspension of credentials"? "you're out" of what? An institution where you're working? What about countries that do not care about what you're writing in Twitter? Journals won't publish you? What journals, how much you want to enforce it and by what force? What you are proposing is effectively a globe-wide scienfic lustration, and that just unfeasible both administratively and ethically.
Usually are US citizen that climate science is politicized. Sure, you politicized in order to just not believe or even consider it. It's a political and economical issue since 1970, but now people just become disillusional and start to really deny.
I think one issue with climate science is there is a cult following of fanatics and politicians using it for political agendas that don't really have anything to do with climate. My PhD is in physics, like Sabine, but I used to follow climate science research as a hobby and interest. I made the mistake of pointing out an error in the conclusion of a published paper a few years back and was personally attacked as a "climate denier" and even had people calling my university and workplace trying to get me fired. That sort of hostility towards scrutiny and questioning of results is certain to corrupt and taint the field entirely. EDIT: I didn't realize this comment would resonate with so many people! To those that immediately attacked me in the comments, thank you for proving my point. CONTEXT ON THE ERROR: Many of you asked for this so here you go. This was 2004-2005. A student sent me a NY Times article claiming "scientists prove CO2 drives climate change". The article cited a paper that looked at the statisitical correlation between global average temperature and global CO2 atmospheric concentration, claiming that climate skeptics say they are completely uncorrelated. The paper did a fine job showing that they are highly correlated (although their data had CO2 lagging changes in temperature). No where in the body of the paper did they discuss mechanisms or causation. However, in the conclusion of the paper they added a single sentence "Therefore CO2 must be the driving factor behind climate change". Regardless of the truth of this statement, it was not supported or examined by this paper in any capacity. That is also the only sentence that was reported on by the media. This was the entirety of my interaction with this article that drove other students (and non-students) to harrass me and others at my university over my presence. No claims or opinions on whether it was true or not, or about climate science in general. SImply that from a basic scientific peer review basis, that sentence was not supported by that body of work.
This is so real, ideologizing is the death of science, and I say that as an admitted radical leftist ideologue myself. When it comes to all matters of empirical reality, scientific rigor, the integrity of all investigative methods, and the authority of the data should always come before any ideology or values judgments. The right rightfully gets a lot of flack for it, but the liberals, the left, and everyone else does their fair share of it too, and its so much more corrosive than people tend to give it credit for.
The antibody response to questions and criticism is the sure sign of obfuscated truth. Any time that science cannot permit debate it is because of financial interest. Alarmist climate studies treat the output of the Sun as a steady constant. Anybody with even a middle school understanding of science knows this cannot be.
All the worse when folks like Sabine get railed for actually pointing out that the climate is getting worse faster than they estimate! The fundamental problem with climate science is that it is much harder to work on compared to other sciences where you can have sterilised isolated experimental conditions of a system that often fits in a test tube. This just makes them excessively defensive about their work.
I'm sorry that happened to you. It's a cult. 200 yrs of analysis Vs the 4.6 billion years of variation. Anyone with an aversion to sunlight is not to be trusted.
I work with financial models and we see extreme confirmation bias, of the sort that ends in financial crises like the 2008 housing crash. I just assumed it was greed, and that “real science” didn’t suffer from this kind of problem. Sounds like I was totally wrong.
Actually those were copula based models in the mbs products. It was still the bad incentives from the lenders which caused subprime lending. The model wasn’t the source of the disaster. Very different from climate models in some ways but the human factor remains similar
I have a degree in stats, the majority of people in my statistics course were idiots. 80-90% of my university were idiots. People who actually take the scientific method seriously and search for truth regardless of the consequences? Maybe 1-2% of scientists. Most people are out for themselves. They are not out for science or the human race it takes a special kind
I've heard a similar quote regarding literary interpretation: "Words are like witnesses. If you lean on them too hard, they will yield false testimony."
So I was Looking at the specific gravity of the gases in the atmosphere. From lightest to heaviest of the 5 most common gases. Nitrogen>Oxygen>Water Vapor>Carbon Dioxide>Argon. Water vapor?=Clouds. I wonder if those have any influence on surface temperature? Also does latent heat from the H2O have any effects? Then there is increasing CO2 from 0.03 to 0.04%. What happens if you do that in a greenhouse? Oh I know if that did not work. Then CO2 generations would not be used to increase plant growth. Plant growth? As in trees? Do tree trees draw water from below the ground? What happens when water evaporates? Why is Barstow 115F in the summer and Chattanooga is generally 90-95F in summer(July)? Oh also why is Barstow in the 30-40F range at night? Just before dawn in July? I did not spend much time in Barstow. I did spend time Ft Irwin. In a tent. If I was lucky to have a tent. Also spent time in Pensacola. Year round. Also been close to the International date line around 0 degrees latitude. More than once. Actually quite pleasant 80-82F in the afternoon. Almost the same temperature at night. I wonder why? Also why is the Persian Gulf 96-98F in July? just askin? I gots numbers? Just do not have answers that go along with my engineering studies. Did somebody repeal the laws of physics and chemistry? While I was busy, away from,+ out of touch with commercial radio and TV?? I guess the only answer is 'One person's Meade is another person's Poisson'. Also it is transforming. I also remember something about lies and statistics
Love him or hate him, Balaji Srinivasan's belief that source data and the code used to analyze the data for papers should be published with paper would do a lot to combat the replication crisis. Researchers also need to be better rewarded for confirming or disproving previous claims as the pressure to publish is actually a pressure to publish novel claims.
As a mathematician, I know very little about climate science. But your explanation about the utility of models and confirmation bias in academia are spot on! Keep it up Sabine.
The best thing about this century thus far has been how much the vastness of humanity has proven how easily propagandized, manipulated, and controlled we've been.
COVID: there were "one way" signs on the floor of the supermarket. Millions of people wearing dirty face masks. Governments shutting down small businesses but allowing mega companies to continue. Funerals, church services, and public gatherings were illegal. However, BLM and ANTIFA riots were free speech.
@docwhammo no one implicitly or explicitly denied that, and the key point in OP line is the adverbs of intensity. Massification of media & information is far from what we've seen in most of human history, for the better and worse. And yes, because of the hyperconnection of last decades and political-economic system of the past 2 centuries we live in, propaganda and manipulation as well as the self-acknowledgment probably is at the top of the charts in the history of humanity
I minored in statistics in three separate academic disciplines and worked in study design, data collection, statistical analysis, and predictive modeling for 15+ years. Confirmation bias starts before you collect data, even before asking the question. Bias starts in the very perception of the senses, language use, and meanings assigned to experience. Imagine I want to study how a forest works, but I am a deer. Someone else wants to study the same forest, but he is an owl, and so forth...Too many scientists are stuck in their narrow fields and have no training in experimental psychology, psycholinguistics, or human perception.
The deer will see that the deer population is booming, the berries are doing better than last year and the brush is extra thick! The Owl will see that theres more field mice in the newly developed farmland nearby, the trees have thicker foliage than usual, and the voles taste more poison-y than before. Neither recognizes human encroachment, loss of habitats outside of their personal territories, or fertilizer runoff from the fields overloading the forest with nutrients. People see what effects them in the way it effects them, not the bigger picture or the finer causes behind things, even highly specialized scientists...especially the highly specialized...
@@LordDucarius Technically a "Doctor of Philosophy" should be a lover of all knowledge, not just a Master of a single subject. But academia has been captured by a rat racing middle class that cares about status and comfort and not about knowledge. Hence the climate change situation where no amount of past wrong predictions can teach them humility (i.e. stop trying to control people based on incompetent predictions). Because they don't care about the truth, only about their social status.
@luxdevoid, as a non-scientist, but loving inventing, I have always screamed that! This side of confirmation bias is also an much bigger problem to the whole of scientific approach than many would think.
This problem of statistical models producing an undesired result, then being ran again and again with slight variations until the desired outcome is achieved can’t be understated. I was a data analyst for an energy evaluator. All the evaluators were doing that. We worked together on many highly paid projects. The outcome was more important than ethics every single time. I left the industry. But over the last several years, I’ve realized that this problem has permeated everything. I shoulda stayed. I liked the work. We live in a world where ethics, principles and morality are made difficult to maintain.
@@jaysanguinetti368 Try watching the video. I’ll make more sense once you’ve grasped the subject. I’m also not arguing with anyone. Take emotion out of your critical thinking.
@@adamgreenspan4988 Hey, isn’t it crazy that the whistleblower for Boeing is dead now? One day after that testimony. Good luck with that, and please don’t advise people in these arenas without a solid grasp of reality.
I've seen similar tactics working for a local government where traffic models were designed to produce the results desired to justify grant requests, I call it the tail wagging the dog syndrome.
As a (retired) systematic reviewer, I can tell you that reviewers commonly select sub-groups of the evidence base to include in their synthesis, based on essentially subjective criteria. In plain English that means 'I don't like these papers (for some reason or other I won't go into), so they don't count.' It's called selection bias and it's rampant. So more power to you Sabine for selecting a very plausible sub-group (worst-case scenario).
Sabine wouldn't be exhibiting some of those biases herself would she? Maybe she should really listen to the thousands of climate scientists who disagree with climate change hysteria.
@@jitteryjet7525 Every human uses confirmation bias, steered by their deeply-held beliefs. This includes people like me who make every effort to use logic, reason and evidence to ensure that we do not cloud our logical judgment with the emotional pollution of confirmation bias. With that said, ice cores reveal that 1600 years ago the average earth temperature was 2 degrees higher (remember Romans wearing togas?). In addition, maps created from maps created prior to year 1500 show all the minute details of Antarctica's mountain peaks, which are currently covered by ice, in perfect detail, represented with no snow or ice on them. Also, the "catastrophic" increase in Co2 since 1860 is something in the range of an increase from 320 parts per MILLION to 420 parts per million. Terrifying, eh?
@igilante It is true that the earth is greening and that ice flows are melting and that sea level has risen 6 inches over 200 years. But do you know that the _evidence_ of the asserted cause is as clear as NASA states? Or are you just parroting the programming you have chosen to accept from various government and media mouthpieces? Did anyone consider sun cycles and the effect on changing global temperatures....? Nope. Confirmation bias, driven by a researchers deeply-held beliefs, disqualifies any other cause besides CO2 instantly. And that is crazy, because we have the ice cores that can be analyzed to consider this data. Making us feel guilty about our personal carbon footprint has two results: Result #1: We take all our attention off the big coal-burning and fossil-fuel-burning industries who are actually ruining the planet, and instead focus on our responsibility. Meanwhile Bill Gates etc. flies around the world on his Business jet (which is a 70 seat regional jet airliner) burning TONS of fuel and depositing the emissions into the upper atmosphere to go around the world to tell everyone to worry about their carbon footprint. Result #2: Tracking out carbon footprint is an extremely convenient way to grant the government complete and total access to all aspects of our personal lives, from how we consume electricity to heat our house to where, when and how we travel and, perhaps, how we earn and spend our money. Look through human history.... blind histrionic devotion to belief-based ideologies that make the unbelievers into members of the "bad" tribe never ends well.
I've heard a similar phenomenon happened with the charge of the electron. Millikan got it a little high, and later scientists didn't want to get a "wrong" answer.
@@retiredbore378I remember, when I was a child Pluto was estimated by some astronomers to the tenfold mass of earth.😂The best we can hope is that with the "hot models" happens the same. Surely Sabine is right, to take them seriously.
Dude, climate scientists are the most mediocre in physics. I can't believe they are the ones leading changes in policy. Nobody wanted to go into that specialties except dimwits, that is why they are so terrible at this. There, I said it
"Typical behaviour associated with system accidents includes: 1) initial incomprehension about what was failing; 2) failures are hidden or masked; 3) concentrate on the minimum necessary explanation, and discount the worst case as being impossible; 4) business as usual if at all possible; 5) mistrust of measurements; 6) overconfidence in the function or later appearance of any safety device; 7) any ambiguous information is interpreted so as to confirm the minimum necessary explanation; 8) time constraints in the propagation of the problem and the availability of vital consumables consumables; 9) doing things in response that cannot be undone." Charles Perrow, _Normal Accidents_
I wish more people knew about Perrow's work, and that of Per Bak. I think that there would be a little bit less conspiratorial thinking if people were aware of the actual mechanisms of disasters
Keeping the profitable status quo "business as usual" and throwing doubt onto decades of climate data and research? Sounds familiar. I Am Worried about the main point of this video being used as "proof" by some wackjob that Climate Scientists were All Wrong All Along. Not that I think that's what this channel is trying to say, just a concern after all.
@@Autonym it's more the fact that certain climate scientists claim they have it all figured out, and anyone who disagrees with them is bad for doing so. then when it turns out the climate scientists *didn't* have it all figured out, they move on to the newer idea and go back to claiming anyone who criticizes them as being anti-science (or whatever pejorative is expedient). then when it turns out that *once again* they didn't have it all figured out, they switch to the new model again and go right back to accusing everyone who disagrees with them as doing so pathologically. they want to have their cake and eat it too, by framing themselves as *always* being correct, even when they aren't, and being immune from all criticism because of this. when you notice this pattern you recognize someone not arguing in good faith. when there's an entire collective of people not arguing in good faith, expect serious systemic breakdowns on the horizon.
I have been so used to the way particle physics works nowadays with data blinding, that I was surprised to learn this isn't a more widespread methodology, and in particular not done in climate science. Thanks for informing me
Congrats for finding out that many climate scientists are not doing science, but are in the fantasy story telling business. Now Sabine just needs to overcome her cognitive dissonance and recognize that these fantasy stories got nothing to do with reality. Real science looks at history and finds out that the correlation of CO2 and temperatures is low, that CO2 follows temperatures at best and that even if there was strong global warming (on the order of +6K), this would make the world no warmer than it was during homo sapients' existence before and would net benefit us.
No course needed… It’s easy to see that statistics can be made to say whatever you want to say. 4 out of 5 statisticians agree with me always. Two thirds of all viewpoints are proven by statistics. 73% of statistics are made up out of thin air, on the spot, for the purpose of winning an argument. 9 in 10 people can not dispute any of my points. 😁
except 101 statistics is very basic, has to cover to much ground and don't spend enough time with the pitfalls of statistical bias or the practical aspects of how to build good statistical studies. Plus, unless you are doing research, you won't be using and putting it to practice a lot. I think this should be covered under a scientific method course. Or a course on applied statistics or something.
There should be no topic or issue affecting humanity that is too sacred for free and open discussion. The scientific method and peer review process must be protected and encouraged to thrive.
@@phoenixfire8226 Some of us are old enough to remember when science and the experts were warning us that we were entering a "new ice age". I don't deny climate. I also don't deny that climate fearmongering has been a Trillion dollar money pit that has made some people very wealthy. Always follow the money.
I work in academia, I often have to correct IEEE scientific papers, and Sabine, you should know as well as I do that easily 50% of "peer-reviewed" scientific papers are full of crap. All too often conference papers are used as REAL science, when conferences are just you wash my back, I'll wash yours merry go round publishing schemes. On professor allows some sketchy paper to be published knowing that his own student's paper will be sent to be accepted. The whole of academia is one hand washes the other hand environment. That doesn't mean that ALL papers or journals are bad, but, just because someone waves a "peer-reviewed" paper in front of me, I just laugh at them and ask if it quotes Wikipedia in it somewhere cause that's a telltale sign that it's crap. 😆
Thanks for sharing that. That is my understanding as well. Especially when the research is funded by politics or industry, and in the case of climate science, it's both. The UN is funding the vast majority of the research with an obvious political agenda and more than a dozen scientists they've employed over the years have quit in disgust and called them a giant fraud (and the numerous times they've been busted lying and committing outright scientific fraud would seem to support those whistle blower scientist's claims).
@@Zartymil I work in Electrical engineering, which is why I mentioned IEEE, and the reason you don't often see Wikipedia in journals is because most correctors like me will just give an instant fail or re-write if they see it. Most University professors know it by now, but they do slip in from time to time. Usually when I see a Wiki reference it will be when the person is referencing some general knowledge fact, and instead of pointing to a well-read academic reference book used in many classes, they'll point to a wiki page because it's just easier.
Sabine's point is, I believe, that doesn't really matter if the number is high or not but that we shouldn't dismiss the data because if it's right and we act as if it is that will also reflect in the climate policies, if they don't turn out to be correct at least we fixed the problem and in case we didn't act as if these numbers are correct we will underestimate the problem and if they turn out to be correct then we are doomed. So, long story short - we don't want to wait and find out the hard way let's just act as if the climate sensitivity index was correct to evade a possibly upcoming disaster.
You are exactly right. I am a retired scientist (chemistry) and have seen this type of behavior throughout my career. It seems it is more important to generate papers than actually solving the problem or obtaining a true understanding. Scientist compete rather than collaborate.
Do I have this right Thomas? We know what the problem is. The solving the problem bit is about reducing greenhouse gases. The question is how much urgency is there to get to carbon neutral and persuading politicians and the general population of the urgency to act.
@@williamgerdtz6798 Carbon dioxide and water are the precursor molecules of life. Carbon neutrality is death and the urgency to attain it is a sick fetish.
@@williamgerdtz6798 Is there any consensus that CO2 level used to be 170 ppm ~ 300 ppm in Antarctica from 800,000 years ice cores ? And we surpassed 400 ppm some time ago ? Time interval required for 35 ppm CO2 increase changed from 1000 years to 17 years ? Do we roughly agree to the data ? Is there any disagreement that Antarctic sea ice extent is declining year by year ? When we look at above data, the claims that CO2 increase can be ignored, need a convincing theory and data. When urgency is concerned, we should trade the cost against benefits. When I look at drought and floods in the whole world, political urgency need to be recognized. When the cost of CO2 reduction is concerned, we first need to discuss on the technical solutions. There are subjects such as Ammonia, Hydrogen, photoelectochemical water splitting, Thorium nuclear reactor, etc, which are not enough discussed. I personally do not think that the cost is high.
@@williamgerdtz6798 The answer to carbon neutral is up in the air as there is no term for what % is neutral. All that matters is that you know that plant life starts to wilt under 180ppm(0.018%) and die off under 150ppm(0.015%), and for it to flourish at optimal you need 2000ppm(0.2%) All the deposits of chalk, coal and gas in the world is part of the carbon cycle once part of the atmosphere. Life on the planet almost ended when the coal deposits in now eastern Russia was ignited by volcanic activity spewing out enormous amounts of both carbon dioxide and Sulphur dioxide turning the worlds oceans dangerously acidic. The first algae that evolved to strip the oxygen from oxides almost ended the planet as high oxygen is cooling, and it striped the oceans of all available oxides like rust etc. resulting in the first snowball earth. Today this algae can bee seen from space when it blooms around rivers in springtime as it lives mostly of oxides in the silt in regions where ice crushes rock or the melting washes it out into the ocean.
Science as a whole is suffering from this kind of "rumination bias". And we have gone from data crunchers to storytellers that look for data to craft a narrative.
I tend to think data crunching is just the other side of that bad coin. Imagination and ingenuity used to rule the sciences. Physics, for example, is now dominated by mathematicians who hold to their paper theories above experiment.
I don't think you have any authority to judge "science as a whole". I get thats your impression, but generalized statements like yours are wrong and also not constructive at all. Our application of scientific methods are as diverse as anything we do. You can't put a state funded microbiology institute which focusses on basic research in Germany in the same pot as a institute finaced by a US company doing "social studies".
@nostalji75 I think I have as much authority as anyone to give my observations. When speaking about an issue that I've observed in many groups from bio chem to neuro to psych to soc, it would seem to me a general statement is all that could be made. I think it's very constructive to point it out. I think there are too many ideological, arrogant, ego driven, 20 somethings who didn't take philosophy of science. There are certain methods that should be consistent but more than that there should be a consistent underlying philosophy of reporting data that isn't narrative driven. All the "this could indicate..." "this may suggest..." And if you disagree, you're part of the problem.
@@Houston810 So you don't see how speaking from personal experience and narrating it in general absolutes is misleading? Especially if you don't mark it as such? "All the "this could indicate..." "this may suggest..." " You are literally doing the same. Having some negative personal experience and deducing general conclusions based on lacky data. "And if you disagree, you're part of the problem." Are you trying to run for president? What bs rhetoric is that? I do see the validity in your concerns. My critique is you generalize to much. And some of your rhetoric is just polarizing.
The bias does not come from thinking bias but from financial bias. The reason for the terrifying expectations is the project funding. The more important the research sounds, the more money they expect to get
Sabine please make a video like this for Archaeologists... I actually heard one of them say, "I'm the gatekeeper to what is acceptable archaeological evidence and theory.. I very rudely informed her that reality doesn't work that way. Reality is what it is and YOU have to accept it. You do it in such a polite and reasoned way. They really need to hear from you.
Just curious about what alternative archeological theory you were supporting? There are a lot of really, really bad ones about ancient lost advanced civilizations out there whose ‘evidence’ has been thoroughly engage with and debunked, but which keep getting brought up.
I'm amused by archaeologists' obsession with religion. Find a curiously big building, a dead body buried with flowers or gifts, or some other artefact whose secular explanation is not immediately evident - bingo, it's religion! (Because they want to push the date further back, and be the one to find it.)
the climate science has been a load of BS anyway. sadly cherry picking data and playing games with stats are the norm. and it undermines everything when people see the absolute BS. modern science is a religion.
Why isn't anyone talking about water/hydrogen motors with electrólisis. Do you guys really care about climate change? You can do it your self while doing something for the planet and saving a lot of money!!! Let's stop talking and let's start doing things, it works, and as I said, you can do it yourself, Why don't we???!!! Is easy, here are the instructions: ua-cam.com/video/Mr_rjQMqrEw/v-deo.html
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.” ― Charles MacKay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
It is so difficult to walk the line between: "science is the best method we have for understanding the world" and "science is carried out by human beings, and so it will always have flaws caused by selection bias, confirmation bias, perverse incentives and corruption". (Edit: in the light of the replies, I should also have added "inertia" and "social fashion" to the list of flaws. Also by "we have" I mean "we have found" - perhaps one day we will find a better method.)
@@jasont2986 All the smartest "scientists" I know were working on weather manipulation and modification. Funny that none of the climate alarmists ever talk about all the experiments in weather control gone wrong.
@@jasont2986 "Science is the best method." Not good enough. "The problem is that most 'scientists' don't use that method." The problem is that science is a part of human society which has its own rules. Read Kuhn's "the structure of scientific revolutions". Scientists not following rigorously the scientific method is how science works in reality...
Science is the best method for understanding the world, as opposed to Tarot cards, casting lots, asking the pigeons, sacrificing a goat and interpreting the entrails, checking the bumps on your skull, and looking at today's horoscope.
@@icevariable9600the person making the claim is responding directly to the evidence shown in this video? Have you even watched the video? Or are you one of the fanatics lol?
@@TGravy-wp4rc I’m people who are responding to me with ridiculous claims. A lot of anti-climate, flat earth earthers make statements they are unable and unwilling to support because they’re intellectually lazy. And wrong.
Me: patient advocate with 30 years of experience in clinical research. I appreciate that you have pushed back and that you are engaging more often in climate science as an advocate for all of us. Hopefully the climate science community will respond in depth. We all benefit from the conversation. Time is of the essence.
Individual people know that we all benefit from the conversation but this is now more about the money and power. Where is that self-correcting mechanism? But the fragility lies in the potential for significant disruption when expectations aren't met, rather than in the absence of any self-correcting mechanism(s).
The individual, regular ass citizen can’t do shit about climate other than stop patronizing the corporations that actually damage the earth. Also, then you have Asia, particularly China. I won’t be browbeaten about something I am not doing wrong and something that very well might be a bullshit premise in the first place. These multi-millionaires sure seem confident enough to buy beach side properties.
Why isn't anyone talking about water/hydrogen motors with electrólisis. Do you guys really care about climate change? You can do it your self while doing something for the planet and saving a lot of money!!! Let's stop talking and let's start doing things, it works, and as I said, you can do it yourself, Why don't we???!!! Is easy, here are the instructions: ua-cam.com/video/Mr_rjQMqrEw/v-deo.html
I built apparatus for psychology research in the 1980's...'publish or perish' dominated the field. It seemed that many researchers were more concerned with the attractiveness of a subject. If a News story about recovered memory was hot, suddenly 1/3 of the people in the department were trying to become memory experts... The 'penalty' for not winning a popularity contest was to lose your funding...so people chased silly things.
When I attended college in the 1960s, faculty had absolute power over students. Then came drugs, student protests, and riots. Students took over and faculty melted into the woodwork, concentrating on "researching" over professing. Bring in a $Million or $Millions and a bunch of graduate students to do your research and teaching and concentrate on writing more papers and bringing in more $Millions.
Im not phd or student, but I just know from them that in France for example, when you do your PHD, you are not free to chose any subject, but the one that is "good" for your reference professor....
Imagine you had covid. You don't know what caused covid. So you will not treat yourself with medication, preventative measures, therapy or whatever because you don't know what was the cause. Change covid with climate change. We may never fully understand what causes. But even the biggest skeptics will change their tune when their backsides get burned in the next heatwave, which neither them or their parents+grandparents have no recollection on. This is the parallel. Not some 'public or perish' nonsense.
You're 100% right. I started watching your channel because I saw the same thing happen in my work in psychology, then in biology, then again when particle physics became my hobby. The best scientists break through eventually, but it takes a while.
No the best ideas breakthrough it has nothing to do with the scientists or whether or not they are biased. If the ideas match reality they will survive every attempt at being disproved. I honestly can't believe how many people in these comments don't understand fundamental scientific method this is insane.
Why isn't anyone talking about water/hydrogen motors with electrólisis. Do you guys really care about climate change? You can do it your self while doing something for the planet and saving a lot of money!!! Let's stop talking and let's start doing things, it works, and as I said, you can do it yourself, Why don't we???!!! Is easy, here are the instructions: ua-cam.com/video/Mr_rjQMqrEw/v-deo.html
And with a title as inflammatory as that who could have guessed that the comments section is full of people just outright denying that CO2 has any impact on climate
Considering that climate figures and data have been seriously fudged and manipulated, there might well be exaggeration within this politicized community to the point there are those completely enmeshed in its grasp and barely aware of the falsities they are avidly supporting.
A greater interest in being right than getting it right is a pretty common human trait. You can apply it to almost every aspect of our lives and our civilization. It's how our best wars get started.
yes, primitive societies, tribal and feudalistic. I am not talking about stone age people, i am talking about the so-called scientific community. Because of that primitive social structure, most scientists are not doing science, but oganizing funding to keep their chair warm
@@monnoo8221the thing is, we haven't changed since then. We're capable of building incentive structures to midigate it, but fundamentally, we're the same tribal hunter gatherers from 100 thousand years ago, and have all the same tendencies and biases and neurological hangups we've always had.
Why isn't anyone talking about water/hydrogen motors with electrólisis. Do you guys really care about climate change? You can do it your self while doing something for the planet and saving a lot of money!!! Let's stop talking and let's start doing things, it works, and as I said, you can do it yourself, Why don't we???!!! Is easy, here are the instructions: ua-cam.com/video/Mr_rjQMqrEw/v-deo.html
I must say, that when we find a deviating result, we, in first instance are happy, then it means that we may be onto something new!! On the other hand, confirming existing results is also attractive 😂
My trust in in climate science is evaporating faster than a puddle on a hot sidewalk in mid-July. It's like economists playing darts blindfolded to predict inflation - hit or miss, but mostly miss. But lineage always hit the bank account. So, is climate science also chasing after their lineage?
@@hotbit7327 Climate , or better the complete Ocean-Earth System is exceedingly complex. No single scientist can comprehend all aspects, it is such a vast complex ever changing system. We know it gets warmer and more violent, and we observe that it happens faster than we thought.
@@carlbrenninkmeijer8925Sabine makes a good point here, but she, like most physicists, engineers, ect. don't seem to 'get' complex systems. Sadly, she keeps handing fodder to folks who just think that folks working on fundamentally complex things aren't doing "real science" or worse. Which isn't what she's saying of course. It is frustrating
Do you think you could start doing citations? I know you show article names but I am really curious to see how these models work and the specifics of what they are dissagreeing on and putting some links in the description would make that a lot easier.
Why isn't anyone talking about water/hydrogen motors with electrólisis. Do you guys really care about climate change? You can do it your self while doing something for the planet and saving a lot of money!!! Let's stop talking and let's start doing things, it works, and as I said, you can do it yourself, Why don't we???!!! Is easy, here are the instructions: ua-cam.com/video/Mr_rjQMqrEw/v-deo.html
I think the Patreon link has them (along with a transcript of each episode), I don't use Patreon but it seems free members get access, not just paid tiers.
She cited Zeke Hausfather who is a lead climate guy for Stripe... look up CIMP6 and ESMValTool if you want to see the actual models, I had to close all my tabs after I realized how disingenuous this whole video is. Science is a gradual process but there's no indication the hot models are wrong and they are working hard to figure out the discrepancy. In the end I predict the AI based models are more accurate. Not like we were ever going to do crap about AGW. Been arguing with denialists for almost 30 years sigh.
The most striking thing I learned in college physics and chemistry courses, was that the error bars were always too small - they rarely were large enough to cover the errors that most students produced, as compared with the expected results. There was no way to know everything that you could have done inaccurately, much less by how much. I suspect that whenever I got "good" results, it was mainly because I made at least two large errors that just happened to cancel each other out.
What bothers me is when NOAA decided to manipulate historical temperature records and try to pass them off onto the public instead of using error bars. In Hansen et al 1999 he said "The United States temperature increased by almost 1C between the 1880s and 1930s, but it then fell by about 0.7C between 1930s and 1970, and regained only about 0.3C between 1970 and the 1990s. The year 1998 was the warmest year of recent decades in the United States, but in general United States temperatures have not recovered even to the level that existed in the 1930s." Yet try to find that 30 year fall in temperatures today. You won't see the decline from 1940 to 1970, and suddenly 1998 is higher than the 1930s.
People are overconfident a lot of the time, and don't allow for all the things that can throw something off. Remember a training task at work where we were asked to give a 90% confidence interval for ten values (think things like "number of Facebook users in 2010"). I got 9 out of ten of the values in the ranges I gave which is over performing if you ask me, I think the closest colleagues got 3 out of 10. I realised I may be useful not because I know more, but that I have a more realistic view of what I don't know. That said being a realist is overrated; we are all going to die.
Damn right. And climate ‘science’ seems to run its own version of statistics: hugely variable parameters, myriad measurement methodologies changing over time, and yet the end result has these tiny error bars showing great precision.
This is an example of group think and one of the factors that led to the space shuttle challenger disasters. A few engineers warned about the O rings performance in subzero temperatures, but they were largely ignored because others were dismissive of the problem and most people didn’t want to rock the boat. In addition, there was this attitude that we’ve done this so many times before, which is a logical fallacy since the condition of every launch is unique and previous success is not relevant. You still have to go through your check list. In all human enterprises, there are social pressures that can cloud judgment. Science puts more emphasis on objectivity and vetting than most industries, but still isn’t immune to extraneous pressures.
This is because we're consistently conflating the scientific endeavor with the scientific establishment. The scientific establishment isn't immune to extraneous pressures, it is directly financed and established as an expression of this pressure.
Clevis and tang solid fuel booster stacks defaulted because California manufacture was too long to fit through curved train tunnels. Seals were calked with thermally ceramicizing Randolph type two putty (zinc chromate/asbestos filler). Viton is leather not rubber. "Recovered, recycled" booster segments were whacked out of round by ocean impact. The entire process cost more than casting and machining new ones. Randolph putty was replaced by a "safe" ecological equivalent. Thereafter, Viton O-rings were routinely recovered with char marks.
Sabine refuses to reply to any comments that are in opposition to her views or a Q&A video where she will answer 150-200 questions from commenters or hold a live stream to answer viewer and commenter questions.
Richard Feynman went on national TV and showed that an O Ring would crack in a glass of ice water. But management and tunnel vision engineers didn't want to hear it.
@@milanstevic8424 Not sure how you can disentangle these when conceivably one can’t exist without the other. But overall, I’d say science is still quite productive considering how much it has already achieved and how much that is accelerating. Pseudo science might be able to get away with deceiving people, but if it doesn’t deliver on its promise, it will fail inevitably. Where it seems to exist in abundance is in the promotion of health and weight loss miracles. There are so many BS products claiming to be miracle cures in search of a fast buck and not much in the way of consequences for false claims. And they always try to pretend the billion dollar weight loss industry is trying to take down this ad! This is a routine feature of these modern equivalents of the medicine wagons going from town to town selling miracle cures that were mostly opium and alcohol. The scientific establishment, for all its flaws, is self correcting. The loss of the Challenger did lead to a full scale investigation by NASA and improvements in their culture.
@@blinking_dodo yes, it is concerning that Sabine refuses to reply to any comments that are in opposition to her views or a Q&A video where she will answer 150-200 questions from commenters or hold a live stream to answer viewer and commenter questions.
@@mortgageapprovals8933 Maybe she has better ways to spend her time than to reply to thousands of comments? And that is something completely different than what my reaction was about.
I watched several of those "Climate Scientist Reacts to Sabine" videos and was left shaking my head. It's as if they couldn't recognize themselves in the mirror. They would restate with painstaking detail the same points that you had summarized, then conclude with an ad hominem dismissal. Sure, I'm biased, but it was really disturbing. Thanks for sticking to the facts and explaining exactly what about them (the facts, not the other scientists) is important.
A lot of people who call themselves Climate Scientists are from humanities/sociology backgrounds and that seems to be the way they are taught to argue. Its depressing.
Why isn't anyone talking about water/hydrogen motors with electrólisis. Do you guys really care about climate change? You can do it your self while doing something for the planet and saving a lot of money!!! Let's stop talking and let's start doing things, it works, and as I said, you can do it yourself, Why don't we???!!! Is easy, here are the instructions: ua-cam.com/video/Mr_rjQMqrEw/v-deo.html
@@bobtuiliga8691you can't call yourself a scientists without having at least an undergrad in a science or engineering discipline. but yes I've seen comms consultants who write books about climate comms issues being referred to as Climate Change experts by people who know next to nothing about climate change (but never as scientists). I'm not sure your idea is the right explanation. Take a legitimate and important climate scientist like Michael Mann, he uses all kinds of word games to defend his attacks on others as "doomers" a term with a really ugly history in history of the environmental movement. They learn it because it's effective in shutting down critics.
You know, I have to totally disagree with this BS. For one, the very article Sabine cites actually argued for the IPCC to throw out other models and adopt a meritocracy. The guy behind it, Zeke Hausfather, doesn't want CIMP6 to be considered at all. EXCEPT ESMValTool IS A MERITOCRACY. What Sabine is not considering here is that the hot models, which are based on AI modeling techniques, are probably more likely to be right than the older statistical models. Sabine is accusing others of confirmation bias when she is doing it here herself. None of what she says in her clickbait article takes into account the methods in the models. DeepMind released GraftCast just a few weeks ago and its accuracy is unparalleled. Instead of this whining that climate modelers won't be believed how about we lest the science stand? This is just adding fuel to the fire. Note: (Science, 30 July 2021, p. 474) is where they say the new models were contributing to the higher numbers in CIMP6. I tried desperately to find it but every time I rabbit hole about climate change it just infuriates me. Very disappointed in Sabine here.
Ross McKitrick and John Christy (2020), Earth and Space Science. "ALL model runs warmed faster than observations in the lower troposphere and midtroposphere, in the tropics, and globally. On average, and in most individual cases, the trend difference is significant." [Emphasis added.] Climate modelers must be prepared to state what evidence would at least POTENTIALLY falsify their models. If they are not prepared to do so, they are not doing science.
It started 1995. By 2012 the wind was a massive 30% (1 metre / second) stronger than pre-1995. I've not yet found post 2012 so I don't know whether the big 2015/16 El Nino was the end of the massive 17 to 20 year Trade Wind surge. ENSO is an utterly-vast feature of Earth's surface-air. ---------------- Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus Nature Climate Change 4, 222-227 (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2106 Received 11 September 2013 Accepted 18 December 2013 Published online 09 February 2014 Corrected online 14 February 2014 Matthew H. England, Shayne McGregor, Paul Spence, Gerald A. Meehl, Axel Timmermann, Wenju Cai, Alex Sen Gupta, Michael J. McPhaden, Ariaan Purich & Agus Santoso Affiliations "Here we show that a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades-unprecedented in observations/reanalysis data and not captured by climate models-is sufficient to account for the cooling of the tropical Pacific and a substantial slowdown in surface warming through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake." ---------------- Quote: "Atlantic warming turbocharges Pacific trade winds Date:August 3, 2014 Source:University of New South Wales. New research has found rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean, likely caused by global warming, has turbocharged Pacific Equatorial trade winds. Currently the winds are at a level never before seen on observed records, which extend back to the 1860s. The increase in these winds has caused eastern tropical Pacific cooling, amplified the Californian drought, accelerated sea level rise three times faster than the global average in the Western Pacific and has slowed the rise of global average surface temperatures since 2001. It may even be responsible for making El Nino events less common over the past decade due to its cooling impact on ocean surface temperatures in the eastern Pacific. "We were surprised to find the main cause of the Pacific climate trends of the past 20 years had its origin in the Atlantic Ocean," said co-lead author Dr Shayne McGregor from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science (ARCCSS) atthe University of New South Wales." ---------------- Quote: "The record-breaking increase in Pacific Equatorial trade winds over the past 20 years had, until now, baffled researchers. Originally, this trade wind intensification was considered to be a response to Pacific decadal variability. However, the strength of the winds was much more powerful than expected due to the changes in Pacific sea surface temperature. Another riddle was that previous research indicated that under global warming scenarios Pacific Equatorial Trade winds would slow down over the coming century. The solution was found in the rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean basin, which has created unexpected pressure differences between the Atlantic and Pacific. This has produced wind anomalies that have given Pacific Equatorial trade winds an additional big push. “The rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean created high pressure zones in the upper atmosphere over that basin and low pressure zones close to the surface of the ocean,” says Professor Axel Timmermann, co-lead and corresponding author from the University of Hawaii. “The rising air parcels, over the Atlantic eventually sink over the eastern tropical Pacific, thus creating higher surface pressure there. The enormous pressure see-saw with high pressure in the Pacific and low pressure in the Atlantic gave the Pacific trade winds an extra kick, amplifying their strength. It’s like giving a playground roundabout an extra push as it spins past.” Many climate models appear to have underestimated the magnitude of the coupling between the two ocean basins, which may explain why they struggled to produce the recent increase in Pacific Equatorial trade wind trends. While active, the stronger Equatorial trade winds have caused far greater overturning of ocean water in the West Pacific, pushing more atmospheric heat into the ocean, as shown by co-author and ARCCSS Chief Investigator Professor Matthew England earlier this year. This increased overturning appears to explain much of the recent slowdown in the rise of global average surface temperatures. Importantly, the researchers don’t expect the current pressure difference between the two ocean basins to last. When it does end, they expect to see some rapid changes, including a sudden acceleration of global average surface temperatures. “It will be difficult to predict when the Pacific cooling trend and its contribution to the global hiatus in surface temperatures will come to an end,” Professor England says." ---------------- The Tropical Atlantic Ocean surface has warmed and has increased the intensity of the Tropical Pacific Ocean trade winds by 50% in under 30 years because the atmospheric circulation is coupled between the Tropical Atlantic Ocean and the Tropical Pacific Ocean, but the Tropical Atlantic Ocean and the Tropical Pacific Ocean aren't coupled because there's land in the way ENSO is a massive feature of Earth's climate and the GMST trends have been: +0.13 degrees / decade: UAH lower troposphere 1979-2017 +0.17 degrees / decade: RSS lower troposphere 1979-2017 +0.165 degrees / decade: Surface La Nina & ENSO-neutral years 1970-2014 (me from GISTEMP) +0.20 degrees / decade: Surface El Nino years 1966-1995 (me from GISTEMP) +0.23 degrees / decade: Surface El Nino years 1995-2014 (me from GISTEMP, high uncertainty, sparse & varied data points) +0.18 degrees / decade: Surface average 1966-2014 (GISTEMP) +0.11 degrees / decade: Ocean surface 1966-2014 (GISTEMP) +0.047 degrees / decade: Ocean 0-300M depth 1966-2010 89 / 432 = 0.206 (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, talk plots etc.) +0.030 degrees / decade: Ocean 300-700M depth 1966-2010 76 / 576 = 0.132 (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, talk plots etc.) +0.026 degrees / decade: Ocean 700-1000M depth 1966-2010 (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, talk plots etc.) +0.15 degrees total increase: Ocean 0-1000M depth (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, Matthew England talk plots etc.) ---------------- +0.009 degrees / decade: Ocean 700-2000M depth 1966-2010 77 / 1872 = 0.0411 (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, talk plots etc.) Note the +0.23 degrees / decade for El Nino years since 1995 and only +0.165 degrees / decade for La Nina & ENSO-neutral years. A big difference. ------ At 2014 just before 2015/16 very large El Nino Pacific trade winds (Easterlies) were (quote) "at a level never before seen on observed records, which extend back to the 1860s". This has been a huge global warming climate change and I don't know whether it has continued after 2015/16 El Nino or has calmed down now (scientists will no doubt tell us one day). ENSO appears to have "strengthened" since 1995 due to Pacific trade winds (Easterlies) having started increasing in average speed since 1995 and now 1 m/s faster than before 1995. This was the main cause of the "hiatus" or "pause" between 1997/98 huge El Nino and very large 2015/16 El Nino.
Also no mention of the significance of the use of SSP 8.5 (formerly RCP 8.5) here. That model parameter assumes a 20% increase in coal use globally in the 21st century, the so-called 'business as usual' forecast. There has in fact been a 30% decrease. The continued use of 8.5 is not only suspect, it is downright wrong as a reasonable forecast.
In talking with a climate zealot, I asked, "What would you accept as proof that CO2 induced global warming wasn't actually happening?" Nothing. There was no proof that would make a difference. If the actual climate (after 20 years) is below the lowest prediction, thinking that the highest prediction has validity seems, well, a bit silly.
@@geraldfrost4710predictions for air temperatures are lower than the models from the early naughts, but observations of ocean temperatures actually exceed many of the models. What happened was climate scientists had models for "business as usual" and we have reversed course as a society. Production and burning of coal, by far the highest impact fossil fuel, fell significantly from the figures used in the predictions, and while both natural gas and oil production is increasing, the growth of production is slowing, which again deviated from the figures used for the models. However, even then, scientists underestimated the capacity of the ocean as a heat sink for the atmosphere. The rate of species decline in our oceans, marine environments, and reefs is beyond alarming. Just this year, Florida recorded some of the highest ocean temperatures in history, leading to a mass die off of fish and is currently threatening the fragile and very unique sawfish populations, endemic only to these waters.
Climate science got corrupted the moment the IPCC was established in 1988. It wasn't established to determine IF there was a climate issue; it was established on the PREMISE of an existential anthropogenic climate crisis. In other words science was hijacked to be a propaganda tool for governments to gain power. And the scientific community played right along, because almost all its money comes from government. Finding a neutral climate scientist is like finding a neutral USSR Olympic judge. On the issue of climate models, the competition is NOT to be the most accurate; the competition is who can produce the MOST ALARMING prediction. They are ALL GARBAGE. They can't even accurately model known historical climate changes. The actual data show CLIMATE IS GETTING MILDER, NOT MORE EXTREME. Low temperatures are increasing, NOT high temperatures. But the data have to be ignored or changed, because they don't fit the narrative. If you want to look at the CO2 greenhouse effect, the U of Chicago MODTRAN tool will tell you that LESS THAN ONE DEGREE of surface temperature increase will more than offset a doubling of CO2. But that doesn't fir the narrative, so it must be ignored. And don't start screaming about increases in severe weather, because, again, the actual data show that's false.
None of the models assess "climate sensitivity" with regard to CO2 transitional mobility per relative unit. Yes we've increased it, but CO2 is still incredibly mobile. A layman gardener can even appreciate this when you grow and manage plants in your yard with respect to 1) growth and 2) cleanup . Keep in mind the terrestrial plant biomass is but a fraction of the volume of CO2 that regularly cycles between the atmosphere, oceans, plant/autotrophic biomass and its eventual sequestration to the substrate - which is actively ongoing. The long term record strongly suggests this active transiency completely mitigates CO2's properties as a GHG.
What nobody ever says is that all the models leverage CO2 to kickstart runaway water vapor, which is a much better greenhouse gas. Guess they have a harder time villainizing WATER than they do fuel emissions...
She said thst we must yo stop global warming. Do we? Please ell us why warming globally will be worse than average temperatures dropping down a little or staying constant forever. Next thing should be if humans are able to stop global warming. Finally should be to do a huge analysis of cost yo benefits ratios. The whole thing look ridiculous to me because nobody has determined if the best average temperatures is the current one which seems to be 14.5C right now. Would maybe 16 be better or maybe 13°C would be better for us and our descendants? Why temperatures dropped 8 degrees during glacial periods and sea levels dropped more than 100m in the meantime? Why 14.5 should be steady forever instead of jumping over 16 or under 13°C instead? What's the desirable average temperature and why? Too many unanswered questions to jump directly with an affirmation claiming that WE MUST STOP THE GLOBAL WARMING without not even a single unquestionably proof behind. Unacceptable!
@@josemariatrueba4568 imagine asserting that climate ought NOT change, or that we can stop it FROM changing. Imagine thinking we could avert the next glaciation (the real climate crisis we have yet to face or even really acknowledge).
I saw that video too. I didn't think it was rubbish but just that it is not convincing enough for me. My view is therefore still with Sabina and not that climate scientist.
I also saw the video. I'm wondering if these climate scientist influencer/spokesperson types have been trained to give everyone a watered down hopeful version of what's likely to happen. I've heard debates on wether people will just give up if they think it's going to be too bad or too late to do anything. Personally I think telling people of this extreme possibility will push them out of their complacency, but its going to be messy wether we make radical societal change deleberately or we wait for it to be forced upon us. I see so much about what our future holds is being kept from us in the name of infinite economic growth at all costs.
Why isn't anyone talking about water/hydrogen motors with electrólisis. Do you guys really care about climate change? You can do it your self while doing something for the planet and saving a lot of money!!! Let's stop talking and let's start doing things, it works, and as I said, you can do it yourself, Why don't we???!!! Is easy, here are the instructions: ua-cam.com/video/Mr_rjQMqrEw/v-deo.html
Ethics and integrity are extremely necessary when interpreting data and displaying results. Sabine, thank you for reminding the scientific community of their responsibility to do the right thing
Now THIS is the classic Sabine we all came to know and love: "You're doing it *WRONG*, boys"!! (Checks notes and proceeds to explain how and why in exquisite detail.) Mad respect. ❤
@@noelward8047 because there are a lot of women working in climate science. Using such non-inclusive language such as "you boys" implies that women basically don't exist in this field. I will not stand for such mysogyny.
It is Difficult, near impossible, to get a person to understand the facts, if their salary depends upon them NOT understanding it. Upton Sinclair, I think.
Thatˋs a point I tried to make as a comment under one of Sabine‘s earlier videos where she said that the academic system puts a selective bias on topics by the way projects are financed these days (grants usually). This drives scientists to select specific topics - which are more likely to get a grant granted. I asked: what might that mean for climate science? And got immediately attacked by cancel people. Even though I was just asking questions.😂
But Hausfather *didn't* just say "it doesn't matter", he pointed out that the hot model subset overestimates the warming that's already occurred since the beginning of the industrial period, and that they correlate poorly with paleoclimate proxies. If the models disagree with observed data, by overestimating the amount of warming, why would they not overestimate into the future?
They disagree with observed data because they underestimate the current rate of climate change. There is a switch of steepness in every societal - global - earth system sphere that's been changing at a certain rate for centuries. It is not a miscalculation, it is a lack of understanding.
@@Mexicannasa It does not matter what you are. What Sabine describes is well known to everyone who has a clue about how academia and universities operate. I am not criticizing them for being money hungry. I am criticizing them for pretending they are above it
I remember reading an article in the mid 2000s that predicted this. The guy said climate researchers at every stage of the discipline are making conservative estimates and when you pack all of these estimates into a climate model the output is extremely conservative.
It doesn't really matter, because the reason for that is that they know "Just not polluting" is utterly utterly laughably UTTERLY delusional, and will never ever happen. So they don't want to know the severity of the answer, it will just make them feel bad and not help anything at all. You ONLY solve this by inventing ways to give people all their stuff they're used to, but in ways that don't pollute, like fusion power, etc. Not by telling people how much they need to live like medieval peasants to save themselves this fate. They don't care. THAT fate is worse to them. And I can't even claim they're wrong, necessarily. The fusion thing (as well as fake meat and so on) are all already incentivized by just profit anyway, so this is all kinda a waste of time as far as I see. The solutions would be worked on just as hard without any of it. Maybe even harder, since the people involved here would more so be working on the actual solutions instead.
Yes, but we now know the opposite happened. The problem with the models is even their "conservative" ones project hotter temperatures than are observed. Worrying that the high values must be contended with when the actual science of observation demonstrates the opposite isn't good science and it makes for very bad policy.
@@gavinjenkins899 Disagree. I think we can reform our current practices while also developing new technology. People have the ability to compromise, and there's a large gap between the way we currently live and "medieval peasants".
@@willw5868 Yes, there's a large gap. A large, almost--exactly-what-would-be-needed-to-prevent-climate-change-sized gap. We would need to be polluting at pre-industrial levels to be sustainable, that is literally medieval (okay maybe renaissance, whatever)
@@gavinjenkins899 You missed the first part of what I said. We need to reduce our current levels of consumption AND develop new technology. Meeting in the middle. I agree that reduction cannot realistically meet the crisis. But waiting on a silver bullet like fusion energy alone isn't an adequate solution either, and may result in irrecoverable damage in the meantime.
A famous scientist, expert on models, said that the models are very useful when you want to understand the past, but are useless when used to predict future. He was Freeman Dyson
@@andrearaspopi it is true... You can make a convoluted model of the solar system which assumes the earth is the centre, and comes up with right answers for the last 100 years, but it was never a correct model, it just happened to work for a limited time.
Just wait until Sabine sees the confirmation bias and selection bias present in all the other scientific fields polluted by ideological, political, and financial interests.
Yeah, it's funny how people can literally make a living with their understanding of empirical data analysis, but then the most obvious hoaxes go right over their head. It just proves that there isn't really a big point to universities any more. Intellectually inquisitive people can get almost all knowledge from the internet, without getting bullied into submission by shidlib professors. I got a Master's Degree with a certificate for advanced data analysis, and literally all my teachers were double-boosted and completely on board with all the mainstream BS. Really threw a wrench in it.
@@helpIthinkmylegsaregoneyeah I too would say: if everyone just goes with their gut feeling, and we read tea leafs instead of doing science, we could save a lot of money. That’s just my conservative opinion though. 🤤
Sabine: I met a couple who were touring Alaska who worked the LHC. I mentioned your name and they smiled and chuckled and described you as a “problem” to their view of particle physics yet still spoke endearingly of you! I would live to know the back story!
@@InvertOtaku-os9lj Sabine stirred the pot, I think that was the jist of it. They seemed to show no animosity, just that she was a bit of a challenge to their train of thought and research.
@@InvertOtaku-os9lj Because she sees the Billions of USD/EUR/CHF poured into their hardware and work and observes the complete lack of results and worthless noise in academic papers they generate when there is a temporary anomaly that statistically dissipates. And so it's hard to ask for funding when people are wise to your scheme. She's not good for business.
@@leewilson1368 as all colleagues/rivals should do. If you are not willing to stir the put you are a sycophant and should change to a career in the arts
I wish more people were aware of the numbers involved in burning fossil fuels. If they knew that every unit of weight of fossil fuel produces approximately two and a half times its weight in carbon dioxide gas, they might be more concerned.
I can't help wonder if scientists are worried about credibility of they present different results than previously to politicians, who come at the notion of credibility from consistency, rather than evolving scientific data and models.
Most definitely, and not just politicians but the general public as well. Sometimes science is messy, and mistakes are made, the models evolve, flaws are found and fixed, etc, and there is great pushback from the public when policy decisions are made on earlier conclusions, and then changed later. Any real scientist will always hedge their bets (citing error bars, incomplete models, new measurement methods etc) when asked for specifics, but as it filters it's way through politicians to guide public policy the conclusions become more black and white and people feel betrayed by changes to that guidance. They want simple black and white guidance, not nuance and uncertainty. A vast number of stupid policies are based on inertia, while the science has moved on. And if that policy happens to make money for some industry, it'll be all that much harder to change.
Don't forget- the IPCC releases their "recommendations" for government policy prior to releasing their science months later. The scientists have a job to do, and that job is to make sure their science aligns with the politicians recommendations, so they can continue to receive funding.
@stratmat If you actually read the comment you will see that it doesn’t suggest or give an opinion on the credibility or otherwise of politicians themselves.
In my house, the one reliable predictor if rain is coming are the black ants. For some reason, they are more active. Outside my bamboo plants are my long-term predictors.
I don't know what type of ants you are talking about, but where I live we have some large black ants that we call "carpenter" ants. Like termites, they will eat the wood your house is made of. You might want to get rid of those things.
@@mylesleggette7520 maybe. You still don't want ants crawling around on your children, your pets, your food. Maybe you, personally, do, but in general...maybe you eat them. Maybe you like having little friends that you can snack on walking around your house. Maybe your house isn't made of wood. Maybe cardboard? Or steel sheet metal? Or concrete blocks with no wood holding up the roof? Or maybe your house is a tent? Or maybe your house is made from dung and mud? Maybe, maybe, maybe!
Climate scientists, political activists, politicians, there are certain people that profit off of the fear of people. In politics, especially the media, everything needs to be polarizing, shocking, catastrophic. We are human and we are motivated by emotion. I would like a world where people would be critical, analytic, calm about politics. But it seems like this is where we are at right now. Overreaction against ignorance.
The governed are motivated/ruled by emotion. Those that govern are motivated by lust for power and the control over others, which they (to varying degrees) disguise as altruism, wisdom, and empathy. Sadly, there aren't enough of those that are motivated by the desire to think, express themselves and behave as they choose for them to be a concern at this point. There are not enough of them to be a concern to the governments, and the rest of the non-thinking population simply don't care enough.
Not all politicians benefits from fear. Only the ones who need support for what they believe in without thought. There are many types of politicians if you care to look at them in details, not stopping at the loudest and most egregious. Your statement in itself is polarised and is doing the opposite of what you say you want
Amusing side note; i got a 'youtube context' 'warning box/banner' under the video which i found hillarious when i read why it was atteched to your video :) (ps. watching from Australia aproximately 1 month after release)
Thank you so much for pointing this out. Different disciplines can and should advise one another, even more so when systemic errors are concerned. One scientific community having experience with similar issues can prove invaluable for another community regardless of their respective field of research.
Thanks for this video. I think you're right on with your criticisms. From what I read in the paper, the problem is not just with one sensitivity parameter, but with TWO, the other being the aerosol sensitivity. The paper says that both were wrong, in opposing directions that cancelled each other out until the aerosol levels changed and revealed the error. And OF COURSE it is crucially important to get the parameters as accurate as possible and to fix errors in them as they are discovered.
Yeah but than the statement of the climate scientists is right: sensitivity isn´t important. Change as fast as possible the output of CO2. You see the finding always again that some paramters have wrong sensitivity so there is no guarantee. Only thing that is 100% clear is that CO2 heats up the world.
I have pointed out many times that the warming trend in Europe in the 1980-ies that coincided with redused sulfur emissions and that is a an indicator of a high aerosol climate sensitivity. Nobody has taken me seriously, but I am of course also no climate scientist. If the cooling of the 1960-ies and the warming of the 1980-ies to 90-ies were both caused by aerosols, it implies that the curve for global warming the last 40 years is too steep, hence scientists over-estimate the CO2 sensitivity of the climate system.
Being born in the 1900's we people can confidently say that we've survived multiple climate change catastrophes and humanity is still here. The experts throughout the years have predicted many times that humanity would be in a lot of trouble and yet here we still are with more people on the planet than ever.
The example we learned about in the late 1990s science classes was the confirmation bias around the electrostatic force via the oil drop balance experiment. Our science teacher showed us the history of publications and how the wrong value was kept for decades due to people not wanting to contradict the prior predictions, or getting mocked for suggesting the consensus was wrong.
Group think, can also be observed in the speed of light measurements during the 20th century ( unless the speed of light in a vacuum actually changes).
@@jamemswright3044 Complete nonsense. That's not group think, that's just peer pressure combined with fear of authority. Authority says or demands 1 thing, so out of fear of ruining their career or getting fired, they 'agree' on the surface. Which makes it harder for others to come out against it since the people who side with the authority have the power to ruin their peers who disagree (and will be forced to basically chase them out because if they don't their own head may roll). And with that a big negative spiral starts. Groupthink is a nonsense term with no actual science behind it. And it came from a social pscyhologist, aka the fake scientists among pscyhologists. Groupthink isn't a thing, it's peer pressure.
@@defenda1 Groupthink implies that a group is an entity. But that's not the case. The group does not think, the group is made up out of individuals whom each decide for themselves to adapt to a certain thought because they think it's what works best for them in the given situation.
I get 0.3 to 0.5 for the sensitivity, not 1.5, 3.8 or 5.1. 0.5 fits the observed numbers better, while 0.3 fits a sensible model better. Several major problems involved. The easiest to spot is that the actual raw numbers were tossed decades ago in favor of adjusted. And the adjusted gets adjusted every year, with the starting point the previous adjustment, not ever the raw numbers. Station locations are bad, and there are false breaks in the numbers. Also, in the US, they went from over 1000 stations as input to 136, all at airports. O'Hare (Chicago) as an example, was a cow pasture in 1915. Now it is many square miles of concrete. The models are mostly okay if modeling electricity or air conditioning usage, as we mostly live near places like 2024 O'Hare. But in doing a global analysis, 99%+ of the Earth's surface isn't big city.
As you say, in many cases the surroundings of stations have changed over time impacting their measurements. Stations that used to be in a rural area now find themselves in an urban area due to urbanization. And temperatures in an urban area are on average about 5C higher than in a rural area (Urban Heat Island). Other changes in their environment also have an impact, for instance surrounding forest being cut down to make place for road (or airports). Some stations have been moved over time, either in height (from rooftops down to ground level) or laterally (from the seaside more inland) which also impacts their measurements. And ways of measuring data have changed over time, going from analog to digital, which also impacts the results as it is easy to make a 0.2C error when reading an analog thermometer whereas digital data is much more precise. So if you want to determine what is happening to global temperatures you have to look at digitally measured atmospheric data, not at ground level data.
I am not a climate scientist. I work in an unrelated scientific field so it is difficult to critically evaluate the climate literature. Frankly, I am skeptical about my conclusions regarding climate change itself and hold them loosely. On the other hand, I have spent half a lifetime evaluating scientific research and applying the findings, and have seen several major models - that drove decision-making in policy and procedure, mandated increased levels of intervention (frequently with significant rates of adverse outcomes), and cost billions - be overturned. Many of these models were “the gospel truth” one year and the next year referred to in the past tense, “we used to believe X,” as if it were ancient history. When this occurs there has usually been a body of evidence countering the model, which has been present but discounted for a several years if not a decade or more, before some tipping point is reached and the model is abandoned. In my observation there are elements that appear to correlate well with the total burden and longevity of these mistaken models. These factors include the degree to which the models are accepted and taught as orthodoxy, the degree of censure for not following the model, and the amount of money and or prestige gained by organizations, corporations or institutions through utilization of the model (I do not say individuals here because I am talking about huge amounts of money and extensive, even societal, influence). One can probably see why the current science of climate change is worrisome to me. It appears to be built by piling one model of complex chaotic interactions between chaotic systems, on top of other models that are used to derive the values for multiple variables. Notably, the values for these variables have shifted significantly over the past two decades as methods have changed. Yet the predictions from these models are held, within the scientific community and society at large, as the “truth,” which only the most ignorant and immoral would question. To me, the prevailing models have the hallmarks of potential for great harm if they do not adequately predict climate changes based upon specific factors in the next 50 years and that is a very tall order. There seems to be no healthy acknowledgement among the proponents of these models that the models themselves are abstractions and cannot fully account for all variables. Truly, no model ever can. The rigorous investigation that might help verify the reliability of any particular model to make the predictions we need is effectively shut down, through everything from blocked funding to academic and social proscription. It is concerning indeed.
For those not sure about the sensitivity as laid out (correctly I believe) by @galahad54 and how it works and is applied: The normal climate models had CO2, if it doubled, to increase warming by 1.1wm^2 (watts per meter squared, if we hit 540ppm+) - with a multiplier for Water Vapor of x3 (or a total of 4.4wm^2). This is an Exponential response - and it shown that way with some small variation in the model - which was GISS-E put out by James Hansen. The RCP variations, like seen on Sabine's charts, are variations on this based on total increases. The lowest being RCP2.6 But what was found looking at the ERBE's data, (Earth Radiation Budget Satellite) is that the output, counter to the models, is in fact x.5 (that is times a number less than 1, and a diminishing return.) This is an Logarithmic outcome. This is seen in the water vapor AND in Co2 itself - most of the work being done by the first 20ppm, and the rest of the warming, even up to 600, 1200ppm is less than that initial 20ppm. Logarithmic. Not Exponential. There has been arguments, like Otto et al 2015 (IIRC) that said they might want to lower the x3 multiplier to x2.5 - because the models have outran reality already. But if you put the sensitivity down to a logarithmic difference (below 1) there is....well, nothing to really be super worried about. The warming is not going to run away, and will to some extent self correct - which we have the history to see it does. And when we look at CERES data on a scatter plot it matches this also. The Data and History match a logarithmic curve. The models have an exponential curve. But there is a strong debate to not let the data get in the way of the models. And so far, in just a decade, the models have all shown that they have 3 to 6 times the warming as predicted. All models were falsified in 10 years. That means the predictions for 100 years out are not going to be close.
@@joshcoray3777You're absolutely right. It's been known since the mid 1990's that climate models predict temperatures that are significantly higher than what is observed in reality. On average their predictions are off by a factor of 2. One of the more recent research papers into this is Pervasive Warming Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric Layers by McKitrick/Christy, 2020. They looked at the period from 1979 to 2014, so about 35 years, and found that pretty much all models were wrong and predicting temperatures that were much too high. And that predicting too high temperatures is a trend that has been continuing up to our current day (2020). Climate models use lots of variables to make predictions and if these don't mirror reality their predictions won't either. A very simple example: most climate models use 1.4 W/m2 (Watt per square metre) for outward radiation from the earth for every degree K the global temperature increases. However, in reality this number is 2.6 W/m2 (as seen in collected data), almost twice as much. So in climate models earth retains much more heat than what happens in reality and therefore their predictions turn out way too warm. Here's an interesting interview with John Christy in which he talks about climate models and the so-called "climate crisis": ua-cam.com/video/qJv1IPNZQao/v-deo.html
@@easy_s3351 I am fairly familiar with Dr. John Christy, and his 'a Bridge Too Far' presentation is one of my favorites. He has updated his original Models vs. Reality chart in 2021. If we listened to him vs 'The Modelers' we would be in a far reasonable environment. For any one curious, here is a 2021 Bridge too far presentation with some updated material: ua-cam.com/video/AfdtFdOTnME/v-deo.html
So it isn't knowing if there are 6 riflemen in a squad or 10 riflemen in a squad but rather knowing if they are 6 hours from firing or 10 hours from firing. I think most people would like to know at what time they should start giving their parting words.
It's more like they are already firing anyway - we need to do everything we can and more to escape, now, no matter how many there are. Also, one of the main - and growing - currents of denial is "doomerism". There may be some fear that saying "oops, things are actually worse" might actually halt action. But that's just speculation on my part, of course.
Being wrong doesn't affect their paychecks or funding. And no one is in charge. You cannot expect anyone, even scientists, to go against their incentives.
The warming over the last few decades has validated the models. One problem that has recently arisen is that the warming of 2023 was greater than expected. That's what lead Sabine to make her last video.
Asking for precise consistent predictions about future temperature is almost as bad as asking for precise lotto numbers before you buy the ticiket. If your doctor says a patient has 2 years to live, or a 60% chance of beating the diagnosis - if they are off on their estimate, do you say "all doctors are wrong" Predicting future temperatures is enormously difficult. That you expect them to be consistently accurate just shows how indoctrinated you are. It's not that easy. And given the difficulty of this ask, they've actually done very well. The models have been pretty much in line with the warming for the last couple decades. 2023 was a miss, but overall, they've done very well. @@Chaka421
Seriously? Your response is to play dumb. The IPCC's models. You have to understand, the IPCC runs like 100 forecasts, and they post a variety of scenarios running till 2100, so you only should look at the date the model was made and up to 2023, because that's the only part of the forecast that can be checked. The range of warming, over about 100 forecasts, and 6 overall scenarios was 1.1 (low extreme, strong action taken) and 6.4 (high extreme, very little to no action taken), by 2100, or 93 years. If you compare the warming up through 2007 (about 0.7 degrees - all temperatures in C) and since then (an additional 0.3-0.4 degrees) over 16 years, and you extrapolate, 16 into 93 - just linear extrapolation, when many of the models show an acceleration over time, but ignoring that. 0.3-0.4 in 16 years = 1.8 - 2.3 over 93 years. Which is Which is in the range of 5 of the 6 scenarios. Statisticians would call that hitting the mark. And, they deserve applause for how difficult a forecast this is. @@DefinitelyNotAMachineCultist
Data is not a straightforward thing when experiment is complex. It can be a long way between raw readouts of some voltage to final data on some physical effects. A long way during which you question your understanding of the apparatus and whether you toolk into account other processes which may influence conversion of said voltage to, say, temperature of the microwave background in particular direction
I do not admire closed minded people. Since there has been no added "heat trap" in the atmosphere I was hoping that they would finally give up the lies about the 0.04% controlling the world. Sadly, there is too much money in lying.
If I walked blinfolded and ear plugged across a busy motorway (freeway) at night, I would be reassured that the margin for error in crossing safely to the other side was quite large.
The problem here is that the error bars that are published only contain statistical errors, i.e. the likelyhood that the measurement was a random fluke even though the measurement process was perfect. In reality though, every measurement method has biases that will lead to a non-random deviation from the true value. These systematic errors are not shown in the error bars, because they are not known to the authors (otherwise they would correct for the bias). This is not to say that all these climate models are pointless or can't say anything about the future of climate change. Far from it, they have been very accurate in the past.
I have found no information to suggest that the assessment of the models as presented by the author of the video took into account that the models are checked by back-verifying the predictions.@@zockertwins
I've been studying this for years. The ppm CO2 during the age of the dinosaurs ranged from 3,200ppm to 800ppm. The dinosaurs went extinct when CO2 levels fell below 800ppm. The age of dinosaurs began when CO2 levels rose above 1,300ppm. Obviously high CO2 does not result in run-away greenhouse effect at all.
Evidence supports that Earth is colder now than at any point in time since 450 million years ago. Historical carbon dioxide levels from 540 Ma to present do not reflect temperatures fluctuations at all. Temperatures spiked 320 Ma when CO2 levels were similar to today. The average temperatures of the age of the dinosaurs were 8 F warmer than now, ranging from +2.2F to +12.5F. The samples were all polar. Crocodilian fossils indicate that nothing froze from the coasts of Antarctica to the north shore of Alaska until around 50 Ma. The evidence supports that the polar and temperate regions were warmer but not the equatorial regions. Tyrannosaurs ranged from southern Mexico to central Canada 2,500 miles north. Denser atmosphere which would support more homogeneous temperatures is REQUIRED for giant insects, giant bugs, and very large animals. @@gulanhem9495
@@gulanhem9495 Earth’s highest temperature was 5.2 Celsius (9.6 Fahrenheit) above the present-day average. That was 280 million years ago when CO2 levels reached a record low of 237 ppm. Earth’s lowest temperature was 440 million years ago. It was 1 degree Celsius colder. 1.8 Fahrenheit colder with CO2 levels at 5000 ppm. Highest CO2 levels were 8000 ppmv 520 million years ago at +2C. Dinosaur era 252 Ma to 66 Ma the average temperature was 1 C (1.8 F) below historical average and 4.4 C (7.9 F) warmer than now. That's enough to greatly increase the growing season, melt away most of Earth's ice, and increase reptilian (non-freezing) habitat area about 35%.
I tend to never believe any person or group that says they and only them can fix a certain problem, if only we would give them all of the money and all of the power.
The studies are also paid for by special interests who want a specific result to reinforce their narrative. Confirmation bias increases when your livelihood depends on the result aligning with a predetermined answer.
I think the first point is actually pretty valid. No major country seems to have taken anything seriously about the threat we face; even if this data could be arguably useful for devising a solution, none of them are serious about doing that. 💀
Well it’s is very heartening to see a widely viewed and respected scientist and science youtuber call out climate scientists for some bad science. Anyone who criticizes you for having the wrong degree is using the Argument from Authority fallacy and is already suspect based on that.
It doesn’t matter because it’s not about climate change, it’s about the laws they can pass and how much more taxes they can squeeze out of the tax payer.
Actually more taxes and more laws would be a good thing. It's just that these taxes and laws have to Target incredibly rich people which they are unlikely to do For example, companies are able to sell their emissions to other companies that should be illegal. And of course millionaires and higher should probably have a decent chunk of tax on them
@@nigeladams8321 Taxing the rich by itself has been proven to destroy economic incentives, causing layoffs and higher inflation. Less taxes and laws are a good thing at this point.
@@alwilson3204 no no it hasn't. In fact one of the most prosperous times in our country's history was when we taxed the shit out of the rich. What has been proven to be a sham is trickle down economics.
Meanwhile in reality, fossil fuels globally get about 7 trillion annually in corporate and consumer subsidies, tax breaks and sweet deals for drilling and whatnot. And oh it's governments that pay for =oil disasters and leaks, not the ones causing them. But the other side is the problem... got it...
All scientific fields are not created equal. We're in our wheelhouse when doing real-time trial and error. Climatology is the mother of speculation, unknowns, and generally untestable complex systems over long periods of time. We can't even predict local weather with anything resembling accuracy, but I'm supposed to believe climatologists have absorption rates across the different regions and conditions of the planet sorted? The idea we're anywhere near understanding all the factors that influence even that single variable is laughable.
@@bearclaw5115 I use weather as an example because it's a somewhat related complex system humans have invested an enormous amount of resources and manpower to understand. Climatology is a ma and pop shop by scientific comparison and we can build meteorological models, tweak and test them in real-time. I'm not arguing the two fields are synonymous and I understand differences exist between high-resolution short-term and low-resolution long-term predictions. The fundamental problems inherent to the science of climatology still exist. Good at something is relative. Reliably accurate is another matter.
you're right climate change is very complex which is the very reason that climatologists have a minimum of 30 years worth of research before they could come up with any sort of conclusion.
I read “Embracing Mind” and the big take away I got from it was that most scientist go into research with a belief, almost religiously, desiring a certain outcome or they go in with an “open mind” while firmly denying that a certain outcome will come around. Just those biases were enough to skew results.
I don't known If blaming the scientists for a procedure which happens always in science throughout history is good. There are always "trends" and dominant "opinions" in science and it takes time until these are overcome. Like it was mentioned in the video. So why is it ok if partical physicists make such an error, but for others it is a huge problem. This video is just more ammunition for "climate skeptics".
Yeah, god forbid we expect science to do better. Or deal with skepticism. Are you one of those "all science is settled" people? Even after this video ? Is it ok to be critical of Theoretical Physicists ? They haven't contributed much to anything. Most people would say yes, because nothing theoretical Physicists do matters all that much and the funding isn't even all that high. On the other hand, I would say it is certainly fair to criticize and scrutinize a scientific effort that pushes for global political changes that will bankrupt the wealthy countries and starve the developing ones. I reserve to right to step in and point out weaknesses when even general estimates are a doubling of our annual budget for a few decades to maybe only be ten years late (according to the UN published info a few months ago) to hit net zero "in time".
The more rational unbiased scientists dig into the orthodox climate narrative the more issues are raised. It’s not settled no matter how much the climate alarmists shout and scream.
@@MrMezmerized it’s not settled, however you want to look at it. If it was they wouldn’t keep spending money verifying what they think they already know. Climate change is now highly politicised on both the science and policies
@@cddaniel805 The only things not settled are "how much" and "how much by humans". Your dismissive argument is a bad one, because it's useful to have updates every so many years, both globally and per region. To see if models require tweaks. Plus science advances, making more ways to gather data available. Climate science itself is hardly politicised. Acceptance / rejection of it is, but that's primarily because politicians in the pockets of fossil fuel businesses and/or being misguided incite it. And also politicised is how to deal with climate change. But the science itself? Hardly.
the point is that we need to deal with this as soon as possible, and if you say we are safe for a century, we will do nothing until then. we need to act now to save the future.
there is no urgency. "Climate Change" aka "Global Warming" aka "Global Cooling" aka "God's Wrath". What is going on here is simply a planetary body doing what it has and will continue to do until otherwise stated. We will all die someday from something. Best scenario is making positive lifestyle choices until it is our time.
Says the guy driving his car to work every day, flying with the airplane many times a year and buying stuff that's wrapped in plastic for 99% of his purchases.
@@T49.I There's no shortage of real scientists already debunking most of the already extreme numbers presented daily. Of course I'm going to be very critical of someone claiming that reality is far worse who at the same time excludes extremely important factors (not to mention likely caused at least 3x-4x more pollution than I will during my lifetime).
@@thenonexistinghero thank you, you know me so well, and that is of course something that the moment someone would try to regulate you would scream " but but but chinaaaaa but but Road transport but but "
I did a small job for a man in Melbourne Australia and had opportunity to ask him why he was moving out of the unit. He said he was going back to France after on year in Melbourne working for the Labor government working on his model for Victorian climate in the future. So l asked what was his model prediction. He said our weather was going to continue to get hotter and dryer l told him l have lived in Melbourne my whole life and his professional opinion from computer predictions and modelling was WRONG. l told him our weather works on a ten year cycle and we are at the end of a dry period in our decades cycle and that the next winter would be a wet cold winter. I said when you get back to France keep watching Australian weather and learn something. Of course he disagree with me. But that next winter only a few months after he left the country we had massive rainfall and flooding for months over the land he predicted to be bare and dry for ever. And now today all our water storages are full after four years of cool wet weather that started the year after the bush fires of south eastern Australia. THAT'S OUR WEATHER CYCLES THAT COMES FROM THE SUNS CYCLES NOTHING TO DO WITH CLIMATE CHANGE BULLSHIT AND EVERY THING TO DO WITH DEFORESTATION DRYING OUT THE LAND AS WELL AS CAUSING FLASH FLOODING WITH OUT VEGETATION TO HOLD BACK HEAVY RAINS ❤
We keep hearing about how certain measurable climate change markers/data points have been reached much faster than many of the current models have been predicting, surely that would suggest using the higher sensitivity numbers or least higher sensitivity than is being used in models at the moment?🤔
The models are also ignoring a lot of factors, including many countries actively manipulating the weather with various techniques. Chances are that some of the unusual things we've seen in recent years are the result of them meddling with that is actually very big.
Whatever quality data scientists come up with, I seriously doubt politicians will start taking action, in particular if it hurts their precious economy, which it likely will. Even though if we all drown in a flood or boil to death there won't be an economy worth mentioning.....
I think we should start focusing on ways to remove Carbon from the atmosphere. I like the idea of creating biochar from biomass and organic waste and sequestering it.
@@Siwashable he was using a figure of speech bro. And he's right. no matter what data and stats scientists conclude, politicians will likely not take action. Take Trump for example who's a firm denier of climate change, does not care about pollution and wants to rid of the Environmental Protection Agency and focus of building the fossil fuel industry which is the leading source of air pollution. He'd rather grow the economy than advocate for the health of the floating rock we exist on.
Not if you take into account why. The "Paleozoic icehouse" period for instance was related to a huge percentage of the Gondwana supercontinent being situated in the south pole region. Snow and ice settles much more easily on land than ocean.
It's a trillion dollar industry that won't fund your research if your work is contradictory to the consensus. It's the only field besides social science that we do this in, and it needs to be reformed.
Because global warming doesn't mean every single place warms up. It's an average. Furthermore, glaciers can grow when it gets a little warmer too, as long as there's sufficient snowfall to compensate for the extra loss at the bottom. The extremely (!) few exceptions you refer to are probably two mountain ranges on the Tibetan plateau. At the base it's warm and arid, but there is now a lot more agriculture thanks to irrigation. That means lots of evaporation, humid air goes up the mountains, the vapor freezes and viola... snow.
What concerns me is that in all of the models, the human contribution to global warming is less than the total warming. In other words, the world is warming without us.
My work with diesel thermodynamics led me to analyse the climate of Venus. Surprise! At one Earth atmosphere pressure (which occurs at 51Km above the surface, the temperature of this 97% CO2 atmosphere is 65 deg. C, which is 50 degrees warmer than the Earth surface average. (Earth has 0.04% CO2, which is 2,500 times less than Venus.) When the circumstance that Venus has twice the Sunlight levels of Earth, a matter of geometry, and allowing for radiative heat loss per the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, it turns out that Venus has no more "greenhouse Gas effect" than the Earth does. This and several other studies including measuring the heat content of back radiation,demonstrated to me that Modelling climate science and the whole "climate crisis" is a contrived load of horse manure.
@@Tomkat53 Sure, let's pretend there are no regions on the planet that get ever hotter and dryer. Also, particularly a lot of oceanic species don't deal well with rising temperatures and (CO2) acidity, and those just so happen to often be at the bottom of the food chain.
@@MrMezmerized - back when atmospheric Co2 was many times higher than today... there were NO DESERTS anywhere on Earth. The entire planet was LUSH with life, with the vast majority of it being a pleasant mediterranean climate.
@@Tomkat53 Nonsense. Pangaea had large dry regions in the middle and tundras around. Such a supercontinent is too large for a tropical climate with plenty of rain all across. Also, there several mass extinctions, the worst of them between the Triassic and the Permian. But even if you were not wrong... so what? Right now there are deserts that get bigger. Who knows, they might eventually go green if temps keep rising, but for how they grow.
Sabine. Thank you for your personal and professional integrity. You are a rare but vital part of the process to return integrity and honor to many areas.
My issue is the cult like thinking of people who fight for climate change, these people are so close-minded that even the slightest bit of disagreeance gets you ridiculed. It's to the point where everything is climate change; I've seen hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, etc.. all be labeled as such.
Well, if we're happily painting everyone advocating action with such a ridiculously broad brush... then everyone in denial about climate change is guilty of cult behaviour too.
@@MrMezmerized They are pretty close but one side is indifferent and doesn't care and the other side is overtly passionate about the subject due to a sense of urgency. My experience from being pretty moderate on the subject have just been way worse with these types than climate change deniers.
We've known for 50+ years that large cities act like heat-sinks on a planetary scale, soaking up solar energy and radiating it into the surrounding atmosphere. We've been educated that they even "create their own weather." Yet, their effect upon the climate model is conveniently ignored, ostensibly because this is precisely where big government lives and draws its lifeblood from, not only in money, but in the political power it purchases from the inhabitants of the cities. Over the past 50 years, large cities have easily doubled in size, in population, and in generated pollution. You never see this fact reflected in the graphs though.
@@MrMezmerized the fact that there is never any discussion about limiting metropolitan expansion says so. I believe it to have a multiplicative effect. The more cities, the fewer greenspaces, (of course,) meaning less carbon sequestration. The more cities, the more blacktop, (of course,) leading to more physical absorption of thermal solar energy, which usually only gets radiated back into the atmosphere at night, leading to less Delta-T in the atmosphere between daytime and nighttime.. The more cities, the more ships, trucks and trains are needed to ferry supplies into these areas. Of course, you'll never hear about the true effect the cities have because this is where Big Government™ lives, and we certainly can't be imposing limits upon the "God" of the liberals, now can we?
@@FZMello Little to do with politcal lean. Many people and businesses want to be in metropolitan areas. Supply and demand. And you forget that if you forcibly limit expansion anyway, you lose the green elsewhere. Much more. Spread everything out: more cars and trucks, more roads, more parking spaces, more travel distance, public transit not viable so yet more cars and roads and parking spaces. And houses use a lot more energy than shared housing, especially the typical US plywood homes (which aren't durable at that). Overall you generate sooo much more heat absorbing surface, carbon emissions, energy demand and waste. As for the political lean. Particularly the right is in the pockets of the fossil fuel and automotive lobby. So you get atrocious car centric urban planning with strict zoning and crappy public transit. And strict zoning (still) has something to do with segregation too, a conservative stance. Seems you're barking up the wrong tree.
The problem is that people trust you more than climate experts. That itself isn’t a huge problem, because you are very smart, but the same goes for Jordan Peterson fans :/
I'm 100% only worried about climate change because of the possible implications for humanity. Models and simulations are hard - but a lot of people are working their asses off to try and make the best predictions they can. I hope we don't let politics and power games mess up their field too much
The people who believe in MMCC have been making predictions about doom for the last 50+ years and have been wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME. Acid Rain? The US Government's own 10-year study study proved it was a hoax. A handful of local problems caused by local sulfur dioxide emissions and problems unrelated to sulfur dioxide, like land use changes causing soil and water acidity changes. Ozone Depletion? So widely believed at one point that movies, mostly cringe, were made about the chaos caused as the ozone was depleted further and further south. It was assumed that the CFC ban would take decades to have an effect and we would have to be wearing sunscreen in Winter by now. Turns out CFCs are so heavy you can pour them into an open container and have as much chance of getting to the stratosphere as a cinder block. The ozone "Hole" at the south pole is a natural phenomenon caused by the Antarctic Circumpolar Current and the fact that Ozone needs sunlight to be formed, which the south pole doesn't really get for 6 months of the year. Almost all Chlorine in the stratosphere is there from volcanoes. With a track record so poor, any thinking person should be extremely cynical and disbelieving in anything they have to say.
there is no "earths normal temperature" - this word salat alone shows that you never ever tried even 15 minutes to check out climate science. Which is fine. But why do you not search for a video that tells about this. UA-cam is full of them. There are many science channels. Of course we can calculate an average temperature of the earth - which is a pure mathematical number based on many real measurements and a definition how to calculate this number. This number then can help to show differences of climate over time. Like many other numbers. Its like your weight. You weight is an indicator for health - but in the end its an overall number that gives some hints but you have to make many, many further measurements to check out your health.
There are hundreds of input cycles. Most of them come and go like clockwork. Ice-ages are 100,000 years now, caused by Malinkovitch cycles. There's the AMOC that causes heat peaks every 68 years. There's the 420 year GSMs, coming SOON. CO2 is a flyspeck in the sky that is still the source of ALL LIFE here. LOL. ONLY LEFTY CRACKPOTS think otherwise.
The normal tenperature is the average temperature before industrialization. Teoerature bayond that is affected by human activity. During the lifetime of earth the temperature has varied greatly. There was even forests on Antarctica because fossil combustion (yes it has happened before) made the rest of the planet more or less uninhabitable.
@@Rubensgardens.Skogsmuseum global average temperature has varied significantly since industrialization. It's called data tampering and guesswork. Mother earth seems to do whatever she likes regardless of the techniques "scientists"use in attempts to modify the weather.
For those who weren't listening closely, which based on the upvoted comments seems to be most folks - Sabine is criticizing climate scientists for potentially under-estimating/downplaying the climate models that are showing that the projected rate of climate change is worse than they thought. This isn't the "dunk" on fight against climate change that many in here think it is - if these models are right, we need to be moving to reduce GHG emissions even faster.
Problem is that these models aren't right and are way overestimate already. Besides that, if things are really moving much faster than they are predicting, it means that the contribution of humans to climate change is negligible. Meaning it's not our fault and that we can do nothing about it. Besides that, quite a few countries these days are also using methods like cloud seeding to influence the weather. And if you have any common sense you'd realize that the impact of actual weather and climate manipulation is much bigger than something like CO2 output and poses a far bigger risk to unpredictable climate change. But yes, just keep turning a blind eye to reality while our holy climate scientists are destroying the world while pretending to save it.
@@thenonexistinghero Your response is all over the place. Somehow the models under-estimating the humans impact means that humans aren't important to the climate system, but then you go on to point to human actions perhaps being incredibly important through cloud seeding. Which is it? The scale of our CO2 geoengineering is way, way bigger than anything being accomplished through cloud seeding. You can deny it if you want, but don't pretend like you know anything.
@@Jason-sp5yc No, my argument isn't all over the place, you simply don't know how to read. We don't know if we are underestimating human impact from exhaust like CO2 and the like, the data to support that just isn't there and that's just something people like you are concluding. And I merely mentioned cloud seeding as 1 example of humans messing with the climate. We don't know the impact of that, but you've already concluded that it's not as big as CO2. I'm saying it can be very dangerous. Humans are forcing clouds to grow where they usually don't, you're f***ing insane if you think that doesn't have the potential for having a huge impact on the climate. And there's no doubt other ways humans are messing with the weather that aren't made known to the public just yet and that's also pretty much a fact. When something is made public... the reality of thing is always that it's behind actual reality. We don't know the impact of humans messing directly with the weather/climate like that, yet doomsday sayers like you are putting pretty much all the blame on CO2. There's a lot we don't know and that needs proper research but we won't ever know because doomsday sayers like you keep making conclusions and pretend other potentially important factors don't matter. Because hacks like you think we're gods who know everything.
I don't understand why climate scientist are allowed to dabble in the field of engineering. It's one thing to write papers with the finding of the week, but why are the over arching conclusions treated at actionable information for the suggested actions? I've worked as an engineer and sometimes my task involved working with information provided by scientist. I've waded through vast oceans of garbage information to find the few precious nuggets that can be transformed into workable engineering solutions. I've also seen plenty on unreproducible studies that only wasted time and money. As for the climate question. As an engineer I'd like to see an open source process control transfer function for the climate with all inputs, outputs and LaPlace functions. Once the scientist agree on that function it can be calibrated to predict various results. When a particular run can successfully predict results for daily measurements for a year, for a large area of the earth, then the model could be used to suggest meaningful actions. For example the impact of a solar project, a wind farm or a million EVs could be assessed. As it is climate scientist just poke around the problem, solving nothing, simply wasting time. In short scientist are not engineers and they should stop pretending that their work amounts to meaningful engineering or valid solutions.
sabine du bist echt supernice ich finde deine videos nicht nur interessant sondern auch dein trockener humor gefällt mir sehr gut, kein wunder das du als kommentare zwischendurch heiratsanträge bekommen hast, ich will mich hiermit anschließen auch wenn ich wenig hoffnung hab, aber es kann ja auch nicht schaden, ansonsten halt schönen tach ☺
Fighting for improved science practices in politicized fields like climate science is thankless, but very important. Thank you Sabine.
Sabine refuses to reply to any comments that are in opposition to her views or a Q&A video where she will answer 150-200 questions from commenters or hold a live stream to answer viewer and commenter questions.
I honestly think the best practice to battle political/religious dogma in science is the heavy suspension of credentials. Engage in fraud or bad practice once = 6 months of academic suspension, twice 3 years and third strike you're out. The only problem is the faculty and admin are probably more politically biased.
@@mortgageapprovals8933 That's a savvy thing to do. It's a good way to prevent yourself from getting caught with your academic pants down.
@@Apistevist But then what is the "scientific court" that will decide which is fraud, which is bad science and which is just an honest mistake? Who will decide literally the livelihood of scientist around the globe? How will you create such an organisation that its members won't just remove their ideological opposition? Also, what do you even mean by "suspension of credentials"? "you're out" of what? An institution where you're working? What about countries that do not care about what you're writing in Twitter? Journals won't publish you? What journals, how much you want to enforce it and by what force? What you are proposing is effectively a globe-wide scienfic lustration, and that just unfeasible both administratively and ethically.
Usually are US citizen that climate science is politicized. Sure, you politicized in order to just not believe or even consider it. It's a political and economical issue since 1970, but now people just become disillusional and start to really deny.
I think one issue with climate science is there is a cult following of fanatics and politicians using it for political agendas that don't really have anything to do with climate. My PhD is in physics, like Sabine, but I used to follow climate science research as a hobby and interest. I made the mistake of pointing out an error in the conclusion of a published paper a few years back and was personally attacked as a "climate denier" and even had people calling my university and workplace trying to get me fired. That sort of hostility towards scrutiny and questioning of results is certain to corrupt and taint the field entirely.
EDIT: I didn't realize this comment would resonate with so many people! To those that immediately attacked me in the comments, thank you for proving my point.
CONTEXT ON THE ERROR: Many of you asked for this so here you go. This was 2004-2005. A student sent me a NY Times article claiming "scientists prove CO2 drives climate change". The article cited a paper that looked at the statisitical correlation between global average temperature and global CO2 atmospheric concentration, claiming that climate skeptics say they are completely uncorrelated. The paper did a fine job showing that they are highly correlated (although their data had CO2 lagging changes in temperature). No where in the body of the paper did they discuss mechanisms or causation. However, in the conclusion of the paper they added a single sentence "Therefore CO2 must be the driving factor behind climate change". Regardless of the truth of this statement, it was not supported or examined by this paper in any capacity. That is also the only sentence that was reported on by the media. This was the entirety of my interaction with this article that drove other students (and non-students) to harrass me and others at my university over my presence. No claims or opinions on whether it was true or not, or about climate science in general. SImply that from a basic scientific peer review basis, that sentence was not supported by that body of work.
Of course all scientists agree when you censor the ones who don't!
This is so real, ideologizing is the death of science, and I say that as an admitted radical leftist ideologue myself. When it comes to all matters of empirical reality, scientific rigor, the integrity of all investigative methods, and the authority of the data should always come before any ideology or values judgments. The right rightfully gets a lot of flack for it, but the liberals, the left, and everyone else does their fair share of it too, and its so much more corrosive than people tend to give it credit for.
The antibody response to questions and criticism is the sure sign of obfuscated truth. Any time that science cannot permit debate it is because of financial interest.
Alarmist climate studies treat the output of the Sun as a steady constant. Anybody with even a middle school understanding of science knows this cannot be.
All the worse when folks like Sabine get railed for actually pointing out that the climate is getting worse faster than they estimate!
The fundamental problem with climate science is that it is much harder to work on compared to other sciences where you can have sterilised isolated experimental conditions of a system that often fits in a test tube. This just makes them excessively defensive about their work.
I'm sorry that happened to you. It's a cult. 200 yrs of analysis Vs the 4.6 billion years of variation. Anyone with an aversion to sunlight is not to be trusted.
I work with financial models and we see extreme confirmation bias, of the sort that ends in financial crises like the 2008 housing crash. I just assumed it was greed, and that “real science” didn’t suffer from this kind of problem. Sounds like I was totally wrong.
Climate science is soft science, not hard science.
I don’t think extreme confirmation bias was the main cause of 2008. I think it was the biggest human failing, namely greed.
Actually those were copula based models in the mbs products. It was still the bad incentives from the lenders which caused subprime lending. The model wasn’t the source of the disaster.
Very different from climate models in some ways but the human factor remains similar
I have a degree in stats, the majority of people in my statistics course were idiots. 80-90% of my university were idiots. People who actually take the scientific method seriously and search for truth regardless of the consequences? Maybe 1-2% of scientists. Most people are out for themselves. They are not out for science or the human race it takes a special kind
Maybe you were not wrong. Maybe it's just confirmation bias again
As they used to say on Wall Street in the '80s, if you squeeze the numbers hard enough you can make them scream anything.
I've heard a similar quote regarding literary interpretation: "Words are like witnesses. If you lean on them too hard, they will yield false testimony."
So I was Looking at the specific gravity of the gases in the atmosphere. From lightest to heaviest of the 5 most common gases.
Nitrogen>Oxygen>Water Vapor>Carbon Dioxide>Argon.
Water vapor?=Clouds. I wonder if those have any influence on surface temperature? Also does latent heat from the H2O have any effects?
Then there is increasing CO2 from 0.03 to 0.04%. What happens if you do that in a greenhouse? Oh I know if that did not work. Then CO2 generations would not be used to increase plant growth.
Plant growth? As in trees? Do tree trees draw water from below the ground? What happens when water evaporates?
Why is Barstow 115F in the summer and Chattanooga is generally 90-95F in summer(July)?
Oh also why is Barstow in the 30-40F range at night? Just before dawn in July? I did not spend much time in Barstow. I did spend time Ft Irwin. In a tent. If I was lucky to have a tent.
Also spent time in Pensacola. Year round. Also been close to the International date line around 0 degrees latitude. More than once.
Actually quite pleasant 80-82F in the afternoon. Almost the same temperature at night. I wonder why? Also why is the Persian Gulf 96-98F in July? just askin?
I gots numbers? Just do not have answers that go along with my engineering studies.
Did somebody repeal the laws of physics and chemistry? While I was busy, away from,+ out of touch with commercial radio and TV??
I guess the only answer is 'One person's Meade is another person's Poisson'. Also it is transforming. I also remember something about lies and statistics
There’s a plaque on the wall of a conference room where I work:
“If you torture numbers long enough, they will confess to anything.”
I always knew this as "if you torture the data enough, it will confess to any crime"
why would anybody trust what wall street says?
Love him or hate him, Balaji Srinivasan's belief that source data and the code used to analyze the data for papers should be published with paper would do a lot to combat the replication crisis. Researchers also need to be better rewarded for confirming or disproving previous claims as the pressure to publish is actually a pressure to publish novel claims.
They won’t do this because it would expose them all as frauds, destroy their narrative, and their funding would dry up.
the way modern Science, is funded, published and used is deeply. deeply flawed, and the cracks are showing.
Without the "source data and the code used" it is not science. Let alone settled.
@@msimon6808 You are wrong. Bill Nye says it is settled science. And he is the science guy.
@@chingron Fauci might might disagree.
As a mathematician, I know very little about climate science. But your explanation about the utility of models and confirmation bias in academia are spot on! Keep it up Sabine.
@markholtdorf56 Also, why would scientific research depart from the adopted political model in the West?
The best thing about this century thus far has been how much the vastness of humanity has proven how easily propagandized, manipulated, and controlled we've been.
It's funny how both sides of the argument are saying the same thing (thinking exclusively about their opposition ofc).
Matias Desmet - mass-formation Psychosis. Look him up...
COVID: there were "one way" signs on the floor of the supermarket. Millions of people wearing dirty face masks. Governments shutting down small businesses but allowing mega companies to continue. Funerals, church services, and public gatherings were illegal. However, BLM and ANTIFA riots were free speech.
@@vmasing1965that's always the case
@docwhammo no one implicitly or explicitly denied that, and the key point in OP line is the adverbs of intensity. Massification of media & information is far from what we've seen in most of human history, for the better and worse. And yes, because of the hyperconnection of last decades and political-economic system of the past 2 centuries we live in, propaganda and manipulation as well as the self-acknowledgment probably is at the top of the charts in the history of humanity
I minored in statistics in three separate academic disciplines and worked in study design, data collection, statistical analysis, and predictive modeling for 15+ years. Confirmation bias starts before you collect data, even before asking the question. Bias starts in the very perception of the senses, language use, and meanings assigned to experience. Imagine I want to study how a forest works, but I am a deer. Someone else wants to study the same forest, but he is an owl, and so forth...Too many scientists are stuck in their narrow fields and have no training in experimental psychology, psycholinguistics, or human perception.
The deer will see that the deer population is booming, the berries are doing better than last year and the brush is extra thick!
The Owl will see that theres more field mice in the newly developed farmland nearby, the trees have thicker foliage than usual, and the voles taste more poison-y than before.
Neither recognizes human encroachment, loss of habitats outside of their personal territories, or fertilizer runoff from the fields overloading the forest with nutrients.
People see what effects them in the way it effects them, not the bigger picture or the finer causes behind things, even highly specialized scientists...especially the highly specialized...
Interdiscliplinarity should be required for academia, too many people only know about their field and are ignorant to other factors.
@@LordDucarius Technically a "Doctor of Philosophy" should be a lover of all knowledge, not just a Master of a single subject. But academia has been captured by a rat racing middle class that cares about status and comfort and not about knowledge. Hence the climate change situation where no amount of past wrong predictions can teach them humility (i.e. stop trying to control people based on incompetent predictions). Because they don't care about the truth, only about their social status.
@luxdevoid, as a non-scientist, but loving inventing, I have always screamed that! This side of confirmation bias is also an much bigger problem to the whole of scientific approach than many would think.
"Whose bias do y'all seek? -Plato" -Jay Z
This problem of statistical models producing an undesired result, then being ran again and again with slight variations until the desired outcome is achieved can’t be understated. I was a data analyst for an energy evaluator. All the evaluators were doing that. We worked together on many highly paid projects. The outcome was more important than ethics every single time. I left the industry. But over the last several years, I’ve realized that this problem has permeated everything. I shoulda stayed. I liked the work.
We live in a world where ethics, principles and morality are made difficult to maintain.
I saw data analysis act unethical so I assume climate scientists are too.
This is a dumbest argument.
@@jaysanguinetti368 Try watching the video. I’ll make more sense once you’ve grasped the subject. I’m also not arguing with anyone. Take emotion out of your critical thinking.
Alternatively, you could blow the whistle. As was done with Boeing and Volkswagen.
@@adamgreenspan4988 Hey, isn’t it crazy that the whistleblower for Boeing is dead now? One day after that testimony. Good luck with that, and please don’t advise people in these arenas without a solid grasp of reality.
I've seen similar tactics working for a local government where traffic models were designed to produce the results desired to justify grant requests, I call it the tail wagging the dog syndrome.
As a (retired) systematic reviewer, I can tell you that reviewers commonly select sub-groups of the evidence base to include in their synthesis, based on essentially subjective criteria. In plain English that means 'I don't like these papers (for some reason or other I won't go into), so they don't count.' It's called selection bias and it's rampant. So more power to you Sabine for selecting a very plausible sub-group (worst-case scenario).
Sabine wouldn't be exhibiting some of those biases herself would she? Maybe she should really listen to the thousands of climate scientists who disagree with climate change hysteria.
Sabine has selection bias as well.
@@jimbo7577 Even NASA has said increased CO2 is Greening the earth. Funny how that is never in headlines.
@@jitteryjet7525 Every human uses confirmation bias, steered by their deeply-held beliefs. This includes people like me who make every effort to use logic, reason and evidence to ensure that we do not cloud our logical judgment with the emotional pollution of confirmation bias.
With that said, ice cores reveal that 1600 years ago the average earth temperature was 2 degrees higher (remember Romans wearing togas?). In addition, maps created from maps created prior to year 1500 show all the minute details of Antarctica's mountain peaks, which are currently covered by ice, in perfect detail, represented with no snow or ice on them.
Also, the "catastrophic" increase in Co2 since 1860 is something in the range of an increase from 320 parts per MILLION to 420 parts per million. Terrifying, eh?
@igilante It is true that the earth is greening and that ice flows are melting and that sea level has risen 6 inches over 200 years.
But do you know that the _evidence_ of the asserted cause is as clear as NASA states? Or are you just parroting the programming you have chosen to accept from various government and media mouthpieces?
Did anyone consider sun cycles and the effect on changing global temperatures....?
Nope. Confirmation bias, driven by a researchers deeply-held beliefs, disqualifies any other cause besides CO2 instantly. And that is crazy, because we have the ice cores that can be analyzed to consider this data.
Making us feel guilty about our personal carbon footprint has two results:
Result #1: We take all our attention off the big coal-burning and fossil-fuel-burning industries who are actually ruining the planet, and instead focus on our responsibility. Meanwhile Bill Gates etc. flies around the world on his Business jet (which is a 70 seat regional jet airliner) burning TONS of fuel and depositing the emissions into the upper atmosphere to go around the world to tell everyone to worry about their carbon footprint.
Result #2: Tracking out carbon footprint is an extremely convenient way to grant the government complete and total access to all aspects of our personal lives, from how we consume electricity to heat our house to where, when and how we travel and, perhaps, how we earn and spend our money.
Look through human history.... blind histrionic devotion to belief-based ideologies that make the unbelievers into members of the "bad" tribe never ends well.
I've heard a similar phenomenon happened with the charge of the electron. Millikan got it a little high, and later scientists didn't want to get a "wrong" answer.
Yeah, that was the standard example of assuming you'd agree with the big kahuna I learned in school as well.
@@retiredbore378I remember, when I was a child Pluto was estimated by some astronomers to the tenfold mass of earth.😂The best we can hope is that with the "hot models" happens the same. Surely Sabine is right, to take them seriously.
Dude, climate scientists are the most mediocre in physics. I can't believe they are the ones leading changes in policy. Nobody wanted to go into that specialties except dimwits, that is why they are so terrible at this. There, I said it
@@retiredbore378I still remember my 1st grade science book showing Mercury as the smallest of the 9 planets, smaller than Pluto.
This happened with the speed of light too.
It's almost like people being super invested in certain outcomes is counterproductive to doing objective science.
Science is the agenda-less, unbiased pursuit of truth and understanding.
Scientists instead are the pursuit of funding and accreditation.
which perfectly explains "polls"
In this case, the certain outcome that GHG is being underestimated.
"Typical behaviour associated with system accidents includes:
1) initial incomprehension about what was failing;
2) failures are hidden or masked;
3) concentrate on the minimum necessary explanation, and discount the worst case as being impossible;
4) business as usual if at all possible;
5) mistrust of measurements;
6) overconfidence in the function or later appearance of any safety device;
7) any ambiguous information is interpreted so as to confirm the minimum necessary explanation;
8) time constraints in the propagation of the problem and the availability of vital consumables consumables;
9) doing things in response that cannot be undone."
Charles Perrow, _Normal Accidents_
I wish more people knew about Perrow's work, and that of Per Bak. I think that there would be a little bit less conspiratorial thinking if people were aware of the actual mechanisms of disasters
They apply to many other aspects of life aswell
terrible title. this cant sell.
forging ahead into oblivion in 9 easy steps for dummies by chuckie perrow could do it.
Keeping the profitable status quo "business as usual" and throwing doubt onto decades of climate data and research? Sounds familiar.
I Am Worried about the main point of this video being used as "proof" by some wackjob that Climate Scientists were All Wrong All Along. Not that I think that's what this channel is trying to say, just a concern after all.
@@Autonym it's more the fact that certain climate scientists claim they have it all figured out, and anyone who disagrees with them is bad for doing so. then when it turns out the climate scientists *didn't* have it all figured out, they move on to the newer idea and go back to claiming anyone who criticizes them as being anti-science (or whatever pejorative is expedient).
then when it turns out that *once again* they didn't have it all figured out, they switch to the new model again and go right back to accusing everyone who disagrees with them as doing so pathologically.
they want to have their cake and eat it too, by framing themselves as *always* being correct, even when they aren't, and being immune from all criticism because of this. when you notice this pattern you recognize someone not arguing in good faith. when there's an entire collective of people not arguing in good faith, expect serious systemic breakdowns on the horizon.
I have been so used to the way particle physics works nowadays with data blinding, that I was surprised to learn this isn't a more widespread methodology, and in particular not done in climate science. Thanks for informing me
There is no such thing as "climate science" it is BS.
Congrats for finding out that many climate scientists are not doing science, but are in the fantasy story telling business.
Now Sabine just needs to overcome her cognitive dissonance and recognize that these fantasy stories got nothing to do with reality. Real science looks at history and finds out that the correlation of CO2 and temperatures is low, that CO2 follows temperatures at best and that even if there was strong global warming (on the order of +6K), this would make the world no warmer than it was during homo sapients' existence before and would net benefit us.
It is not so surprising. How would they control the outcome if they used data blinding? The agenda is more important than the truth.
@@arpadkovacs2116
Explain what agenda you're talking about
@@stooge_mobile Can't, another answer censored away.
Everyone needs to take a Statistics course. Then you’ll realize how incredibly easy it is to play with “results!”
"There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics." Mark Twain
No course needed…
It’s easy to see that statistics can be made to say whatever you want to say.
4 out of 5 statisticians agree with me always.
Two thirds of all viewpoints are proven by statistics.
73% of statistics are made up out of thin air, on the spot, for the purpose of winning an argument.
9 in 10 people can not dispute any of my points.
😁
except 101 statistics is very basic, has to cover to much ground and don't spend enough time with the pitfalls of statistical bias or the practical aspects of how to build good statistical studies. Plus, unless you are doing research, you won't be using and putting it to practice a lot.
I think this should be covered under a scientific method course. Or a course on applied statistics or something.
And how easy it is to spot bullcrap. LOL Highly recommended
You can say that again!
There should be no topic or issue affecting humanity that is too sacred for free and open discussion. The scientific method and peer review process must be protected and encouraged to thrive.
noooooo just give politicians more money and power and quit asking questions. or are you a CLIMATE DENIER?
"Don't be so naive." He said cheekily.
@@phoenixfire8226 Some of us are old enough to remember when science and the experts were warning us that we were entering a "new ice age".
I don't deny climate. I also don't deny that climate fearmongering has been a Trillion dollar money pit that has made some people very wealthy.
Always follow the money.
@@stevelux9854 right right i remember those programs from the 70s, though you are right to note they are slightly before my time as an 80s child
Even peer reviewed studies are influenced by money, corruption.
I work in academia, I often have to correct IEEE scientific papers, and Sabine, you should know as well as I do that easily 50% of "peer-reviewed" scientific papers are full of crap. All too often conference papers are used as REAL science, when conferences are just you wash my back, I'll wash yours merry go round publishing schemes. On professor allows some sketchy paper to be published knowing that his own student's paper will be sent to be accepted. The whole of academia is one hand washes the other hand environment.
That doesn't mean that ALL papers or journals are bad, but, just because someone waves a "peer-reviewed" paper in front of me, I just laugh at them and ask if it quotes Wikipedia in it somewhere cause that's a telltale sign that it's crap. 😆
What field you work on? I've never once in my life seen a paper reference wikipedia. That's extremely odd to me.
Thanks for sharing that. That is my understanding as well. Especially when the research is funded by politics or industry, and in the case of climate science, it's both. The UN is funding the vast majority of the research with an obvious political agenda and more than a dozen scientists they've employed over the years have quit in disgust and called them a giant fraud (and the numerous times they've been busted lying and committing outright scientific fraud would seem to support those whistle blower scientist's claims).
@@Zartymil I work in Electrical engineering, which is why I mentioned IEEE, and the reason you don't often see Wikipedia in journals is because most correctors like me will just give an instant fail or re-write if they see it. Most University professors know it by now, but they do slip in from time to time.
Usually when I see a Wiki reference it will be when the person is referencing some general knowledge fact, and instead of pointing to a well-read academic reference book used in many classes, they'll point to a wiki page because it's just easier.
@@ZartymilI saw a Master's thesis a few years back in which EVERY reference was to Wikipedia. The field: cryptography.
Sabine's point is, I believe, that doesn't really matter if the number is high or not but that we shouldn't dismiss the data because if it's right and we act as if it is that will also reflect in the climate policies, if they don't turn out to be correct at least we fixed the problem and in case we didn't act as if these numbers are correct we will underestimate the problem and if they turn out to be correct then we are doomed. So, long story short - we don't want to wait and find out the hard way let's just act as if the climate sensitivity index was correct to evade a possibly upcoming disaster.
You are exactly right. I am a retired scientist (chemistry) and have seen this type of behavior throughout my career. It seems it is more important to generate papers than actually solving the problem or obtaining a true understanding. Scientist compete rather than collaborate.
Do I have this right Thomas? We know what the problem is. The solving the problem bit is about reducing greenhouse gases. The question is how much urgency is there to get to carbon neutral and persuading politicians and the general population of the urgency to act.
@@williamgerdtz6798 Carbon dioxide and water are the precursor molecules of life. Carbon neutrality is death and the urgency to attain it is a sick fetish.
@@williamgerdtz6798asking one random person on the Internet isn't going to get you a answer.
@@williamgerdtz6798
Is there any consensus that
CO2 level used to be 170 ppm ~ 300 ppm in Antarctica from 800,000 years ice cores ? And we surpassed 400 ppm some time ago ?
Time interval required for 35 ppm CO2 increase changed from
1000 years to
17 years ?
Do we roughly agree to the data ?
Is there any disagreement that Antarctic sea ice extent is declining year by year ?
When we look at above data, the claims that CO2 increase can be ignored, need a convincing theory and data.
When urgency is concerned, we should trade the cost against benefits.
When I look at drought and floods in the whole world, political urgency need to be recognized.
When the cost of CO2 reduction is concerned, we first need to discuss on the technical solutions. There are subjects such as Ammonia, Hydrogen, photoelectochemical water splitting, Thorium nuclear reactor, etc, which are not enough discussed. I personally do not think that the cost is high.
@@williamgerdtz6798 The answer to carbon neutral is up in the air as there is no term for what % is neutral.
All that matters is that you know that plant life starts to wilt under 180ppm(0.018%) and die off under 150ppm(0.015%), and for it to flourish at optimal you need 2000ppm(0.2%)
All the deposits of chalk, coal and gas in the world is part of the carbon cycle once part of the atmosphere.
Life on the planet almost ended when the coal deposits in now eastern Russia was ignited by volcanic activity spewing out enormous amounts of both carbon dioxide and Sulphur dioxide turning the worlds oceans dangerously acidic.
The first algae that evolved to strip the oxygen from oxides almost ended the planet as high oxygen is cooling, and it striped the oceans of all available oxides like rust etc. resulting in the first snowball earth. Today this algae can bee seen from space when it blooms around rivers in springtime as it lives mostly of oxides in the silt in regions where ice crushes rock or the melting washes it out into the ocean.
Science as a whole is suffering from this kind of "rumination bias". And we have gone from data crunchers to storytellers that look for data to craft a narrative.
I tend to think data crunching is just the other side of that bad coin. Imagination and ingenuity used to rule the sciences. Physics, for example, is now dominated by mathematicians who hold to their paper theories above experiment.
I don't think you have any authority to judge "science as a whole". I get thats your impression, but generalized statements like yours are wrong and also not constructive at all. Our application of scientific methods are as diverse as anything we do. You can't put a state funded microbiology institute which focusses on basic research in Germany in the same pot as a institute finaced by a US company doing "social studies".
@nostalji75 I think I have as much authority as anyone to give my observations. When speaking about an issue that I've observed in many groups from bio chem to neuro to psych to soc, it would seem to me a general statement is all that could be made. I think it's very constructive to point it out. I think there are too many ideological, arrogant, ego driven, 20 somethings who didn't take philosophy of science. There are certain methods that should be consistent but more than that there should be a consistent underlying philosophy of reporting data that isn't narrative driven. All the "this could indicate..." "this may suggest..." And if you disagree, you're part of the problem.
@@Houston810 So you don't see how speaking from personal experience and narrating it in general absolutes is misleading? Especially if you don't mark it as such?
"All the "this could indicate..." "this may suggest..." "
You are literally doing the same. Having some negative personal experience and deducing general conclusions based on lacky data.
"And if you disagree, you're part of the problem."
Are you trying to run for president? What bs rhetoric is that?
I do see the validity in your concerns. My critique is you generalize to much. And some of your rhetoric is just polarizing.
The bias does not come from thinking bias but from financial bias. The reason for the terrifying expectations is the project funding. The more important the research sounds, the more money they expect to get
Sabine please make a video like this for Archaeologists... I actually heard one of them say, "I'm the gatekeeper to what is acceptable archaeological evidence and theory.. I very rudely informed her that reality doesn't work that way. Reality is what it is and YOU have to accept it. You do it in such a polite and reasoned way. They really need to hear from you.
Just curious about what alternative archeological theory you were supporting? There are a lot of really, really bad ones about ancient lost advanced civilizations out there whose ‘evidence’ has been thoroughly engage with and debunked, but which keep getting brought up.
I'm amused by archaeologists' obsession with religion. Find a curiously big building, a dead body buried with flowers or gifts, or some other artefact whose secular explanation is not immediately evident - bingo, it's religion! (Because they want to push the date further back, and be the one to find it.)
@@ecta9604 And there are some alternative archeological studies that are not heavily supported OR debunked.
Sabine, you are a thorn in everyone's side. Thanks, and please keep making videos.
the climate science has been a load of BS anyway. sadly cherry picking data and playing games with stats are the norm. and it undermines everything when people see the absolute BS. modern science is a religion.
haha i love her shes great shes the real judge judy of science
@@brianhillier7052 That's an insult to Sabine. Judy tells people they're wrong on nothing but a hunch. Sabine explains where their logic went wrong.
Why isn't anyone talking about water/hydrogen motors with electrólisis. Do you guys really care about climate change? You can do it your self while doing something for the planet and saving a lot of money!!! Let's stop talking and let's start doing things, it works, and as I said, you can do it yourself, Why don't we???!!! Is easy, here are the instructions: ua-cam.com/video/Mr_rjQMqrEw/v-deo.html
Sabine and Tony Heller would make a great debate.
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”
― Charles MacKay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
As the song in Mary Poppins says: "Although we adore men individually,
we agree that as a group,
they're ra-ther stu-pid."
Groups make people lost.
It is so difficult to walk the line between: "science is the best method we have for understanding the world" and "science is carried out by human beings, and so it will always have flaws caused by selection bias, confirmation bias, perverse incentives and corruption". (Edit: in the light of the replies, I should also have added "inertia" and "social fashion" to the list of flaws. Also by "we have" I mean "we have found" - perhaps one day we will find a better method.)
Good point!
@@johnmartinsen963 Science is the best method. The problem is that most 'scientists' don't use that method.
@@jasont2986 All the smartest "scientists" I know were working on weather manipulation and modification. Funny that none of the climate alarmists ever talk about all the experiments in weather control gone wrong.
@@jasont2986 "Science is the best method."
Not good enough.
"The problem is that most 'scientists' don't use that method."
The problem is that science is a part of human society which has its own rules.
Read Kuhn's "the structure of scientific revolutions". Scientists not following rigorously the scientific method is how science works in reality...
Science is the best method for understanding the world, as opposed to Tarot cards, casting lots, asking the pigeons, sacrificing a goat and interpreting the entrails, checking the bumps on your skull, and looking at today's horoscope.
Exactly. The funding is given for a specific result not science.
Care to back up that comment?
@@icevariable9600this video just gave you the changing of data points. Find the rest yourself!
@@violent_bebop9687 Nah. I’m not the one making radical claims. It’s up the ones making claims to prove their point. Otherwise they’re full of sh!t.
@@icevariable9600the person making the claim is responding directly to the evidence shown in this video? Have you even watched the video? Or are you one of the fanatics lol?
@@TGravy-wp4rc I’m people who are responding to me with ridiculous claims. A lot of anti-climate, flat earth earthers make statements they are unable and unwilling to support because they’re intellectually lazy. And wrong.
Me: patient advocate with 30 years of experience in clinical research. I appreciate that you have pushed back and that you are engaging more often in climate science as an advocate for all of us. Hopefully the climate science community will respond in depth. We all benefit from the conversation. Time is of the essence.
Individual people know that we all benefit from the conversation but this is now more about the money and power. Where is that self-correcting mechanism? But the fragility lies in the potential for significant disruption when expectations aren't met, rather than in the absence of any self-correcting mechanism(s).
Just beware that story of the sparrows that were eradicated for eating crops, then insects caused a famine that killed millions..
Boogieman Savior David Keith and Associates are going to save you. Don't worry.
The individual, regular ass citizen can’t do shit about climate other than stop patronizing the corporations that actually damage the earth. Also, then you have Asia, particularly China. I won’t be browbeaten about something I am not doing wrong and something that very well might be a bullshit premise in the first place. These multi-millionaires sure seem confident enough to buy beach side properties.
Why isn't anyone talking about water/hydrogen motors with electrólisis. Do you guys really care about climate change? You can do it your self while doing something for the planet and saving a lot of money!!! Let's stop talking and let's start doing things, it works, and as I said, you can do it yourself, Why don't we???!!! Is easy, here are the instructions: ua-cam.com/video/Mr_rjQMqrEw/v-deo.html
I built apparatus for psychology research in the 1980's...'publish or perish' dominated the field.
It seemed that many researchers were more concerned with the attractiveness of a subject.
If a News story about recovered memory was hot, suddenly 1/3 of the people in the department were trying to become memory experts...
The 'penalty' for not winning a popularity contest was to lose your funding...so people chased silly things.
When I attended college in the 1960s, faculty had absolute power over students. Then came drugs, student protests, and riots. Students took over and faculty melted into the woodwork, concentrating on "researching" over professing. Bring in a $Million or $Millions and a bunch of graduate students to do your research and teaching and concentrate on writing more papers and bringing in more $Millions.
Im not phd or student, but I just know from them that in France for example, when you do your PHD, you are not free to chose any subject, but the one that is "good" for your reference professor....
Imagine you had covid.
You don't know what caused covid. So you will not treat yourself with medication, preventative measures, therapy or whatever because you don't know what was the cause.
Change covid with climate change. We may never fully understand what causes. But even the biggest skeptics will change their tune when their backsides get burned in the next heatwave, which neither them or their parents+grandparents have no recollection on.
This is the parallel.
Not some 'public or perish' nonsense.
@@wes9627 you didn't have to mention the date to say you are a boomer... every fking generation will say the same stuff for thousands of years
Sturgeon's law applies to science also: 90% of anything is trash.
You're 100% right. I started watching your channel because I saw the same thing happen in my work in psychology, then in biology, then again when particle physics became my hobby. The best scientists break through eventually, but it takes a while.
Ideas seem to have an inertia of their own eh
what things did you see in psychology that you thought may of been a bit of group think? curious to know thanks
Curious about what you are referring to in psychology?
No the best ideas breakthrough it has nothing to do with the scientists or whether or not they are biased. If the ideas match reality they will survive every attempt at being disproved. I honestly can't believe how many people in these comments don't understand fundamental scientific method this is insane.
Why isn't anyone talking about water/hydrogen motors with electrólisis. Do you guys really care about climate change? You can do it your self while doing something for the planet and saving a lot of money!!! Let's stop talking and let's start doing things, it works, and as I said, you can do it yourself, Why don't we???!!! Is easy, here are the instructions: ua-cam.com/video/Mr_rjQMqrEw/v-deo.html
And with a title as inflammatory as that who could have guessed that the comments section is full of people just outright denying that CO2 has any impact on climate
Considering that climate figures and data have been seriously fudged and manipulated, there might well be exaggeration within this politicized community to the point there are those completely enmeshed in its grasp and barely aware of the falsities they are avidly supporting.
A greater interest in being right than getting it right is a pretty common human trait. You can apply it to almost every aspect of our lives and our civilization.
It's how our best wars get started.
yes, primitive societies, tribal and feudalistic. I am not talking about stone age people, i am talking about the so-called scientific community.
Because of that primitive social structure, most scientists are not doing science, but oganizing funding to keep their chair warm
There should be a bonus for falsifying other people's science work.
@@monnoo8221the thing is, we haven't changed since then.
We're capable of building incentive structures to midigate it, but fundamentally, we're the same tribal hunter gatherers from 100 thousand years ago, and have all the same tendencies and biases and neurological hangups we've always had.
@@monty58thank you! So right!
Why isn't anyone talking about water/hydrogen motors with electrólisis. Do you guys really care about climate change? You can do it your self while doing something for the planet and saving a lot of money!!! Let's stop talking and let's start doing things, it works, and as I said, you can do it yourself, Why don't we???!!! Is easy, here are the instructions: ua-cam.com/video/Mr_rjQMqrEw/v-deo.html
I must say, that when we find a deviating result, we, in first instance are happy, then it means that we may be onto something new!! On the other hand, confirming existing results is also attractive 😂
So it's all good. See ! I always said this Global Warmage is a win win win.
My trust in in climate science is evaporating faster than a puddle on a hot sidewalk in mid-July. It's like economists playing darts blindfolded to predict inflation - hit or miss, but mostly miss. But lineage always hit the bank account.
So, is climate science also chasing after their lineage?
@@hotbit7327 Climate , or better the complete Ocean-Earth System is exceedingly complex. No single scientist can comprehend all aspects, it is such a vast complex ever changing system. We know it gets warmer and more violent, and we observe that it happens faster than we thought.
@@hotbit7327 We're not reading thermometers blindfolded.
@@carlbrenninkmeijer8925Sabine makes a good point here, but she, like most physicists, engineers, ect. don't seem to 'get' complex systems.
Sadly, she keeps handing fodder to folks who just think that folks working on fundamentally complex things aren't doing "real science" or worse. Which isn't what she's saying of course. It is frustrating
Do you think you could start doing citations? I know you show article names but I am really curious to see how these models work and the specifics of what they are dissagreeing on and putting some links in the description would make that a lot easier.
Why isn't anyone talking about water/hydrogen motors with electrólisis. Do you guys really care about climate change? You can do it your self while doing something for the planet and saving a lot of money!!! Let's stop talking and let's start doing things, it works, and as I said, you can do it yourself, Why don't we???!!! Is easy, here are the instructions: ua-cam.com/video/Mr_rjQMqrEw/v-deo.html
I think the Patreon link has them (along with a transcript of each episode), I don't use Patreon but it seems free members get access, not just paid tiers.
I like the way Dr. Becky cites papers in her videos.
She cited Zeke Hausfather who is a lead climate guy for Stripe... look up CIMP6 and ESMValTool if you want to see the actual models, I had to close all my tabs after I realized how disingenuous this whole video is. Science is a gradual process but there's no indication the hot models are wrong and they are working hard to figure out the discrepancy. In the end I predict the AI based models are more accurate. Not like we were ever going to do crap about AGW. Been arguing with denialists for almost 30 years sigh.
The science is settled. There is only one model. Model(s) implies the science is not settled. Are we being lied to?
The wikipedia "state approved" banner on this video proves you are on the right track.
It was invented to fight the “conspiracy folk”, so this proves they were on the right track. Or something
You do realize she's arguing that things could actually be a lot worse than currently projected, right?... Right?!
@@gnaeiuoplor much better... So what? This doesn't change the fact that there's a manipulative stamp by UA-cam on her video
@@patricksoares6253 does information hurt you're feewings? Grow up.
@@gnaeiuopl yeah, great. Another enlightened one. It seems you can't read into a simple sentence. Bad for you.
The most striking thing I learned in college physics and chemistry courses, was that the error bars were always too small - they rarely were large enough to cover the errors that most students produced, as compared with the expected results. There was no way to know everything that you could have done inaccurately, much less by how much. I suspect that whenever I got "good" results, it was mainly because I made at least two large errors that just happened to cancel each other out.
What bothers me is when NOAA decided to manipulate historical temperature records and try to pass them off onto the public instead of using error bars.
In Hansen et al 1999 he said "The United States temperature increased by almost 1C between the 1880s and 1930s, but it then fell by about 0.7C between 1930s and 1970, and regained only about 0.3C between 1970 and the 1990s. The year 1998 was the warmest year of recent decades in the United States, but in general United States temperatures have not recovered even to the level that existed in the 1930s." Yet try to find that 30 year fall in temperatures today. You won't see the decline from 1940 to 1970, and suddenly 1998 is higher than the 1930s.
In medicine x10!
People are overconfident a lot of the time, and don't allow for all the things that can throw something off. Remember a training task at work where we were asked to give a 90% confidence interval for ten values (think things like "number of Facebook users in 2010"). I got 9 out of ten of the values in the ranges I gave which is over performing if you ask me, I think the closest colleagues got 3 out of 10. I realised I may be useful not because I know more, but that I have a more realistic view of what I don't know.
That said being a realist is overrated; we are all going to die.
That's really dubious science
Damn right. And climate ‘science’ seems to run its own version of statistics: hugely variable parameters, myriad measurement methodologies changing over time, and yet the end result has these tiny error bars showing great precision.
This is an example of group think and one of the factors that led to the space shuttle challenger disasters. A few engineers warned about the O rings performance in subzero temperatures, but they were largely ignored because others were dismissive of the problem and most people didn’t want to rock the boat. In addition, there was this attitude that we’ve done this so many times before, which is a logical fallacy since the condition of every launch is unique and previous success is not relevant. You still have to go through your check list.
In all human enterprises, there are social pressures that can cloud judgment. Science puts more emphasis on objectivity and vetting than most industries, but still isn’t immune to extraneous pressures.
This is because we're consistently conflating the scientific endeavor with the scientific establishment. The scientific establishment isn't immune to extraneous pressures, it is directly financed and established as an expression of this pressure.
Clevis and tang solid fuel booster stacks defaulted because California manufacture was too long to fit through curved train tunnels. Seals were calked with thermally ceramicizing Randolph type two putty (zinc chromate/asbestos filler). Viton is leather not rubber. "Recovered, recycled" booster segments were whacked out of round by ocean impact. The entire process cost more than casting and machining new ones. Randolph putty was replaced by a "safe" ecological equivalent. Thereafter, Viton O-rings were routinely recovered with char marks.
Sabine refuses to reply to any comments that are in opposition to her views or a Q&A video where she will answer 150-200 questions from commenters or hold a live stream to answer viewer and commenter questions.
Richard Feynman went on national TV and showed that an O Ring would crack in a glass of ice water. But management and tunnel vision engineers didn't want to hear it.
@@milanstevic8424
Not sure how you can disentangle these when conceivably one can’t exist without the other. But overall, I’d say science is still quite productive considering how much it has already achieved and how much that is accelerating. Pseudo science might be able to get away with deceiving people, but if it doesn’t deliver on its promise, it will fail inevitably. Where it seems to exist in abundance is in the promotion of health and weight loss miracles. There are so many BS products claiming to be miracle cures in search of a fast buck and not much in the way of consequences for false claims. And they always try to pretend the billion dollar weight loss industry is trying to take down this ad! This is a routine feature of these modern equivalents of the medicine wagons going from town to town selling miracle cures that were mostly opium and alcohol.
The scientific establishment, for all its flaws, is self correcting. The loss of the Challenger did lead to a full scale investigation by NASA and improvements in their culture.
There is nothing more scary, than a person in power refusing valid concerns of others.
It's only 3.6 roentgen, right?
Not a joke. Look…. well anyway. 🍦
@@blinking_dodo yes, it is concerning that Sabine refuses to reply to any comments that are in opposition to her views or a Q&A video where she will answer 150-200 questions from commenters or hold a live stream to answer viewer and commenter questions.
Does CSJ ideology being so spread in academia not severely concern you regarding the future of academic rigor and integrity?@@mortgageapprovals8933
@@mortgageapprovals8933 Maybe she has better ways to spend her time than to reply to thousands of comments?
And that is something completely different than what my reaction was about.
A perfect example of using experience in your own field to understand what's going on in another! Well done Sabine!
Thank you for your intellectual honesty. I love your work.
I watched several of those "Climate Scientist Reacts to Sabine" videos and was left shaking my head. It's as if they couldn't recognize themselves in the mirror. They would restate with painstaking detail the same points that you had summarized, then conclude with an ad hominem dismissal. Sure, I'm biased, but it was really disturbing. Thanks for sticking to the facts and explaining exactly what about them (the facts, not the other scientists) is important.
A lot of people who call themselves Climate Scientists are from humanities/sociology backgrounds and that seems to be the way they are taught to argue. Its depressing.
Why isn't anyone talking about water/hydrogen motors with electrólisis. Do you guys really care about climate change? You can do it your self while doing something for the planet and saving a lot of money!!! Let's stop talking and let's start doing things, it works, and as I said, you can do it yourself, Why don't we???!!! Is easy, here are the instructions: ua-cam.com/video/Mr_rjQMqrEw/v-deo.html
@@bobtuiliga8691you can't call yourself a scientists without having at least an undergrad in a science or engineering discipline. but yes I've seen comms consultants who write books about climate comms issues being referred to as Climate Change experts by people who know next to nothing about climate change (but never as scientists). I'm not sure your idea is the right explanation. Take a legitimate and important climate scientist like Michael Mann, he uses all kinds of word games to defend his attacks on others as "doomers" a term with a really ugly history in history of the environmental movement. They learn it because it's effective in shutting down critics.
I saw a number of videos like that and your observations are spot on.
You know, I have to totally disagree with this BS. For one, the very article Sabine cites actually argued for the IPCC to throw out other models and adopt a meritocracy. The guy behind it, Zeke Hausfather, doesn't want CIMP6 to be considered at all. EXCEPT ESMValTool IS A MERITOCRACY. What Sabine is not considering here is that the hot models, which are based on AI modeling techniques, are probably more likely to be right than the older statistical models. Sabine is accusing others of confirmation bias when she is doing it here herself. None of what she says in her clickbait article takes into account the methods in the models. DeepMind released GraftCast just a few weeks ago and its accuracy is unparalleled. Instead of this whining that climate modelers won't be believed how about we lest the science stand? This is just adding fuel to the fire. Note: (Science, 30 July 2021, p. 474) is where they say the new models were contributing to the higher numbers in CIMP6. I tried desperately to find it but every time I rabbit hole about climate change it just infuriates me. Very disappointed in Sabine here.
Ross McKitrick and John Christy (2020), Earth and Space Science. "ALL model runs warmed faster than observations in the lower troposphere and midtroposphere, in the tropics, and globally. On average, and in most individual cases, the trend difference is significant." [Emphasis added.] Climate modelers must be prepared to state what evidence would at least POTENTIALLY falsify their models. If they are not prepared to do so, they are not doing science.
It started 1995. By 2012 the wind was a massive 30% (1 metre / second) stronger than pre-1995. I've not yet found post 2012 so I don't know whether the big 2015/16 El Nino was the end of the massive 17 to 20 year Trade Wind surge. ENSO is an utterly-vast feature of Earth's surface-air.
----------------
Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus
Nature Climate Change 4, 222-227 (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2106 Received 11 September 2013 Accepted 18 December 2013 Published online 09 February 2014 Corrected online 14 February 2014
Matthew H. England, Shayne McGregor, Paul Spence, Gerald A. Meehl, Axel Timmermann, Wenju Cai, Alex Sen Gupta, Michael J. McPhaden, Ariaan Purich & Agus Santoso Affiliations
"Here we show that a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades-unprecedented in observations/reanalysis data and not captured by climate models-is sufficient to account for the cooling of the tropical Pacific and a substantial slowdown in surface warming through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake."
----------------
Quote: "Atlantic warming turbocharges Pacific trade winds Date:August 3, 2014 Source:University of New South Wales. New research has found rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean, likely caused by global warming, has turbocharged Pacific Equatorial trade winds. Currently the winds are at a level never before seen on observed records, which extend back to the 1860s. The increase in these winds has caused eastern tropical Pacific cooling, amplified the Californian drought, accelerated sea level rise three times faster than the global average in the Western Pacific and has slowed the rise of global average surface temperatures since 2001. It may even be responsible for making El Nino events less common over the past decade due to its cooling impact on ocean surface temperatures in the eastern Pacific. "We were surprised to find the main cause of the Pacific climate trends of the past 20 years had its origin in the Atlantic Ocean," said co-lead author Dr Shayne McGregor from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science (ARCCSS) atthe University of New South Wales."
----------------
Quote: "The record-breaking increase in Pacific Equatorial trade winds over the past 20 years had, until now, baffled researchers. Originally, this trade wind intensification was considered to be a response to Pacific decadal variability. However, the strength of the winds was much more powerful than expected due to the changes in Pacific sea surface temperature. Another riddle was that previous research indicated that under global warming scenarios Pacific Equatorial Trade winds would slow down over the coming century. The solution was found in the rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean basin, which has created unexpected pressure differences between the Atlantic and Pacific. This has produced wind anomalies that have given Pacific Equatorial trade winds an additional big push. “The rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean created high pressure zones in the upper atmosphere over that basin and low pressure zones close to the surface of the ocean,” says Professor Axel Timmermann, co-lead and corresponding author from the University of Hawaii. “The rising air parcels, over the Atlantic eventually sink over the eastern tropical Pacific, thus creating higher surface pressure there. The enormous pressure see-saw with high pressure in the Pacific and low pressure in the Atlantic gave the Pacific trade winds an extra kick, amplifying their strength. It’s like giving a playground roundabout an extra push as it spins past.” Many climate models appear to have underestimated the magnitude of the coupling between the two ocean basins, which may explain why they struggled to produce the recent increase in Pacific Equatorial trade wind trends. While active, the stronger Equatorial trade winds have caused far greater overturning of ocean water in the West Pacific, pushing more atmospheric heat into the ocean, as shown by co-author and ARCCSS Chief Investigator Professor Matthew England earlier this year. This increased overturning appears to explain much of the recent slowdown in the rise of global average surface temperatures. Importantly, the researchers don’t expect the current pressure difference between the two ocean basins to last. When it does end, they expect to see some rapid changes, including a sudden acceleration of global average surface temperatures. “It will be difficult to predict when the Pacific cooling trend and its contribution to the global hiatus in surface temperatures will come to an end,” Professor England says."
----------------
The Tropical Atlantic Ocean surface has warmed and has increased the intensity of the Tropical Pacific Ocean trade winds by 50% in under 30 years because the atmospheric circulation is coupled between the Tropical Atlantic Ocean and the Tropical Pacific Ocean, but the Tropical Atlantic Ocean and the Tropical Pacific Ocean aren't coupled because there's land in the way
ENSO is a massive feature of Earth's climate and the GMST trends have been:
+0.13 degrees / decade: UAH lower troposphere 1979-2017
+0.17 degrees / decade: RSS lower troposphere 1979-2017
+0.165 degrees / decade: Surface La Nina & ENSO-neutral years 1970-2014 (me from GISTEMP)
+0.20 degrees / decade: Surface El Nino years 1966-1995 (me from GISTEMP)
+0.23 degrees / decade: Surface El Nino years 1995-2014 (me from GISTEMP, high uncertainty, sparse & varied data points)
+0.18 degrees / decade: Surface average 1966-2014 (GISTEMP)
+0.11 degrees / decade: Ocean surface 1966-2014 (GISTEMP)
+0.047 degrees / decade: Ocean 0-300M depth 1966-2010 89 / 432 = 0.206 (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, talk plots etc.)
+0.030 degrees / decade: Ocean 300-700M depth 1966-2010 76 / 576 = 0.132 (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, talk plots etc.)
+0.026 degrees / decade: Ocean 700-1000M depth 1966-2010 (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, talk plots etc.)
+0.15 degrees total increase: Ocean 0-1000M depth (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, Matthew England talk plots etc.)
----------------
+0.009 degrees / decade: Ocean 700-2000M depth 1966-2010 77 / 1872 = 0.0411 (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, talk plots etc.)
Note the +0.23 degrees / decade for El Nino years since 1995 and only +0.165 degrees / decade for La Nina & ENSO-neutral years. A big difference.
------
At 2014 just before 2015/16 very large El Nino Pacific trade winds (Easterlies) were (quote) "at a level never before seen on observed records, which extend back to the 1860s". This has been a huge global warming climate change and I don't know whether it has continued after 2015/16 El Nino or has calmed down now (scientists will no doubt tell us one day). ENSO appears to have "strengthened" since 1995 due to Pacific trade winds (Easterlies) having started increasing in average speed since 1995 and now 1 m/s faster than before 1995. This was the main cause of the "hiatus" or "pause" between 1997/98 huge El Nino and very large 2015/16 El Nino.
Also no mention of the significance of the use of SSP 8.5 (formerly RCP 8.5) here. That model parameter assumes a 20% increase in coal use globally in the 21st century, the so-called 'business as usual' forecast. There has in fact been a 30% decrease. The continued use of 8.5 is not only suspect, it is downright wrong as a reasonable forecast.
In talking with a climate zealot, I asked, "What would you accept as proof that CO2 induced global warming wasn't actually happening?"
Nothing. There was no proof that would make a difference.
If the actual climate (after 20 years) is below the lowest prediction, thinking that the highest prediction has validity seems, well, a bit silly.
@@geraldfrost4710predictions for air temperatures are lower than the models from the early naughts, but observations of ocean temperatures actually exceed many of the models. What happened was climate scientists had models for "business as usual" and we have reversed course as a society. Production and burning of coal, by far the highest impact fossil fuel, fell significantly from the figures used in the predictions, and while both natural gas and oil production is increasing, the growth of production is slowing, which again deviated from the figures used for the models.
However, even then, scientists underestimated the capacity of the ocean as a heat sink for the atmosphere. The rate of species decline in our oceans, marine environments, and reefs is beyond alarming.
Just this year, Florida recorded some of the highest ocean temperatures in history, leading to a mass die off of fish and is currently threatening the fragile and very unique sawfish populations, endemic only to these waters.
Climate science got corrupted the moment the IPCC was established in 1988. It wasn't established to determine IF there was a climate issue; it was established on the PREMISE of an existential anthropogenic climate crisis. In other words science was hijacked to be a propaganda tool for governments to gain power. And the scientific community played right along, because almost all its money comes from government. Finding a neutral climate scientist is like finding a neutral USSR Olympic judge.
On the issue of climate models, the competition is NOT to be the most accurate; the competition is who can produce the MOST ALARMING prediction. They are ALL GARBAGE. They can't even accurately model known historical climate changes.
The actual data show CLIMATE IS GETTING MILDER, NOT MORE EXTREME. Low temperatures are increasing, NOT high temperatures. But the data have to be ignored or changed, because they don't fit the narrative.
If you want to look at the CO2 greenhouse effect, the U of Chicago MODTRAN tool will tell you that LESS THAN ONE DEGREE of surface temperature increase will more than offset a doubling of CO2. But that doesn't fir the narrative, so it must be ignored.
And don't start screaming about increases in severe weather, because, again, the actual data show that's false.
None of the models assess "climate sensitivity" with regard to CO2 transitional mobility per relative unit. Yes we've increased it, but CO2 is still incredibly mobile. A layman gardener can even appreciate this when you grow and manage plants in your yard with respect to 1) growth and 2) cleanup . Keep in mind the terrestrial plant biomass is but a fraction of the volume of CO2 that regularly cycles between the atmosphere, oceans, plant/autotrophic biomass and its eventual sequestration to the substrate - which is actively ongoing. The long term record strongly suggests this active transiency completely mitigates CO2's properties as a GHG.
Eggggggxactly. Fun fact, CO2 is a piss poor GHG, oh but that gets zero mention.
@@jasongamer8649 you could almost say it gets "net" zero attention amirite?
What nobody ever says is that all the models leverage CO2 to kickstart runaway water vapor, which is a much better greenhouse gas.
Guess they have a harder time villainizing WATER than they do fuel emissions...
She said thst we must yo stop global warming.
Do we?
Please ell us why warming globally will be worse than average temperatures dropping down a little or staying constant forever.
Next thing should be if humans are able to stop global warming.
Finally should be to do a huge analysis of cost yo benefits ratios.
The whole thing look ridiculous to me because nobody has determined if the best average temperatures is the current one which seems to be 14.5C right now.
Would maybe 16 be better or maybe 13°C would be better for us and our descendants?
Why temperatures dropped 8 degrees during glacial periods and sea levels dropped more than 100m in the meantime?
Why 14.5 should be steady forever instead of jumping over 16 or under 13°C instead?
What's the desirable average temperature and why?
Too many unanswered questions to jump directly with an affirmation claiming that WE MUST STOP THE GLOBAL WARMING without not even a single unquestionably proof behind.
Unacceptable!
@@josemariatrueba4568 imagine asserting that climate ought NOT change, or that we can stop it FROM changing. Imagine thinking we could avert the next glaciation (the real climate crisis we have yet to face or even really acknowledge).
Glad you revisited this. I saw a video criticizing your last one and thought it was rubbish. I'm worried too.
I saw that video too. I didn't think it was rubbish but just that it is not convincing enough for me. My view is therefore still with Sabina and not that climate scientist.
@@samo4003which one? Just by curiosity
@@samo4003 agreed, that video was rubbishly unconvincing. Sabine’s points are very spot on
I also saw the video. I'm wondering if these climate scientist influencer/spokesperson types have been trained to give everyone a watered down hopeful version of what's likely to happen. I've heard debates on wether people will just give up if they think it's going to be too bad or too late to do anything. Personally I think telling people of this extreme possibility will push them out of their complacency, but its going to be messy wether we make radical societal change deleberately or we wait for it to be forced upon us. I see so much about what our future holds is being kept from us in the name of infinite economic growth at all costs.
Why isn't anyone talking about water/hydrogen motors with electrólisis. Do you guys really care about climate change? You can do it your self while doing something for the planet and saving a lot of money!!! Let's stop talking and let's start doing things, it works, and as I said, you can do it yourself, Why don't we???!!! Is easy, here are the instructions: ua-cam.com/video/Mr_rjQMqrEw/v-deo.html
Ethics and integrity are extremely necessary when interpreting data and displaying results. Sabine, thank you for reminding the scientific community of their responsibility to do the right thing
Now THIS is the classic Sabine we all came to know and love: "You're doing it *WRONG*, boys"!! (Checks notes and proceeds to explain how and why in exquisite detail.) Mad respect. ❤
The only one who brought boys vs girls in this discussion is you. Why did you do that?
I agree. The boys are doing the wrong thing wrong and she is showing us how to do the wrong thing right.
Good grief. Why are you so excited about a phrase !?!
@@noelward8047 because there are a lot of women working in climate science. Using such non-inclusive language such as "you boys" implies that women basically don't exist in this field. I will not stand for such mysogyny.
It is Difficult, near impossible, to get a person to understand the facts, if their salary depends upon them NOT understanding it. Upton Sinclair, I think.
Thatˋs a point I tried to make as a comment under one of Sabine‘s earlier videos where she said that the academic system puts a selective bias on topics by the way projects are financed these days (grants usually). This drives scientists to select specific topics - which are more likely to get a grant granted.
I asked: what might that mean for climate science? And got immediately attacked by cancel people. Even though I was just asking questions.😂
But Hausfather *didn't* just say "it doesn't matter", he pointed out that the hot model subset overestimates the warming that's already occurred since the beginning of the industrial period, and that they correlate poorly with paleoclimate proxies. If the models disagree with observed data, by overestimating the amount of warming, why would they not overestimate into the future?
They disagree with observed data because they underestimate the current rate of climate change. There is a switch of steepness in every societal - global - earth system sphere that's been changing at a certain rate for centuries. It is not a miscalculation, it is a lack of understanding.
Does anyone care about the data? In her most recent video, Sabine says it is all about funding. Now that is the statistics everyone understands
@@gdiwolverinemale4thshe is looking for clicks and money since they can't hack it as am actual scientist.
@@Mexicannasa It does not matter what you are. What Sabine describes is well known to everyone who has a clue about how academia and universities operate. I am not criticizing them for being money hungry. I am criticizing them for pretending they are above it
@@gdiwolverinemale4th it does matter. You wouldn't go to to a mechanic if you have a broken leg.
I remember reading an article in the mid 2000s that predicted this. The guy said climate researchers at every stage of the discipline are making conservative estimates and when you pack all of these estimates into a climate model the output is extremely conservative.
It doesn't really matter, because the reason for that is that they know "Just not polluting" is utterly utterly laughably UTTERLY delusional, and will never ever happen. So they don't want to know the severity of the answer, it will just make them feel bad and not help anything at all. You ONLY solve this by inventing ways to give people all their stuff they're used to, but in ways that don't pollute, like fusion power, etc. Not by telling people how much they need to live like medieval peasants to save themselves this fate. They don't care. THAT fate is worse to them. And I can't even claim they're wrong, necessarily. The fusion thing (as well as fake meat and so on) are all already incentivized by just profit anyway, so this is all kinda a waste of time as far as I see. The solutions would be worked on just as hard without any of it. Maybe even harder, since the people involved here would more so be working on the actual solutions instead.
Yes, but we now know the opposite happened. The problem with the models is even their "conservative" ones project hotter temperatures than are observed.
Worrying that the high values must be contended with when the actual science of observation demonstrates the opposite isn't good science and it makes for very bad policy.
@@gavinjenkins899 Disagree. I think we can reform our current practices while also developing new technology. People have the ability to compromise, and there's a large gap between the way we currently live and "medieval peasants".
@@willw5868 Yes, there's a large gap. A large, almost--exactly-what-would-be-needed-to-prevent-climate-change-sized gap. We would need to be polluting at pre-industrial levels to be sustainable, that is literally medieval (okay maybe renaissance, whatever)
@@gavinjenkins899 You missed the first part of what I said. We need to reduce our current levels of consumption AND develop new technology. Meeting in the middle. I agree that reduction cannot realistically meet the crisis. But waiting on a silver bullet like fusion energy alone isn't an adequate solution either, and may result in irrecoverable damage in the meantime.
A famous scientist, expert on models, said that the models are very useful when you want to understand the past, but are useless when used to predict future. He was Freeman Dyson
If they can't predict the future then they're invalid models of the past.
@@xpusostomos that's not true. Look for Freeman Dyson. Educate yourself!
@@andrearaspopi it is true... You can make a convoluted model of the solar system which assumes the earth is the centre, and comes up with right answers for the last 100 years, but it was never a correct model, it just happened to work for a limited time.
@@xpusostomos yet they can't predict the weather say for the next 5 days, but somehow now we can predict the future climate of the earth
@@xpusostomos Not necessarily.
The better analogy is for the ECS being 3 or 5. Are the riflemen coming to execute you walking or running?
Just wait until Sabine sees the confirmation bias and selection bias present in all the other scientific fields polluted by ideological, political, and financial interests.
Yeah, it's funny how people can literally make a living with their understanding of empirical data analysis, but then the most obvious hoaxes go right over their head.
It just proves that there isn't really a big point to universities any more. Intellectually inquisitive people can get almost all knowledge from the internet, without getting bullied into submission by shidlib professors.
I got a Master's Degree with a certificate for advanced data analysis, and literally all my teachers were double-boosted and completely on board with all the mainstream BS. Really threw a wrench in it.
@@helpIthinkmylegsaregoneyeah I too would say: if everyone just goes with their gut feeling, and we read tea leafs instead of doing science, we could save a lot of money. That’s just my conservative opinion though. 🤤
Exactly. Climate "science" has been a joke since the climategate emails broke years ago.
Covid?
She’s getting there.
Sabine: I met a couple who were touring Alaska who worked the LHC. I mentioned your name and they smiled and chuckled and described you as a “problem” to their view of particle physics yet still spoke endearingly of you! I would live to know the back story!
Hmm I would like to know more about why they said she was a problem...
@@InvertOtaku-os9lj Sabine stirred the pot, I think that was the jist of it. They seemed to show no animosity, just that she was a bit of a challenge to their train of thought and research.
@@InvertOtaku-os9lj Because she sees the Billions of USD/EUR/CHF poured into their hardware and work and observes the complete lack of results and worthless noise in academic papers they generate when there is a temporary anomaly that statistically dissipates. And so it's hard to ask for funding when people are wise to your scheme. She's not good for business.
@@leewilson1368 as all colleagues/rivals should do. If you are not willing to stir the put you are a sycophant and should change to a career in the arts
@@smallbluemachine 🤣probably true!
I wish more people were aware of the numbers involved in burning fossil fuels. If they knew that every unit of weight of fossil fuel produces approximately two and a half times its weight in carbon dioxide gas, they might be more concerned.
I can't help wonder if scientists are worried about credibility of they present different results than previously to politicians, who come at the notion of credibility from consistency, rather than evolving scientific data and models.
You used "politicians" and "credibility" in the same sentence.
You are a comedian! Well done!
Most definitely, and not just politicians but the general public as well. Sometimes science is messy, and mistakes are made, the models evolve, flaws are found and fixed, etc, and there is great pushback from the public when policy decisions are made on earlier conclusions, and then changed later. Any real scientist will always hedge their bets (citing error bars, incomplete models, new measurement methods etc) when asked for specifics, but as it filters it's way through politicians to guide public policy the conclusions become more black and white and people feel betrayed by changes to that guidance. They want simple black and white guidance, not nuance and uncertainty. A vast number of stupid policies are based on inertia, while the science has moved on. And if that policy happens to make money for some industry, it'll be all that much harder to change.
Don't forget- the IPCC releases their "recommendations" for government policy prior to releasing their science months later.
The scientists have a job to do, and that job is to make sure their science aligns with the politicians recommendations, so they can continue to receive funding.
@stratmat
If you actually read the comment you will see that it doesn’t suggest or give an opinion on the credibility or otherwise of politicians themselves.
@@rodneyfungus8249 I forget that sarcasm doesn't work in text.
In my house, the one reliable predictor if rain is coming are the black ants. For some reason, they are more active. Outside my bamboo plants are my long-term predictors.
I don't know what type of ants you are talking about, but where I live we have some large black ants that we call "carpenter" ants. Like termites, they will eat the wood your house is made of. You might want to get rid of those things.
@@brianmoore581 Maybe he doesn't have a wooden house...
@@mylesleggette7520 maybe. You still don't want ants crawling around on your children, your pets, your food. Maybe you, personally, do, but in general...maybe you eat them. Maybe you like having little friends that you can snack on walking around your house. Maybe your house isn't made of wood. Maybe cardboard? Or steel sheet metal? Or concrete blocks with no wood holding up the roof? Or maybe your house is a tent? Or maybe your house is made from dung and mud? Maybe, maybe, maybe!
I agree.
The black ants predict when the drought is over or when drought is coming.
They have been accurate over the last 30 years
@@brianmoore581 ants scavenging around your house doesn't mean they have a nest. They come in from outside through windows and stuff
Climate scientists, political activists, politicians, there are certain people that profit off of the fear of people. In politics, especially the media, everything needs to be polarizing, shocking, catastrophic. We are human and we are motivated by emotion. I would like a world where people would be critical, analytic, calm about politics. But it seems like this is where we are at right now. Overreaction against ignorance.
The governed are motivated/ruled by emotion. Those that govern are motivated by lust for power and the control over others, which they (to varying degrees) disguise as altruism, wisdom, and empathy.
Sadly, there aren't enough of those that are motivated by the desire to think, express themselves and behave as they choose for them to be a concern at this point. There are not enough of them to be a concern to the governments, and the rest of the non-thinking population simply don't care enough.
Not all politicians benefits from fear. Only the ones who need support for what they believe in without thought. There are many types of politicians if you care to look at them in details, not stopping at the loudest and most egregious. Your statement in itself is polarised and is doing the opposite of what you say you want
This sheep Sponsored by Exxon
@@joekonopka2363 You true believers are the sheep - as Marx called you and your ilk - the useful idiots who seem incapable of critical thinking.
Don't forget about online-video-scientists.
Amusing side note; i got a 'youtube context' 'warning box/banner' under the video which i found hillarious when i read why it was atteched to your video :) (ps. watching from Australia aproximately 1 month after release)
Those boxes are usually a way to identify good videos that tell truths.
Im so glad you are concentrating on this topic and educating people Sabine. We need more minds like yours.
Thank you so much for pointing this out. Different disciplines can and should advise one another, even more so when systemic errors are concerned. One scientific community having experience with similar issues can prove invaluable for another community regardless of their respective field of research.
Thanks for this video. I think you're right on with your criticisms.
From what I read in the paper, the problem is not just with one sensitivity parameter, but with TWO, the other being the aerosol sensitivity. The paper says that both were wrong, in opposing directions that cancelled each other out until the aerosol levels changed and revealed the error. And OF COURSE it is crucially important to get the parameters as accurate as possible and to fix errors in them as they are discovered.
Yeah but than the statement of the climate scientists is right: sensitivity isn´t important. Change as fast as possible the output of CO2. You see the finding always again that some paramters have wrong sensitivity so there is no guarantee. Only thing that is 100% clear is that CO2 heats up the world.
I have pointed out many times that the warming trend in Europe in the 1980-ies that coincided with redused sulfur emissions and that is a an indicator of a high aerosol climate sensitivity. Nobody has taken me seriously, but I am of course also no climate scientist.
If the cooling of the 1960-ies and the warming of the 1980-ies to 90-ies were both caused by aerosols, it implies that the curve for global warming the last 40 years is too steep, hence scientists over-estimate the CO2 sensitivity of the climate system.
Being born in the 1900's we people can confidently say that we've survived multiple climate change catastrophes and humanity is still here. The experts throughout the years have predicted many times that humanity would be in a lot of trouble and yet here we still are with more people on the planet than ever.
The example we learned about in the late 1990s science classes was the confirmation bias around the electrostatic force via the oil drop balance experiment. Our science teacher showed us the history of publications and how the wrong value was kept for decades due to people not wanting to contradict the prior predictions, or getting mocked for suggesting the consensus was wrong.
Group think, can also be observed in the speed of light measurements during the 20th century ( unless the speed of light in a vacuum actually changes).
@@jamemswright3044 Complete nonsense. That's not group think, that's just peer pressure combined with fear of authority. Authority says or demands 1 thing, so out of fear of ruining their career or getting fired, they 'agree' on the surface. Which makes it harder for others to come out against it since the people who side with the authority have the power to ruin their peers who disagree (and will be forced to basically chase them out because if they don't their own head may roll). And with that a big negative spiral starts.
Groupthink is a nonsense term with no actual science behind it. And it came from a social pscyhologist, aka the fake scientists among pscyhologists. Groupthink isn't a thing, it's peer pressure.
I always thought Groupthink was a term George Orwell invented for 1984. Also, "peer pressure combined with fear of authority" isn't a bad definition.
@@defenda1 Groupthink implies that a group is an entity. But that's not the case. The group does not think, the group is made up out of individuals whom each decide for themselves to adapt to a certain thought because they think it's what works best for them in the given situation.
@@thenonexistinghero How about you look up the definition of group think, before commenting.
I get 0.3 to 0.5 for the sensitivity, not 1.5, 3.8 or 5.1. 0.5 fits the observed numbers better, while 0.3 fits a sensible model better. Several major problems involved. The easiest to spot is that the actual raw numbers were tossed decades ago in favor of adjusted. And the adjusted gets adjusted every year, with the starting point the previous adjustment, not ever the raw numbers. Station locations are bad, and there are false breaks in the numbers. Also, in the US, they went from over 1000 stations as input to 136, all at airports. O'Hare (Chicago) as an example, was a cow pasture in 1915. Now it is many square miles of concrete.
The models are mostly okay if modeling electricity or air conditioning usage, as we mostly live near places like 2024 O'Hare. But in doing a global analysis, 99%+ of the Earth's surface isn't big city.
As you say, in many cases the surroundings of stations have changed over time impacting their measurements. Stations that used to be in a rural area now find themselves in an urban area due to urbanization. And temperatures in an urban area are on average about 5C higher than in a rural area (Urban Heat Island). Other changes in their environment also have an impact, for instance surrounding forest being cut down to make place for road (or airports). Some stations have been moved over time, either in height (from rooftops down to ground level) or laterally (from the seaside more inland) which also impacts their measurements. And ways of measuring data have changed over time, going from analog to digital, which also impacts the results as it is easy to make a 0.2C error when reading an analog thermometer whereas digital data is much more precise.
So if you want to determine what is happening to global temperatures you have to look at digitally measured atmospheric data, not at ground level data.
I am not a climate scientist. I work in an unrelated scientific field so it is difficult to critically evaluate the climate literature. Frankly, I am skeptical about my conclusions regarding climate change itself and hold them loosely. On the other hand, I have spent half a lifetime evaluating scientific research and applying the findings, and have seen several major models - that drove decision-making in policy and procedure, mandated increased levels of intervention (frequently with significant rates of adverse outcomes), and cost billions - be overturned. Many of these models were “the gospel truth” one year and the next year referred to in the past tense, “we used to believe X,” as if it were ancient history. When this occurs there has usually been a body of evidence countering the model, which has been present but discounted for a several years if not a decade or more, before some tipping point is reached and the model is abandoned.
In my observation there are elements that appear to correlate well with the total burden and longevity of these mistaken models. These factors include the degree to which the models are accepted and taught as orthodoxy, the degree of censure for not following the model, and the amount of money and or prestige gained by organizations, corporations or institutions through utilization of the model (I do not say individuals here because I am talking about huge amounts of money and extensive, even societal, influence).
One can probably see why the current science of climate change is worrisome to me. It appears to be built by piling one model of complex chaotic interactions between chaotic systems, on top of other models that are used to derive the values for multiple variables. Notably, the values for these variables have shifted significantly over the past two decades as methods have changed. Yet the predictions from these models are held, within the scientific community and society at large, as the “truth,” which only the most ignorant and immoral would question.
To me, the prevailing models have the hallmarks of potential for great harm if they do not adequately predict climate changes based upon specific factors in the next 50 years and that is a very tall order. There seems to be no healthy acknowledgement among the proponents of these models that the models themselves are abstractions and cannot fully account for all variables. Truly, no model ever can. The rigorous investigation that might help verify the reliability of any particular model to make the predictions we need is effectively shut down, through everything from blocked funding to academic and social proscription. It is concerning indeed.
For those not sure about the sensitivity as laid out (correctly I believe) by @galahad54 and how it works and is applied:
The normal climate models had CO2, if it doubled, to increase warming by 1.1wm^2 (watts per meter squared, if we hit 540ppm+) - with a multiplier for Water Vapor of x3 (or a total of 4.4wm^2).
This is an Exponential response - and it shown that way with some small variation in the model - which was GISS-E put out by James Hansen.
The RCP variations, like seen on Sabine's charts, are variations on this based on total increases. The lowest being RCP2.6
But what was found looking at the ERBE's data, (Earth Radiation Budget Satellite) is that the output, counter to the models, is in fact x.5 (that is times a number less than 1, and a diminishing return.) This is an Logarithmic outcome.
This is seen in the water vapor AND in Co2 itself - most of the work being done by the first 20ppm, and the rest of the warming, even up to 600, 1200ppm is less than that initial 20ppm. Logarithmic. Not Exponential.
There has been arguments, like Otto et al 2015 (IIRC) that said they might want to lower the x3 multiplier to x2.5 - because the models have outran reality already.
But if you put the sensitivity down to a logarithmic difference (below 1) there is....well, nothing to really be super worried about. The warming is not going to run away, and will to some extent self correct - which we have the history to see it does. And when we look at CERES data on a scatter plot it matches this also.
The Data and History match a logarithmic curve. The models have an exponential curve. But there is a strong debate to not let the data get in the way of the models. And so far, in just a decade, the models have all shown that they have 3 to 6 times the warming as predicted. All models were falsified in 10 years.
That means the predictions for 100 years out are not going to be close.
@@joshcoray3777You're absolutely right. It's been known since the mid 1990's that climate models predict temperatures that are significantly higher than what is observed in reality. On average their predictions are off by a factor of 2. One of the more recent research papers into this is Pervasive Warming Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric Layers by McKitrick/Christy, 2020. They looked at the period from 1979 to 2014, so about 35 years, and found that pretty much all models were wrong and predicting temperatures that were much too high. And that predicting too high temperatures is a trend that has been continuing up to our current day (2020).
Climate models use lots of variables to make predictions and if these don't mirror reality their predictions won't either. A very simple example: most climate models use 1.4 W/m2 (Watt per square metre) for outward radiation from the earth for every degree K the global temperature increases. However, in reality this number is 2.6 W/m2 (as seen in collected data), almost twice as much. So in climate models earth retains much more heat than what happens in reality and therefore their predictions turn out way too warm.
Here's an interesting interview with John Christy in which he talks about climate models and the so-called "climate crisis": ua-cam.com/video/qJv1IPNZQao/v-deo.html
@@easy_s3351 I am fairly familiar with Dr. John Christy, and his 'a Bridge Too Far' presentation is one of my favorites. He has updated his original Models vs. Reality chart in 2021. If we listened to him vs 'The Modelers' we would be in a far reasonable environment.
For any one curious, here is a 2021 Bridge too far presentation with some updated material:
ua-cam.com/video/AfdtFdOTnME/v-deo.html
So it isn't knowing if there are 6 riflemen in a squad or 10 riflemen in a squad but rather knowing if they are 6 hours from firing or 10 hours from firing. I think most people would like to know at what time they should start giving their parting words.
It's more like they are already firing anyway - we need to do everything we can and more to escape, now, no matter how many there are.
Also, one of the main - and growing - currents of denial is "doomerism". There may be some fear that saying "oops, things are actually worse" might actually halt action. But that's just speculation on my part, of course.
Drama queen much?
Problem is, we are not 6 or 10 hours from firing, the squad started firing hours ago.
@@ChristianIce and very soon our great sol will start its going red giant phase😎
@@EdT.-xt6yv
No.
Being wrong doesn't affect their paychecks or funding. And no one is in charge. You cannot expect anyone, even scientists, to go against their incentives.
Nothing in climate science becomes scientific fact or canon until proven with evidence and replicated by other studies. You can't just make shit up.
Making a model is not science, only validating a model is.
The warming over the last few decades has validated the models. One problem that has recently arisen is that the warming of 2023 was greater than expected.
That's what lead Sabine to make her last video.
@@YTEdyI'm talking precise consistant predictions which they never achieve. Greater than expected literally means their model failed to predict.
Asking for precise consistent predictions about future temperature is almost as bad as asking for precise lotto numbers before you buy the ticiket.
If your doctor says a patient has 2 years to live, or a 60% chance of beating the diagnosis - if they are off on their estimate, do you say "all doctors are wrong"
Predicting future temperatures is enormously difficult. That you expect them to be consistently accurate just shows how indoctrinated you are. It's not that easy.
And given the difficulty of this ask, they've actually done very well. The models have been pretty much in line with the warming for the last couple decades. 2023 was a miss, but overall, they've done very well. @@Chaka421
@@YTEdy _“The warming over the last few decades has validated the models.”_
Which ones?
Seriously? Your response is to play dumb.
The IPCC's models.
You have to understand, the IPCC runs like 100 forecasts, and they post a variety of scenarios running till 2100, so you only should look at the date the model was made and up to 2023, because that's the only part of the forecast that can be checked.
The range of warming, over about 100 forecasts, and 6 overall scenarios was 1.1 (low extreme, strong action taken) and 6.4 (high extreme, very little to no action taken), by 2100, or 93 years.
If you compare the warming up through 2007 (about 0.7 degrees - all temperatures in C) and since then (an additional 0.3-0.4 degrees) over 16 years, and you extrapolate, 16 into 93 - just linear extrapolation, when many of the models show an acceleration over time, but ignoring that.
0.3-0.4 in 16 years = 1.8 - 2.3 over 93 years. Which is Which is in the range of 5 of the 6 scenarios.
Statisticians would call that hitting the mark. And, they deserve applause for how difficult a forecast this is.
@@DefinitelyNotAMachineCultist
Data is data, no matter how much it tickles or pains, the frail human ego
Data is not a straightforward thing when experiment is complex. It can be a long way between raw readouts of some voltage to final data on some physical effects. A long way during which you question your understanding of the apparatus and whether you toolk into account other processes which may influence conversion of said voltage to, say, temperature of the microwave background in particular direction
Why is warming only bad and never good? More green, more food, more nice days, more vitamin D.
data can be wrong because of a bad sensor.
Data can be wrong because it is tampered, er... "corrected."
"Data is data"? "the frail human ego"? Yeah, you just provided sufficient data proving where you're coming from.
I admire your courage, Sabine! Kudos to you!
I do not admire closed minded people. Since there has been no added "heat trap" in the atmosphere I was hoping that they would finally give up the lies about the 0.04% controlling the world. Sadly, there is too much money in lying.
The best youtube channel for climate based conversation is The Climate Discussion Nexus.
Agreed. Also Tony Heller. One of the greatest voices in the climate discussion is Alex Epstein who has two great books. Cheers.
All scientists become too fond of their models.
They think they are hot even when they are not…
They all mostly are fond of the funds, which mostly come from gouvernments who all want the same thing: controle and money.
Agree. The actual margin of error in those models is surely larger than we're led to believe.
I have no idea why. Ever see a measurement like 14.10457824N of force +/-1.5% lol
How about infinite, they only have a partial understanding of what they are modelling
If I walked blinfolded and ear plugged across a busy motorway (freeway) at night, I would be reassured that the margin for error in crossing safely to the other side was quite large.
The problem here is that the error bars that are published only contain statistical errors, i.e. the likelyhood that the measurement was a random fluke even though the measurement process was perfect. In reality though, every measurement method has biases that will lead to a non-random deviation from the true value. These systematic errors are not shown in the error bars, because they are not known to the authors (otherwise they would correct for the bias). This is not to say that all these climate models are pointless or can't say anything about the future of climate change. Far from it, they have been very accurate in the past.
I have found no information to suggest that the assessment of the models as presented by the author of the video took into account that the models are checked by back-verifying the predictions.@@zockertwins
I've been studying this for years. The ppm CO2 during the age of the dinosaurs ranged from 3,200ppm to 800ppm. The dinosaurs went extinct when CO2 levels fell below 800ppm. The age of dinosaurs began when CO2 levels rose above 1,300ppm. Obviously high CO2 does not result in run-away greenhouse effect at all.
How do u know how warm it was in the dinosaurs? Maybe it was many many degress warmer than today.
Evidence supports that Earth is colder now than at any point in time since 450 million years ago. Historical carbon dioxide levels from 540 Ma to present do not reflect temperatures fluctuations at all. Temperatures spiked 320 Ma when CO2 levels were similar to today.
The average temperatures of the age of the dinosaurs were 8 F warmer than now, ranging from +2.2F to +12.5F. The samples were all polar. Crocodilian fossils indicate that nothing froze from the coasts of Antarctica to the north shore of Alaska until around 50 Ma.
The evidence supports that the polar and temperate regions were warmer but not the equatorial regions. Tyrannosaurs ranged from southern Mexico to central Canada 2,500 miles north. Denser atmosphere which would support more homogeneous temperatures is REQUIRED for giant insects, giant bugs, and very large animals. @@gulanhem9495
can u show me this research. I'm curious
@@gulanhem9495 Earth’s highest temperature was 5.2 Celsius (9.6 Fahrenheit) above the present-day average. That was 280 million years ago when CO2 levels reached a record low of 237 ppm. Earth’s lowest temperature was 440 million years ago. It was 1 degree Celsius colder. 1.8 Fahrenheit colder with CO2 levels at 5000 ppm. Highest CO2 levels were 8000 ppmv 520 million years ago at +2C. Dinosaur era 252 Ma to 66 Ma the average temperature was 1 C (1.8 F) below historical average and 4.4 C (7.9 F) warmer than now. That's enough to greatly increase the growing season, melt away most of Earth's ice, and increase reptilian (non-freezing) habitat area about 35%.
@@mirabelotc16 I'm scripting a video to present the topic since you asked.
All I need to know that a politician or media person is detached from reality is to hear them say the words “net zero” without a smile.
Think we have more to worry about than climate
I tend to never believe any person or group that says they and only them can fix a certain problem, if only we would give them all of the money and all of the power.
The studies are also paid for by special interests who want a specific result to reinforce their narrative. Confirmation bias increases when your livelihood depends on the result aligning with a predetermined answer.
I think the first point is actually pretty valid. No major country seems to have taken anything seriously about the threat we face; even if this data could be arguably useful for devising a solution, none of them are serious about doing that. 💀
Well it’s is very heartening to see a widely viewed and respected scientist and science youtuber call out climate scientists for some bad science. Anyone who criticizes you for having the wrong degree is using the Argument from Authority fallacy and is already suspect based on that.
It doesn’t matter because it’s not about climate change, it’s about the laws they can pass and how much more taxes they can squeeze out of the tax payer.
Actually more taxes and more laws would be a good thing. It's just that these taxes and laws have to Target incredibly rich people which they are unlikely to do
For example, companies are able to sell their emissions to other companies that should be illegal. And of course millionaires and higher should probably have a decent chunk of tax on them
@@nigeladams8321 Taxing the rich by itself has been proven to destroy economic incentives, causing layoffs and higher inflation. Less taxes and laws are a good thing at this point.
@@alwilson3204 no no it hasn't. In fact one of the most prosperous times in our country's history was when we taxed the shit out of the rich. What has been proven to be a sham is trickle down economics.
Meanwhile in reality, fossil fuels globally get about 7 trillion annually in corporate and consumer subsidies, tax breaks and sweet deals for drilling and whatnot. And oh it's governments that pay for =oil disasters and leaks, not the ones causing them.
But the other side is the problem... got it...
All scientific fields are not created equal. We're in our wheelhouse when doing real-time trial and error. Climatology is the mother of speculation, unknowns, and generally untestable complex systems over long periods of time. We can't even predict local weather with anything resembling accuracy, but I'm supposed to believe climatologists have absorption rates across the different regions and conditions of the planet sorted? The idea we're anywhere near understanding all the factors that influence even that single variable is laughable.
You have a total lack of logical thought, and also a massive lack of relevant knowledge.
@@grindupBaker And you only have ad hominems and no facts or "relevent knowledge" in any of your comments.
Actually weather prediction has gotten quite good. And you are deliberately confounding weather with climate. You smugness is unjustified.
@@bearclaw5115 I use weather as an example because it's a somewhat related complex system humans have invested an enormous amount of resources and manpower to understand. Climatology is a ma and pop shop by scientific comparison and we can build meteorological models, tweak and test them in real-time. I'm not arguing the two fields are synonymous and I understand differences exist between high-resolution short-term and low-resolution long-term predictions. The fundamental problems inherent to the science of climatology still exist.
Good at something is relative. Reliably accurate is another matter.
you're right climate change is very complex which is the very reason that climatologists have a minimum of 30 years worth of research before they could come up with any sort of conclusion.
I read “Embracing Mind” and the big take away I got from it was that most scientist go into research with a belief, almost religiously, desiring a certain outcome or they go in with an “open mind” while firmly denying that a certain outcome will come around. Just those biases were enough to skew results.
I don't known If blaming the scientists for a procedure which happens always in science throughout history is good. There are always "trends" and dominant "opinions" in science and it takes time until these are overcome. Like it was mentioned in the video. So why is it ok if partical physicists make such an error, but for others it is a huge problem. This video is just more ammunition for "climate skeptics".
yeah what a shame to rattle the foundations of such a great grift
"why is it ok if partical physicists make such an error"
Who said that?
Yeah, god forbid we expect science to do better. Or deal with skepticism. Are you one of those "all science is settled" people? Even after this video ?
Is it ok to be critical of Theoretical Physicists ? They haven't contributed much to anything. Most people would say yes, because nothing theoretical Physicists do matters all that much and the funding isn't even all that high.
On the other hand, I would say it is certainly fair to criticize and scrutinize a scientific effort that pushes for global political changes that will bankrupt the wealthy countries and starve the developing ones.
I reserve to right to step in and point out weaknesses when even general estimates are a doubling of our annual budget for a few decades to maybe only be ten years late (according to the UN published info a few months ago) to hit net zero "in time".
The more rational unbiased scientists dig into the orthodox climate narrative the more issues are raised. It’s not settled no matter how much the climate alarmists shout and scream.
These 'rational
unbiased' scientists are highly outnumbered in any modern society.
The irony of you posting this while Sabine used a model that got a lot of criticism because the outcome was much HIGHER climate sensitivity.
@@MrMezmerized it’s not settled, however you want to look at it. If it was they wouldn’t keep spending money verifying what they think they already know. Climate change is now highly politicised on both the science and policies
@@cddaniel805 The only things not settled are "how much" and "how much by humans". Your dismissive argument is a bad one, because it's useful to have updates every so many years, both globally and per region. To see if models require tweaks. Plus science advances, making more ways to gather data available. Climate science itself is hardly politicised. Acceptance / rejection of it is, but that's primarily because politicians in the pockets of fossil fuel businesses and/or being misguided incite it. And also politicised is how to deal with climate change. But the science itself? Hardly.
the point is that we need to deal with this as soon as possible, and if you say we are safe for a century, we will do nothing until then. we need to act now to save the future.
there is no urgency. "Climate Change" aka "Global Warming" aka "Global Cooling" aka "God's Wrath". What is going on here is simply a planetary body doing what it has and will continue to do until otherwise stated. We will all die someday from something. Best scenario is making positive lifestyle choices until it is our time.
Says the guy driving his car to work every day, flying with the airplane many times a year and buying stuff that's wrapped in plastic for 99% of his purchases.
@@thenonexistinghero average BP propaganda enjoyer
@@T49.I There's no shortage of real scientists already debunking most of the already extreme numbers presented daily. Of course I'm going to be very critical of someone claiming that reality is far worse who at the same time excludes extremely important factors (not to mention likely caused at least 3x-4x more pollution than I will during my lifetime).
@@thenonexistinghero thank you, you know me so well, and that is of course something that the moment someone would try to regulate you would scream " but but but chinaaaaa but but Road transport but but "
I did a small job for a man in Melbourne Australia and had opportunity to ask him why he was moving out of the unit. He said he was going back to France after on year in Melbourne working for the Labor government working on his model for Victorian climate in the future. So l asked what was his model prediction. He said our weather was going to continue to get hotter and dryer l told him l have lived in Melbourne my whole life and his professional opinion from computer predictions and modelling was WRONG.
l told him our weather works on a ten year cycle and we are at the end of a dry period in our decades cycle and that the next winter would be a wet cold winter. I said when you get back to France keep watching Australian weather and learn something.
Of course he disagree with me. But that next winter only a few months after he left the country we had massive rainfall and flooding for months over the land he predicted to be bare and dry for ever.
And now today all our water storages are full after four years of cool wet weather that started the year after the bush fires of south eastern Australia. THAT'S OUR WEATHER CYCLES THAT COMES FROM THE SUNS CYCLES NOTHING TO DO WITH CLIMATE CHANGE BULLSHIT AND EVERY THING TO DO WITH DEFORESTATION DRYING OUT THE LAND AS WELL AS CAUSING FLASH FLOODING WITH OUT VEGETATION TO HOLD BACK HEAVY RAINS ❤
We keep hearing about how certain measurable climate change markers/data points have been reached much faster than many of the current models have been predicting, surely that would suggest using the higher sensitivity numbers or least higher sensitivity than is being used in models at the moment?🤔
The models are also ignoring a lot of factors, including many countries actively manipulating the weather with various techniques. Chances are that some of the unusual things we've seen in recent years are the result of them meddling with that is actually very big.
@@thenonexistinghero climate isn't weather
@@goldensloth7 Actually it pretty much is.
Whatever quality data scientists come up with, I seriously doubt politicians will start taking action, in particular if it hurts their precious economy, which it likely will. Even though if we all drown in a flood or boil to death there won't be an economy worth mentioning.....
you've missed the point.. the floods aren't coming...
I think we should start focusing on ways to remove Carbon from the atmosphere. I like the idea of creating biochar from biomass and organic waste and sequestering it.
@@Siwashable Europe might be flooded with environmental refugees if desertification persists...
@@Siwashable he was using a figure of speech bro. And he's right. no matter what data and stats scientists conclude, politicians will likely not take action. Take Trump for example who's a firm denier of climate change, does not care about pollution and wants to rid of the Environmental Protection Agency and focus of building the fossil fuel industry which is the leading source of air pollution. He'd rather grow the economy than advocate for the health of the floating rock we exist on.
The only problem with the ECS is paleoclimactic records show cooler periods with 5 times the CO2, and hot periods with less. So.....
Source?
Not if you take into account why. The "Paleozoic icehouse" period for instance was related to a huge percentage of the Gondwana supercontinent being situated in the south pole region. Snow and ice settles much more easily on land than ocean.
It's a trillion dollar industry that won't fund your research if your work is contradictory to the consensus. It's the only field besides social science that we do this in, and it needs to be reformed.
Stop worrying so much.
Worrying is your real problem.
Why are some glaciers growing if co2 caused global warming is real?
Because global warming doesn't mean every single place warms up. It's an average. Furthermore, glaciers can grow when it gets a little warmer too, as long as there's sufficient snowfall to compensate for the extra loss at the bottom. The extremely (!) few exceptions you refer to are probably two mountain ranges on the Tibetan plateau. At the base it's warm and arid, but there is now a lot more agriculture thanks to irrigation. That means lots of evaporation, humid air goes up the mountains, the vapor freezes and viola... snow.
What concerns me is that in all of the models, the human contribution to global warming is less than the total warming. In other words, the world is warming without us.
The oceans are heating up and CO2 is being knocked out of suspension. It's kind of like a catalyst, we are still doing it
My work with diesel thermodynamics led me to analyse the climate of Venus. Surprise! At one Earth atmosphere pressure (which occurs at 51Km above the surface, the temperature of this 97% CO2 atmosphere is 65 deg. C, which is 50 degrees warmer than the Earth surface average. (Earth has 0.04% CO2, which is 2,500 times less than Venus.) When the circumstance that Venus has twice the Sunlight levels of Earth, a matter of geometry, and allowing for radiative heat loss per the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, it turns out that Venus has no more "greenhouse Gas effect" than the Earth does. This and several other studies including measuring the heat content of back radiation,demonstrated to me that Modelling climate science and the whole "climate crisis" is a contrived load of horse manure.
I for one, am ready for our mad max future. Got my wasteland name picked out and everything.
It won't be a mad max future. Life THRIVES in warmer climate. The entire globe a mediterranean climate... YES PLEASE!
@@Tomkat53 agreed, we barely had a winter and it was the best. 81 right now in NC 🔥🔥🔥
@@Tomkat53 Sure, let's pretend there are no regions on the planet that get ever hotter and dryer. Also, particularly a lot of oceanic species don't deal well with rising temperatures and (CO2) acidity, and those just so happen to often be at the bottom of the food chain.
@@MrMezmerized - back when atmospheric Co2 was many times higher than today... there were NO DESERTS anywhere on Earth. The entire planet was LUSH with life, with the vast majority of it being a pleasant mediterranean climate.
@@Tomkat53 Nonsense. Pangaea had large dry regions in the middle and tundras around. Such a supercontinent is too large for a tropical climate with plenty of rain all across. Also, there several mass extinctions, the worst of them between the Triassic and the Permian. But even if you were not wrong... so what? Right now there are deserts that get bigger. Who knows, they might eventually go green if temps keep rising, but for how they grow.
Sabine. Thank you for your personal and professional integrity. You are a rare but vital part of the process to return integrity and honor to many areas.
My issue is the cult like thinking of people who fight for climate change, these people are so close-minded that even the slightest bit of disagreeance gets you ridiculed. It's to the point where everything is climate change; I've seen hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, etc.. all be labeled as such.
Well, if we're happily painting everyone advocating action with such a ridiculously broad brush... then everyone in denial about climate change is guilty of cult behaviour too.
@@MrMezmerized They are pretty close but one side is indifferent and doesn't care and the other side is overtly passionate about the subject due to a sense of urgency. My experience from being pretty moderate on the subject have just been way worse with these types than climate change deniers.
We've known for 50+ years that large cities act like heat-sinks on a planetary scale, soaking up solar energy and radiating it into the surrounding atmosphere. We've been educated that they even "create their own weather." Yet, their effect upon the climate model is conveniently ignored, ostensibly because this is precisely where big government lives and draws its lifeblood from, not only in money, but in the political power it purchases from the inhabitants of the cities. Over the past 50 years, large cities have easily doubled in size, in population, and in generated pollution. You never see this fact reflected in the graphs though.
Never thought about this, do you know of any good sources about this?
Who says urban heat trapping is not taken into account? Also, you do realise only little of the planet's surface is urbanised right? (0.69%)
@@MrMezmerized the fact that there is never any discussion about limiting metropolitan expansion says so. I believe it to have a multiplicative effect. The more cities, the fewer greenspaces, (of course,) meaning less carbon sequestration. The more cities, the more blacktop, (of course,) leading to more physical absorption of thermal solar energy, which usually only gets radiated back into the atmosphere at night, leading to less Delta-T in the atmosphere between daytime and nighttime.. The more cities, the more ships, trucks and trains are needed to ferry supplies into these areas. Of course, you'll never hear about the true effect the cities have because this is where Big Government™ lives, and we certainly can't be imposing limits upon the "God" of the liberals, now can we?
@@FZMello Little to do with politcal lean. Many people and businesses want to be in metropolitan areas. Supply and demand. And you forget that if you forcibly limit expansion anyway, you lose the green elsewhere. Much more. Spread everything out: more cars and trucks, more roads, more parking spaces, more travel distance, public transit not viable so yet more cars and roads and parking spaces. And houses use a lot more energy than shared housing, especially the typical US plywood homes (which aren't durable at that). Overall you generate sooo much more heat absorbing surface, carbon emissions, energy demand and waste.
As for the political lean. Particularly the right is in the pockets of the fossil fuel and automotive lobby. So you get atrocious car centric urban planning with strict zoning and crappy public transit. And strict zoning (still) has something to do with segregation too, a conservative stance. Seems you're barking up the wrong tree.
The problem is that people trust you more than climate experts. That itself isn’t a huge problem, because you are very smart, but the same goes for Jordan Peterson fans :/
I'm 100% only worried about climate change because of the possible implications for humanity. Models and simulations are hard - but a lot of people are working their asses off to try and make the best predictions they can. I hope we don't let politics and power games mess up their field too much
The people who believe in MMCC have been making predictions about doom for the last 50+ years and have been wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Acid Rain? The US Government's own 10-year study study proved it was a hoax. A handful of local problems caused by local sulfur dioxide emissions and problems unrelated to sulfur dioxide, like land use changes causing soil and water acidity changes.
Ozone Depletion? So widely believed at one point that movies, mostly cringe, were made about the chaos caused as the ozone was depleted further and further south. It was assumed that the CFC ban would take decades to have an effect and we would have to be wearing sunscreen in Winter by now. Turns out CFCs are so heavy you can pour them into an open container and have as much chance of getting to the stratosphere as a cinder block. The ozone "Hole" at the south pole is a natural phenomenon caused by the Antarctic Circumpolar Current and the fact that Ozone needs sunlight to be formed, which the south pole doesn't really get for 6 months of the year. Almost all Chlorine in the stratosphere is there from volcanoes.
With a track record so poor, any thinking person should be extremely cynical and disbelieving in anything they have to say.
What is Earth's normal temperature, and how is the baseline established?
Nobody knows
there is no "earths normal temperature" - this word salat alone shows that you never ever tried even 15 minutes to check out climate science. Which is fine. But why do you not search for a video that tells about this. UA-cam is full of them. There are many science channels.
Of course we can calculate an average temperature of the earth - which is a pure mathematical number based on many real measurements and a definition how to calculate this number.
This number then can help to show differences of climate over time. Like many other numbers.
Its like your weight. You weight is an indicator for health - but in the end its an overall number that gives some hints but you have to make many, many further measurements to check out your health.
There are hundreds of input cycles. Most of them come and go like clockwork. Ice-ages are 100,000 years now, caused by Malinkovitch cycles. There's the AMOC that causes heat peaks every 68 years. There's the 420 year GSMs, coming SOON.
CO2 is a flyspeck in the sky that is still the source of ALL LIFE here. LOL. ONLY LEFTY CRACKPOTS think otherwise.
The normal tenperature is the average temperature before industrialization. Teoerature bayond that is affected by human activity. During the lifetime of earth the temperature has varied greatly. There was even forests on Antarctica because fossil combustion (yes it has happened before) made the rest of the planet more or less uninhabitable.
@@Rubensgardens.Skogsmuseum global average temperature has varied significantly since industrialization. It's called data tampering and guesswork. Mother earth seems to do whatever she likes regardless of the techniques "scientists"use in attempts to modify the weather.
For those who weren't listening closely, which based on the upvoted comments seems to be most folks - Sabine is criticizing climate scientists for potentially under-estimating/downplaying the climate models that are showing that the projected rate of climate change is worse than they thought. This isn't the "dunk" on fight against climate change that many in here think it is - if these models are right, we need to be moving to reduce GHG emissions even faster.
Problem is that these models aren't right and are way overestimate already. Besides that, if things are really moving much faster than they are predicting, it means that the contribution of humans to climate change is negligible. Meaning it's not our fault and that we can do nothing about it.
Besides that, quite a few countries these days are also using methods like cloud seeding to influence the weather. And if you have any common sense you'd realize that the impact of actual weather and climate manipulation is much bigger than something like CO2 output and poses a far bigger risk to unpredictable climate change. But yes, just keep turning a blind eye to reality while our holy climate scientists are destroying the world while pretending to save it.
@@thenonexistinghero Your response is all over the place. Somehow the models under-estimating the humans impact means that humans aren't important to the climate system, but then you go on to point to human actions perhaps being incredibly important through cloud seeding. Which is it?
The scale of our CO2 geoengineering is way, way bigger than anything being accomplished through cloud seeding. You can deny it if you want, but don't pretend like you know anything.
@@Jason-sp5yc No, my argument isn't all over the place, you simply don't know how to read. We don't know if we are underestimating human impact from exhaust like CO2 and the like, the data to support that just isn't there and that's just something people like you are concluding.
And I merely mentioned cloud seeding as 1 example of humans messing with the climate. We don't know the impact of that, but you've already concluded that it's not as big as CO2. I'm saying it can be very dangerous. Humans are forcing clouds to grow where they usually don't, you're f***ing insane if you think that doesn't have the potential for having a huge impact on the climate. And there's no doubt other ways humans are messing with the weather that aren't made known to the public just yet and that's also pretty much a fact. When something is made public... the reality of thing is always that it's behind actual reality.
We don't know the impact of humans messing directly with the weather/climate like that, yet doomsday sayers like you are putting pretty much all the blame on CO2. There's a lot we don't know and that needs proper research but we won't ever know because doomsday sayers like you keep making conclusions and pretend other potentially important factors don't matter. Because hacks like you think we're gods who know everything.
I don't understand why climate scientist are allowed to dabble in the field of engineering. It's one thing to write papers with the finding of the week, but why are the over arching conclusions treated at actionable information for the suggested actions? I've worked as an engineer and sometimes my task involved working with information provided by scientist. I've waded through vast oceans of garbage information to find the few precious nuggets that can be transformed into workable engineering solutions. I've also seen plenty on unreproducible studies that only wasted time and money. As for the climate question. As an engineer I'd like to see an open source process control transfer function for the climate with all inputs, outputs and LaPlace functions. Once the scientist agree on that function it can be calibrated to predict various results. When a particular run can successfully predict results for daily measurements for a year, for a large area of the earth, then the model could be used to suggest meaningful actions. For example the impact of a solar project, a wind farm or a million EVs could be assessed. As it is climate scientist just poke around the problem, solving nothing, simply wasting time. In short scientist are not engineers and they should stop pretending that their work amounts to meaningful engineering or valid solutions.
sabine du bist echt supernice ich finde deine videos nicht nur interessant sondern auch dein trockener humor gefällt mir sehr gut, kein wunder das du als kommentare zwischendurch heiratsanträge bekommen hast, ich will mich hiermit anschließen auch wenn ich wenig hoffnung hab, aber es kann ja auch nicht schaden, ansonsten halt schönen tach ☺