I’ll say you’re demonstrating your courage once again.

@nicholasveridiculity91

4 жыл бұрын

Don't worry, she's interviewing an expert. If she spoke about the uncertainty in climatology herself, to an Internet which does not necessarily grasp any credibility she offers: No matter how accurately she spoke, she'd probably be subject to scorn and ridicule, simply due to the way this 'sounds' to those who claim to promote science. Furthermore, she might likewise find herself the host of many deniers who flocked in to ignorantly promote the literal notion in the title of this video.

@mikejack8798

4 жыл бұрын

Current migration patterns have nothing to do with climate.

@mikejack8798

4 жыл бұрын

My criticism is aimed at the expert not our lively host.

@sowrabhsudevan9119

4 жыл бұрын

Why courage ? Are you saying this video has more to it than just being an informative and semi-technical interview with a climate scientist ? From the comments section it looks like the title of this video has attracted a lot of AGW skeptics. Maybe I am too dense, but I kind of feel that Sabine put up this video to show that this field isn't very reliable.

@billbrockman779

4 жыл бұрын

sowrabh sudevan I meant that this field of study is perhaps the most politicized of all. It’s almost impossible to avoid making enemies.

Sabine let's him speak, uninterrupted, no judgement, "simple" questions, no antagonizing. I like that very much.

@MrMichaelFire

3 жыл бұрын

He does sound like he’s caught lying and he’s still digging the hole.

@ReasonableForseeability

3 жыл бұрын

*lets [no apostrophe]. Let's agree not to take offence, OK?

@wildec2

3 жыл бұрын

I didnt find this to be a problem tbh.

@catmatism

3 жыл бұрын

@@MrMichaelFire that is the thing about idiots like you. You have a fixed idea of how knowledgeable and confident people speak and classify other ways of speaking as "lying".

@infini_ryu9461

3 жыл бұрын

@@catmatism Ah yes, the ever credible "body language analysis" experts.

As a physics professor (ret) myself, this video suffers from the inevitable problem that scientists find it difficult to explain things without falling into the trap of getting lost in details that are important to the scientist but are difficult to put in perspective. Sabine is usually good at avoiding this, a rare talent. The scientist will tend to emphasize the inaccuracies and limitations of his methods, whereas the skeptic will cherry-pick the factors that reinforce his pre-conceived notions.

@BrettHar123

4 жыл бұрын

Also a retired physicist, but one who has learned some economics along the way. The key point here being that the fundamental driver of CO2 concentrations is economic activity. The solution to the CO2 problem can never be solved by regulation, it can be solved by the exponential growth in technology such as photovoltatics which is currently following a "Moore's law" doubling every 2.4 years. Within less than 5 years, some say far sooner, the cost of solar electricity, will become the first the cheapest form of power, when the cost of new fossil power stations are included over the life cycle, and soon after, the cheapest, on a day to day basis, rendering a fossil fuel power station a loss making activity. Problem solved - the only thing that can go wrong, is a misguided effort to interfere with the market.

@theodoresweger4948

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks well stated and thought out...

@remlatzargonix1329

4 жыл бұрын

Hank Snow ....Well, all models (and virtually everything humans know are models) try to emulate/forecast reality and reality is extremely complex. So, all models have assumptions, approximations, and, indeed, errors (or residuals) and are thus imperfect. Some models are better at forecasting (or producing forecasts that are reasonably close to observed future value), but this is often because they are modelling simpler phenomena. Hard science models can often produce good forecasts, for example car crash dynamics can produce results close to what is modelled, similarly for laboratory chemical reactions...( add chemical X to chemical Y, under controlled conditions and the result is pretty easy to forecast and reproduce.) On the other hand, social science models have horrible predictive power. This is especially true for subjects such as economics, whose models have about as much predictive power as a circus fortune teller. (Mainly because they rely so heavily on human behaviour or interactions with the systems being studied.)

@rad858

4 жыл бұрын

@Tracchofyre As a non-retired physicist, I'll offer that Hank's assessment is accurate and eloquent, while RA is living up to his name.

@chatteyj

4 жыл бұрын

@@BrettHar123 The problem is that people like you are claiming that C02 is a problem .

If there were more of this kind of honest, nuanced discussion instead of oversimplified propaganda and fearmongering, it would be a lot easier to get traction on problems like this. People can handle nuance, and some people require it in order not to feel manipulated. Great job Sabine.

@Anax100

2 жыл бұрын

did you even watch the article?

@musicalfringe

2 жыл бұрын

@@Anax100 😂 I'm waiting for the movie

@grindupBaker

2 жыл бұрын

@@musicalfringe I'm really looking forward to the musical. I think they wear cat suits.

@MarshallMathersthe7th

Жыл бұрын

The manmade-climatechange hoax has been made into a cashgrab by ''the elites'' to sell the masses green energy crap, and nothing more. They don't give a fuck about climate-change caused disasters, why else not simply build higher and stronger dykes to prevent floods? Dig canals so water gets more space? Plant more trees/make more forests? Those are all not too hard to realize right? But no, it is not about that, at all..

@musicalfringe

Жыл бұрын

@@MarshallMathersthe7th It doesn't have to be a hoax in order to become a cash grab. Both things can be true, and whether it's man-made is ultimately irrelevant. The only important question is whether we let it happen, and if not, how to pragmatically address it without it becoming another scammy wealth transfer.

Paraphrasing the lovely Sabine, “I find it peculiar that we are not presented with the uncertainty from each model.” What is even more peculiar is Tim’s response. We must see the estimate and the bounds on the estimate. It would also be nice to see prior model estimates versus actuals. If we can’t get near perfect decade length extrapolations, how will we be able to estimate much further out, given fan shaped errors? If you are leaning on ensembles, isn’t that just ARIMA?

@lunakid12

Жыл бұрын

I don't think with the standard political impotence of handling this a more refined & longer-term prediction model is a pressing issue any more. :)

@2nostromo

11 ай бұрын

If he can't explain it in terms a layman could understand... I heard nothing but saw a great deal of smoke. That one bothered me too but not enough to go back for another try.

@cheryllee81

9 ай бұрын

@@2nostromo Nobody wants to say we're basically toast. I don't think we have many decades to come as Tim suggested. All one will get from scientists are different outlooks without commitment to any.

@emack76

8 ай бұрын

That was a really nice way of saying that all Tim’s doublespeak and misdirections amounted to a pile of rubbish. In the first few minutes he said the models were pretty accurate but needed a lot more work. Wait, if they’re accurate, why do we need to work on them? I would like to see Sabine either stay away from this topic or be brave [risk demonitization] and really dig for the truth. I KNOW she’s plenty smart to smell the BS.

@achenarmyst2156

3 ай бұрын

He explained that clearly. If you have models with just one or a few runs there is no possibility to give a reasonable standard deviation. Including those models appears to be sort of a political question, not wanting to exclude the „poorer“ institutes with less computing power. Instead the means of all the models are used to represent a range of spread. I see no basic fault in that decision.

It's sad that searching for the truth and analysing widespread assumptions is seen as courageous rather than just standard practice.

@RWin-fp5jn

4 жыл бұрын

@D R It is not courageous what Sabine is doing. She is not being critical at all. If she where critical she would challenge the narrative that Co2 would cause global warming. That is challenge the suggested causal effect, or even turn it around and suggest higher temperatures cause higher CO2 levels (which in part is true). She does nothing of the kind so no, this is not courageous...it is just a big nothing burger....

@Brian-gk2hg

4 жыл бұрын

a powder puff interview and a garble of garbage from the so called scientist,, He contradicted himself at least 10 times,,

@faustianrevival3816

4 жыл бұрын

Brian you sound very resentful of what amounts to minor scrutiny. The truth should not fear investigation.

@scribblescrabble3185

4 жыл бұрын

@@RWin-fp5jn In short, she would be critical, if she would reafirm your opinion?

@RWin-fp5jn

4 жыл бұрын

@@scribblescrabble3185 We have to distinguish between facts and opinions. Fact is that we we have glaciers melting currently. That is true. But fact is also that under these melting ice sheets we are finding 2000 year old well preserved and rooted tree trunks, dating back to the Roman era. Not just in the Alps, but also in Siberia and Iceland. This unambiguously proofs it was at LEAST 5 degrees warmer 2000 years ago on a global scale. Now, since CO2 levels were much lower back than (which I am happy to accept) we simply cannot hard-link rising CO2 levels (for which indeed humans have a strong influence, and yes it is a greenhouse gass) to the short term rise in Earth's temperature. So by posting video's like this Sabine is supporting the notion that human induced rise of CO2 levels would be crucial to predict future rise of temperature and thus that having reliable CO2 predictions is important . Fact is that the current warming (which is mostly regional by the way) is by and large a cyclical event, possibly even linked to solar output cycles. Much as Marxists want to believe, we humans are not always the dominant factor (whether in the economy or in Nature), nor can thus steering our habits have a major impact on the grander cycles. Yes we must stop polluting our planet and stop cutting trees in the Amazone, but we should also not overestimate our impact in Global wether cycles, or even solar Cycles. Bottom line, either Sabine is incapable of logical thought or she is deliberately letting herself be used as an alarmist in the marxist push for centralized government. To some extend it is sad to see one of the very few critical thinkers in the scientific world not being able to distinguish facts from fiction. Humanity is letting itself get hyped and perhaps we don't deserve a brighter future because of our proven incapability of opinion-free judgement...So whatever...:-)

Nothing particularly controversial here. The scientists are doing the best they can to model a really hard problem,

@jamesmcginn6291

3 жыл бұрын

The models only serve a propaganda function. Any idiot can realize that the atmosphere is too complex and too poorly understood for the models to produce anything useful. It's just a scam. Don't be dumb.

@jonmalachowski7126

3 жыл бұрын

@@jamesmcginn6291 What if one wasn't "any idiot". What if someone spent their life dedicated to this complex problem?

@jamesmcginn6291

3 жыл бұрын

@@jonmalachowski7126 You are describing me. My name is James McGinn. I am president of Solving Tornadoes.

@alerey4363

3 жыл бұрын

The controversy is many scientists say there is no problem, just a cyclic change in temperature

@Renato404

3 жыл бұрын

I think many people don't realise that the atmosphere, despite having several million of square km area, it is about 80km width. It is thin as a contact lens and can easily by afected.

The questions were very good ones as you might expect, but the answers too. What I feel didn’t come out clearly enough is that there are very few decisions we can afford to make only after achieving the “six-sigma statistical significance required” to accept a finding in particle physics. Events would tend to overwhelm us while we were still studying our confidence intervals. Also the purpose of the IPPC reports was to inform AND communicate; and to a political audience with severe attention deficit disorder. Its really hard to be neutral and informative in this area, and I get it - sometimes a central estimate is the way to communicate even if, for a more rigorous mind, its hard to interpret without knowledge of the variance.

@JH-jx1hs

Жыл бұрын

"the purpose of the IPPC reports was to inform AND communicate" translation" - sell and convince the people with the purse strings that we need more money or you're all gonna die...maybe, uh if this and that and worst case and...or maybe not...but, it might already be too late if you don't give us more money... Underlying it all are poorly defined "assumptions" that the models are based on ("the most important being cloud cover"). Then the model's are referenced to support the assumptions - saying they may not be entirely correct regionally (translation" don't correlate well with the real world data) due to computational resolution issues, but nevertheless we believe them to be correct globally (which assumes the assumptions to be correct "on average") so you should believe us too. The uncertainty rationalization and methodology discussion ends up being a tangent that gives him room to gloss over and move on from the uncertainty of the assumption validity and it's impact on the overall model uncertainty.

@JA238979

Жыл бұрын

When the margin of error in a variable is greater than its value, it is not statistically significant.

@luismartinslopes8900

Жыл бұрын

@@JA238979 It's true, but it's far from being the case here.

@JA238979

Жыл бұрын

@@luismartinslopes8900 The data in this video was generated in paradigms of the Fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, and CMIP5 was upgraded to CMIP6. This video precedes the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report and the corresponding Synthesis Report. Thank you for your comment; it led to more recent information.

@jerbib9598

Жыл бұрын

@@JA238979 - The public (the electorate) doesn't understand how weather works. How climate changes is a far more difficult subject.. It seems hopeless to me as a meteorologist.

What I particularly love about Sabine’s videos is when they investigate rather than just advocate for a specific point of view. So many videos start with the conclusion and then provide limited data to support that. If you agree with the premise, the data will be convincing, if you disagree then it’s easy enough to find holes in the data. I’m heading to Patreon now; I’ve put it off long enough. As someone has said, “show me what you spend your money on and I’ll show you what you care about“.

As far as that globe rotating in the background is concerned, do you know if the manufacturers make a flat one?

@SabineHossenfelder

4 жыл бұрын

Ha!

@MoebiusUK

4 жыл бұрын

Just glue a map onto a record player.

@lectrikdog

4 жыл бұрын

Frisbee's have more freedom of movement

@esreve1

4 жыл бұрын

But the image is flat!

@soldtobediers

4 жыл бұрын

Will it come with a 23 degree tilt?

This is the first time in my life that i actually heard a scientist talk about climate change rather than politicians and the media... thank you very very much prof Sabine

@talldarkhansome1

3 жыл бұрын

Absolutely! Notice, he knows he can't bullshit her.

@rjgarnett

3 жыл бұрын

Come off it, There are hundreds of seminars, talks, doco's that are on KZread with hundreds of scientists presenting the data. Seek and you will find.

@rashadsaleh4467

3 жыл бұрын

Rrobert Garnett Are you trying to be a troll or just come off it?

@rashadsaleh4467

3 жыл бұрын

Gregory Jones Apart from the first sentence, you should have posted that as another comment, not a a reply to me. I am not sure you were even addressing me.

@rashadsaleh4467

3 жыл бұрын

what's up with all the trolls

Global climate is incredibly complex. We understand the physics and chemistry pretty well (perhaps not quite so well where chemistry is concerned), but the complexity of the system makes simulation extremely difficult. Just think of clouds. I don't think we can simulate clouds very well at all. When he says "We still have some way to go" that is a great understatement, IMO.

@PBNIP

2 жыл бұрын

"Cloud seeding"

@travcollier

Жыл бұрын

However, at the larger scale, our simulations actually do work quite well. Heck, at the scale of changes in the total Earth energy balance a model you can write down on a piece of paper and compute out by hand is pretty accurate... And was done about 100 years ago. So many people seem to think that the extreme difficulty building up a detailed model mostly based on first principles means we are just clueless about the bigger picture... That is simply not the case, as is pointed out repeatedly in this interview.

@musashi9873

Жыл бұрын

It's a criminal understatement. The "tipping point" predictions have been all wrong and he won't admit it. Increased CO2 might be keeping us from enduring an ice age. It might cause sporadic bad weather of the kind we have experienced for thousands of years. Instead of addressing the issues directly, drought with reservoirs, water filtration, aqueducts, and heat and cold with better power generation and better disaster preparedness and construction we are being told we must address "root causes" which aren't fully understood, are impossible to address globally, may be having a beneficial effect globally and are apparently impossible to predict the results. This isn't an understatement, it's a criminal misdirection.

@MarathonSimmo

Жыл бұрын

@@musashi9873 Well said, I couldn't agree with you more. All this interview did for me was to confirm the models the climate scientists rely upon are little better than useless at predicting future global temperatures with any accuracy. They're about as useful as 'Tits on the proverbial Bull!' What an absolute waste of valuable time in watching this inane interview.

@undercoveragent9889

11 ай бұрын

@@MarathonSimmo I agree. Sabine has become a political activist just like Snake in DeGrasse Tyson, Shill Nye and Mucho Kaka. Very disappointing. I have previously observed that science died on 9/11 after a protracted illness and I am yet to see evidence to the contrary. :(

Thank you Sabine and Tim. My favourite thing in the world is to listen to passionate experts. This and your interview with Subir Sarkar are amazing... More interviews with interesting passionate experts that I have never heard of. Thanks Sabine.

Sabine i admire your clean concise direct speech when you explain things. You are straight to the point it is a really impressive quality to have.

Very proud to call him my uncle! The intelligence gene skipped my generation unfortunately .... and he is genuinely the nicest man as well as super intelligent... 🤓🙂

@nyoodmono4681

4 жыл бұрын

Very nice yes, but he also seems very bored. If he was so intelligent he would realise that he is doing bs for a bs institution, well maybe he does know, but then he is too nice, or not very brave.

@nyoodmono4681

4 жыл бұрын

@Stanley Goddard The ipcc is no university and there is no advancement in knowledge regarding the CO2 climate sensitivity after 30 years. Or is there? I do not devide the debate into pro trump or anti trump. I am from Germany and consider myself a leftist.That you immediatley peg me into a political camp, is part of the problem with this "debate".

@nyoodmono4681

4 жыл бұрын

@Stanley Goddard What do you think of the climate models, for example the on called INMCM4? images.app.goo.gl/su77uVqVRAdzLtQU7

@animeshpatra5106

3 жыл бұрын

@@nyoodmono4681 he is bored cause physics and computer science is yet to catch up to do what he wants

@nyoodmono4681

3 жыл бұрын

@@Tbop3 If you really want i can give you a long talk about the history, the mandate and the structure of the ipcc. But i think the "climategate" e-mails they speak for themself: www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf Palmer made one crucial point himself: Why are the climate models not compared in a stochastic manner, would that not just be the next logical step to compare them and ask why the lowest ones meet the observations by now, asking for the "ingredients" causing these different results? Being a scientist like him stumbling about this question i would truly ask myself if what i am doing here is science after all. The list of former scientists that left the ipcc for scientific reasons is pretty impressive. Him asking these questions himself, maybe after Hossenfelder pointed them out, show that he is not discussing these things with other parts of the ipcc, which is sad and wierd and in the end bs, nothing but bureaucracy, collecting data, modelling and only the political bureau will interpretate everything. There is no room for theorizing and debate whithin the ipcc, it lacks an organ of falsification. This role of falsification is put to fringe, experts like Lindzen, Christy, Curry, Shaviv are named and shamed and excluded since the debate got extremely polarized. So there is no debate by succsfully avoiding a debate, claiming a consensus and defending it ferocious.

I like the sense of hesitancy on commiting to an opinion, that plays out well on video. When someone writes or speaks on stage they need to feel certain about what they are saying. This makes it look like they are more certain of what they are presenting than they really are. That the facts are in. In particular it 'papers over' any weaknesses in knowledge. This style of interview, in contrast, assisted the subjects weakness to be expressed and examined. We'll done!

I live in central Ohio. A few thousand years ago my house would have been buried beneath a glacier that reached all the way to Cincinnati. Those worldwide glaciers have been receding ever since and continue to do so. This all started long before man started burning fossil fuels to any significant extent. I posted this comment before and KZread took it down. Hey KZread, afraid much?

@glennmartin6492

7 күн бұрын

We entered an interglaciation where the atmosphere is warmer. Then we've made it even warmer still.

This kind of thing is what most people need. Most people, including myself, are not trained in the various sciences that form the field we call climate science. Understanding all the basics, free of politics and ideology, is such an important basis for understanding the bigger picture including the politics. Thank you.

@Trollificusv2

3 жыл бұрын

@buymebluepills Really. That's how it works with gender science. And when I say "works", I mean, of course, "isn't allowed to work".

@runethorsen8423

Жыл бұрын

This is in no way free of politics -try again chief IQ.

@staninjapan07

Жыл бұрын

@@runethorsen8423 Why would you sign off your comment as chief IQ, I wonder? Ah! You want everyone to think that attempts at sarcasm on KZread indicate that you are... clever? You can do better if you try.

@runethorsen8423

Жыл бұрын

@@staninjapan07 I concede - it was wrong of me, it showed my ego and "need to" be insulting. I can explain it (not excuse it). I apologize, for what that's worth.

Glad I found you channel months ago. We can feel how serious and careful you are for every subject you talk about.

Thank you, that was extremely informative and helped clarify a number of things I suspected, especially that these models tend to tell us very little about what is likely to happen at regional scales. One presentation I watched recently said: "We should never treat a model as a black box, and if it is a black box then we should not trust it (think LLMs). Thank you Tim and Sabine for shining a little light into the climate models box. More please.

@briancrowther3272

7 ай бұрын

What if you are runniing out of time and the black box is the best you have at the moment and the risk of not taking action is catastophic? Then yoiu will have to do what we all do thoughout our lives in other contexts, use the black box coupled with intelligence. Your solution is imoractical in the case of co2 caused climate change at the moment. The Prof says we have a black box and it tells us enough to know we are in deep do do re co2 and need to cut back now. he syas the black box is reliable enough for this. Then after that its the detail that is required.

Did they get it wrong? Who knows but 3 years later and it's got a whole worse in that time. Record global average temperatures, 40C heat in Europe, over 100F heat for weeks on end in SW USA, half of Canada is on fire (slight exaggeration) , Vermont is under water and the mid-west has all but been blown away by tornadoes.

That‘s exactly the kind of substantial interviews we need as a source of information for the most relevant topics these days, thank you very much. I would also very much appreciate if Sabine could explain some key relations. I know that there are many other sources and channels dealing with this topic, but I think what we desperately need is more information and understanding instead of biased opinions, entertainment and gossip. I would be willing to donate for such videos.

@lengould9262

2 жыл бұрын

I don't see why any further discussion is needed. ??

Very understandable! The sub-grid parameterization to deal with iteds that "slip through the grid" was fascinating. You picked a great guest.

@MrMichaelFire

3 жыл бұрын

gxulien .. If you mean he was perfect at showing what a writhing pit of snakes the climate cons are, I agree!

@MrRebound68

3 жыл бұрын

@@MrMichaelFire "Climate Cons" - you mean the business leaders that purposefully confuse the science on climate change since the seventies?

Thank you. This is such a fine interview, about the most important subject.... could you do an update perhaps?

How many years of previous temperature/climate data does this climate model take into account? Also I am very curious about how exactly Co2 causes atmospheric warming? I know that Co2 is what plants breathe and it seems to me that increased Co2 would make plants healthier and more numerous and thus producing more Oxygen therefore somewhat balancing it out.

@killcat1971

2 жыл бұрын

CO2 absorbs infrared radiation at certain wavelengths, the light from the sun comes in and is absorbed then the energy is released as infra red, which is why you feel warmth radiating from roads after a hot day. More of this energy is trapped in the lower atmosphere, satellites have measured this change over the last 20 or so years.

@mrradman2986

Жыл бұрын

@@killcat1971 You neglect to mention that C02 is a trace gas whose atmospheric concentration has increased by one molecule in 10 000 since pre-industrial times. The postulated forcing in computer-modeled predictions of climate has to be mediated via the overwhelmingly dominant 'greenhouse gas' which is of course water vapour. More water vapour is likely to be associated with more clouds which are poorly modeled and hence lead to the significant discrepancies we see between modeled temperatures and what are observed. Climate alarmism does not take into account the extremely beneficial effects of increased atmospheric C02 in terms of increased plant growth which has been termed global greening.

@killcat1971

Жыл бұрын

@@mrradman2986 And? "Trace" does not mean "ineffective" a "trace" of cyanide is still poisonous, do not confuse amount as a percentage with impact. CO2 has an impact far in excess of it's proportion, and if you increase it this increases.

@mrradman2986

Жыл бұрын

@@killcat1971 If that were true temperatures would have run away to levels incompatible with life when C02 was 8000 ppm. The action of C02 is actually very simple based on the two bonds within the molecule and not something capable of a synergistic effect. Most IR is already absorbed with current concentrations of C02 and adding more does not potentiate the effect, rather it rapidly diminishes. You should study Wiiliam Happer who is an expert on physics of C02.

@lg-ii6pm

Жыл бұрын

I’m seeing nasa data with >150%

My main takeaway -- Tim Palmer says we need bigger computers.

@GordoGambler

3 жыл бұрын

No. We need way fewer STUPID demented people.

@MrRebound68

3 жыл бұрын

@regivos Please point me to the timecode in the video where he says that.

@happyfase

3 жыл бұрын

@@GordoGambler "The problems in the world are caused by everyone but me."

@phitsf5475

3 жыл бұрын

It doesn't matter how powerful the computers are if the models and inputs are sloppy and incomplete

@bluefishactcl1464

3 жыл бұрын

I say : he believe models with zero ability to be tested

now I am dizzy by looking at the spinning globe the whole time without realizing it.

@ReimerGodt

2 жыл бұрын

His wife should iron the cable ... :)

Thank you Both. This is a very helpful and important interview. I hope many people can listen and understand what is being said.

@arjanmuyen3684

3 ай бұрын

judgement without arguments promotes dumbification

Would it help to say how much the ocean water is warming in different areas, such as at equator, poles, and circulation streams, with the effects that warming of ocean water is having?

: Strange how there seem to be commenters who didn’t watch the video or all the way through because they’re citing the video as somehow denying climate change and that the modeling and concerns about their projections are phony or whatever. What I saw in the 35 minutes of the video were two people discussing the science of modeling, the technology, and where it should be improved based on current developments that generally indicate the science and modeling have been on point. The discussion about global mean temperature and the necessity of shifting some to regional impact projections was particularly good and informative.

@sillysad3198

2 жыл бұрын

because she let him expose his own lies, but not in the way you could understand.

@ivanleon6164

2 жыл бұрын

exactly, he is impressed how good the predictions are on a super complicate system, specially for long periods, yes there are errors and any educated human doesn't have issues with that, but people see errors and think is "wrong". the man says climate change is being predicted very well, then goes to talk about the science, the climate change is never challenged, lol.

@ivanleon6164

2 жыл бұрын

@@sillysad3198 sis u even understand? and no, sabine is not like that.

@FairchildTom

2 жыл бұрын

@@sillysad3198 a sufficiently smart person would be able to talk about where the lack of understanding comes from. Your lack of explanation clearly points to you either being shill of for-profit companies that pollute or that you are simp for being told what to believe without sufficient data. Both reasons being good enough to ignore you.

@Justwantahover

Жыл бұрын

@@sillysad3198 It's people like you who are the most destructive if the trend keeps getting worse, which it definitely seems to be. Two years ago in my region it didn't rain for a year, but now it has rained just about continually for 6 months! How is that "normal"? Climate deniers are usually religious and "know" climate change isn't a worry, period, cos of this passage... Genesis 8:22! Great science isn't it. Not convincing me, that's for sure.

Might I suggest that the various hurricane tracking models might provide a useful counterpoint and illustrative of the problems associated with achieving "certainty" in predictions. Now that I think about it, news organizations will display the predicted tracks, but they don't tell us which model did best after the event, there usually being more immediate and important events to talk about.

There are a few paradoxes about the climate change debate. During the Eemian Interglacial, the previous one about 110,000 to 130,000 years ago, sea levels were six to nine metres above current levels. Are we to blame this on the CO2 emissions of Neanderthals and Denisovans sitting around their campfires? The climate of the Sahara flips regularly about ever 11,000 years from desert to savannah, during the North African Humid Period, and then back to desert again. How many of these climate models factor in the role of plants and photosynthesis which need carbon dioxide, water, heat and sunlight to stay alive? It's the plants that created the Earth's habitable climate and still do. Animals evolved as conveniently mobile compost makers for the plants. Should we have the plants reduce O2 emissions instead? Go figure.

Thank you Sabine.

It's really nice hearing a discussion about it at this kind of level! Thank you!

@arjanmuyen3684

3 ай бұрын

judgement without arguments promotes dumbification

being willing to delve into the subtleties of this is so important and I wish more people would care about it.

Solid scientific discourse. In semiconductor device modelling we have similar problems and use empirical models. These are based on experiments and models are validated often as it is lab scale. A 100 billion dollar industry uses these models. There are observations in metrology, and weather predictions days ahead, but how are these parameter based models otherwise tested? Great youtube! Great questions Sabine!

*sigh* an interesting rational discussion about accuracy of complex predictive models and their limits based on a deep knowledge of the subject. What a sad world we are living in that this is called courageous. Kant would roll in his grave. Still: Sabine, huge thanks for not taking the easy route. Danke!

@Zettel9016

4 жыл бұрын

Orwell would not.

@Krmpfpks

3 жыл бұрын

Tbop3 Since I read Kant in German I am not sure about the typical translation, but Kant was calling for mankinds liberation from the selfimposed immaturity by rational thinking.

@jacobsonsorgan

3 жыл бұрын

Academe is infantilizing to the extreme in its current context. It's necessary for the institutions to act top-down paternalistic in order to serve their purpose as authority, problem being that the expansion of recording media into the most private and/or casual corners of conversation enforces a timidity in dialogue among the intellectually cautious that has not been a part of previous intellectual cultures. These folks are professionals having a public conversation that may very well end up spurring controversy that may harm them professionally. If you have any skin in the game at all, it's definitely a brave thing nowadays to express minority opinions on taboo or sacred-cow subjects

@Krmpfpks

3 жыл бұрын

Tbop3 I am not totally sure what two mindsets you are referring to, but I wholeheartedly agree that you need a certain serenity and clarity in today’s world of political pressure and large scale misinformation campaigns that once were only used by oppressive regimes or in times of war but now seem to be common in everyday topics like climate change, vaccination. In Kants days it was the aristocracy, the churches and superstition controlling the population by misinformation. By adopting rational and humanistic thinking humankind made huge progress in medicine, law, science, technology. Maybe I’m getting old, but I think we lost a lot of that in the last decade or two.

@Krmpfpks

3 жыл бұрын

Tbop3 now I understand. Thank you.

I have a Meteorology degree I never put to use from the 1970's. I have never been able to shake my skepticism that any iterative model that loops thousands of times to get to a result, which multiplies errors in the data, errors in the models of all the affected subsystems, etc. would be able to sense the small change in CO2 from 380 to 400 ppm or whatever it now is, without being overwhelmed by inadequacies in the overall approach. So many subtle variable Albedo effects in so many systems, particularly cloud models, seem to me to be of larger magnitude. Noting that their are dozens of models, this seems to point to the built in intractability of the problem. So glad Newtonian physics doesn't need dozens of models to time the fall of an apple from a tree.

@mlytle0

4 жыл бұрын

@JeremyEM1 We have lots of data that covers western Europe and parts of North America for about 150 years, surface observations globally only until shortly after WWII and still thin inc overage. Global data of from both satellites and ground observations on a global scale has only now recently (20-25 years) become possible. The temperature data from satellites provides high coverage at some loss in precision, so ground observations help calibrate them. Now, since there are dozens of models, in families, what they will try to do is match this data set as described. This is a fairly small data set considering the long and turbulent history of the earth atmosphere and biosphere. It is of a very short time span covering a rather benign range of a few decades, globally. Though I'm not accusing these people of doing intentional 'curve fitting', which any scientist knows does not necessarily provide a deterministic model, just a good fit which may fail in the future, I think that's what you end up with by the nature of the process. There is paleodata of various kinds, of varying quality, and so forth, but this has not helped them to resolve the dozens of models down to say a handful or preferably fewer. People doing computer models know very well the intoxicating power of having terraflops of computing power, it makes it seem that all things can be subject to scientific reductionism, but I would humbly suggest that the data set we have for all of it's huge size in our terms, is highly unrepresentative of the vast stretches of earth's history. A tight fitting of the data, which in my opinion hasn't been achieved by any one model, is still only matching a very unremarkabe short piece of geologic time.

@CM-bq9fp

4 жыл бұрын

@JeremyEM1 because he thinks as a scientist and want to know what one can understand to predict the future. Dont you think you are biased in what you mention here ? In oppositve a scientist has to mention the reasons why he can be wrong, not why he is right.

@mlytle0

4 жыл бұрын

@JeremyEM1 Please keep in mind that climate models are modifications ( I won't say 'hacks', it's insulting) of standard Meterological models as the physics is pretty much the same, and these weather models fail in about two weeks or less as they take the same equations and Iteratively compute one time step at a time, taking the results of a short term forecast as inputs into the next interation for the next time step and so forth. This is a beautiful error multiplication system, unintended, like compounded interest, and is one reason they go unstable and fail after a time. Data must be perfect, models must be perfect, otherwise errors accumulate even faster. 30 year predictions seem pretty ludicrous, actually.. Am I saying Global Warming isn't happening? No. I'm saying the models are not good enough to tell us one way or the other, and in my opinion, probably never will.

@RalphDratman

4 жыл бұрын

@JeremyEM1 Then model the variable (but usually short) human attentions span, political manipulation, greed for profit and just human unpredictability. The result is what we see in the world today: angry denial and attempts to make the problem go away by covering our eyes.

@davew4998

4 жыл бұрын

@@mlytle0 Hi. Please go on to The Guardian website and provide some balance to the constant drip feed of the science having been settled. We need more people like you to stop the hysteria.

From ice, ocean sediment core samples, and other measures we have both temperature and CO2 atmospheric levels over millions of years. Clearly the C02 and temperature measures have a high correlation. However, to say that this correlation means that C02 levels are "driving" or causing temperature changes is presumptuous, in that mathematically this correlation could just a validly indicate that temperature changes are responsible for C02 changes. Clearly, the two measures are related. Certainly it is well understood that global temperatures are driven by multiple periodic astrological phenomena (eccentricity, gravitational effects of Jupiter and Saturn, etc. all modifying global warming/cooling from the sun at the multiple frequencies related to the respective cycles ). Further, as the solubility of CO2 in both salt and fresh water is diminished with increasing temperatures, it is well understood that warming will result in release in C02 from these vast reservoirs of carbon dioxide in the earth's oceans and lakes. So the question remains: which comes first - the chicken or the egg? Correlation can NOT answer this. However, spectral analysis can. The cross-spectrum between temperature and C02 changes over millions of years demonstrates significant interaction between these signals. The Coherence function (related to the correlation, but not its Fourier transform), gives both the degree of this relation as well as the precedence between the spectral components of the cross-spectrum. When this analysis is done, temperature is seen to lead CO2 in the broad range of coherent frequencies. That is, CO2 changes follow temperature changes.

I read a few years ago that the increase in vegetation as a consequence of increased atmospheric CO2 was re-absorbing half of the increase in human-induced emissions. This was from a mainstream source. So how do we know that the greening of the planet as a result of increased atmospheric CO2 won't ultimately offset *all* of human CO2 emissions?

@johnmcleodvii

Жыл бұрын

Because it isn't doing so yet, and studies (in a lab where conditions can be controlled) have indicated that they won't be capable of absorbing it all.

@SnoopyDaniels

Жыл бұрын

@@johnmcleodvii So it will never do it because isn't doing so yet? Very sound logic. I'm not sure what sort of experiment could test the hypothesis that the greening of the earth can't offset man-made CO2 emissions. That's not even an experimental question. It's a mathematical question. All of the fossil fuels we're burning now were once biomass on earth's surface. What reason is there to think that all of this extra carbon can't be reabsorbed into the biosphere that it originated from?

Thanks Sabine and Tim for an excellent discussion.

Thank you Sabine and Tim. Thank you so much.

Doctor, this is probably the very best interview I've found on this subject (though maybe now getting a little dated). This was good science as well as good journalism. You asked excellent questions. Trying to sort through all of political fog regarding climate change is more than frustrating.

@arjanmuyen3684

3 ай бұрын

judgement without any argument; HOLLOW

Always enjoy your KZread work. I remain very much sceptical. Balance is always good when having scientific discussions. I would like to see a similar discussion with one of the many climates scientists who do not agree with what this scientist says. As for modelling I am totally sceptical. Look forward to another climate scientist who holds opposing views. 😁👌

So basically predictions of global temperature rise have been correct but predicting how things will play out regionally is very complex.

@thedalillama

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, and for them to suggest that is a success is absurd. Is Global Warming going to cause death and destruction or not *as we have been told*? That's the first primary issue. The next is whether specific humans have cost efficient solutions to the problem if it is a problem.

One of the most worthwhile interviews I’ve seen in years. Now if only the media and politicians could act responsibly.

@cedricpod

2 жыл бұрын

Let’s all go to sugar rock Mountain

@ayeone3870

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah... Wonder why they're not... Oh because CO2 doesn't affect temperature.

@Bob_Adkins

2 жыл бұрын

I'm a scientist, and I have a theory that arsenic will cure the malfunctioning brains of climate deniers. The responsible thing to do is give it to them, right?

@cedricpod

2 жыл бұрын

@@Bob_Adkins ……. arsenic ? what an unpleasant idea

@Manuel-cx6ob

2 жыл бұрын

@@ayeone3870 I would like to remind that CO2 is a toxic gas, and there is plenty of evidence that a cronic exposure to 600-800 ppm causes several health problems and decrease of cognitive abilities. We are going to reach those values very soon if we keep on exponentially increasing CO2 emissions.

One thing to remember is the physical nature of the terrains involved, and how they relate globally to changes as they manifest across those different climates. SUCH AS: in North America, there might be vast clearings of land, less foilage, more roads, and thus climates are effected more over in average wind speeds, more run-off, and drier ecology. The temperatures are secondarily affected via these changes in conditions, not as a direct result.

@midi5581

Жыл бұрын

The more computational power they would get, the more details they would be able to employ in order to improve their accuracy and reliability. I share the supercomputer with the climate-related team so please don't give them ideas, I want my calculations to be done faster ;)

@luckyPiston

Жыл бұрын

Interesting point about the influence altering the infrastructure has , so what effect could say 100 square kilometers of wind turbines have ?

@chrisgriffith1573

9 ай бұрын

@@guido4231 lol

The current +0.290C over the mean is an increase, yes. But the models have consistantly over done the response as they have a real problem with feed back. CDAS global temp. is a fine place to see that the end of the world is not happening any time soon, at least according to the data. Just an aside, no one talks about the last decade in the arctic where temps have been stable in the melting period of high summer.

@kshred3043

Жыл бұрын

Two words for you: tipping point

Its strong cognative dissonance when he starts out describing the GCMs as being based on fundamental physics described by navier-stokes and he even mentioned quantum effects(!) only to later admit the calculated grid cells are computationally too expensive to actually perform and those grid cells have to be much larger than the effects being modelled so that the results in gridcells has to be represented by simplified calculation and even parameterisation for clouds.

@HumanAreYou

8 ай бұрын

I know this is 2 years later - but there's no contradiction. We do understand the basic physics. But simple physics can give rise to very complex interactions. That is not a "cognitive dissonance" it is understanding that a system is more than it's parts. Same as say - we really do understand gravity really well, and can simulate what a single object will do very accurately - but that doesn't mean it's easy to predict or calculate the movement of every last pebble in an avalanche.

@medhurstt

8 ай бұрын

@HumanAreYou But in this context we don't know clouds. We parameterise them as a fit to what we've measured and that's not physics based. Then that non physics based value is included in the calculation making the whole thing now a fit. Whether you argue simplified physics is still physics or not doesn't get around the fact the GCMs are not a physics based calculation because of clouds alone.

@HumanAreYou

8 ай бұрын

@@medhurstt We do know clouds. We can't compute them to the detail equivalent of a single pebble in an avalanche, but we can predict well enough what the trajectory of the avalanche is. Same as with the fact that temperature is increasing. It's irrelevant for what we need to do. Stop the avalanche, i.e. reduce CO2 and fast to know what every pebble / every cloud in detail contributes. He makes that clear too, if you actually listen.

@medhurstt

8 ай бұрын

@HumanAreYou Predicting "well enough" is fine for tomorrow's weather but not for climate. Clouds have a large impact and how they'll behave in an atmosphere that is increasingly changing isn't good enough for projection. There are many quantities in GCMs that are like that.

@HumanAreYou

8 ай бұрын

@@medhurstt As he made clear it's not that we can't predict at all - just not to a perfect degree. And again - for the general big picture of where we are going - it's not crucial. Both basic physics, all the way back in the 1860th, models, and real data tell us that we are warming, fast, and that CO2, Methane, etc. are the cause. There is enough info on that end to understand that we have to reduce emissions and start preparing. Science will fill further details - but that's true with any scientific field. So on that end - we are far beyond just "good enough".

This is what a newscast should be. Honest and educational. Well done and thank you to Prof. Palmer and Sabine.

@Brian-gk2hg

4 жыл бұрын

it was a pretty lame assed interview, he should have been crucified with the garbage he was saying,, so much wrong, Sort of a hiden alarmist message with no back up from actual observations,,

@mickelodiansurname9578

3 жыл бұрын

You might think that... I found it rather tepid, then again I work in data. But most people, the vast majority, perhaps over 95% would find this too complex to follow and a good proportion will fall down on their lexicon. News agencies and media need to also entertain their audience or they will lose them and advertiser's just won't keeps the media going.

@mickelodiansurname9578

3 жыл бұрын

@@Brian-gk2hg an example?

Great interview. We do need more. Please do another one to de-mystify the many questions put forward by sceptics. E.g. the cooling effect of increased cloud cover, the impossibility of such low levels of CO2 having such a major effect, the benefits of increased CO2 for plant life, the actual evidence of tipping points, sea level rise and run-away warming.

Thank you, this was very interesting. It gave me a greater appreciation for the incredible work that climate scientists do.

11:05 this sounds like a Turing test for climate models! „we still have to some way to go until you can‘t tell whether you are looking at a climate model or the real world“

@Problembeing

4 жыл бұрын

Absolutely. This kind of tenterhooks way of speaking sounds like a hostage trying to impart secret information whilst having a gun to their head.

@doughauck57

4 жыл бұрын

“... tell weather” - I see what you did there.

@massecl

4 жыл бұрын

We can't build a computer big enough (assumed that we can know all the parameters and their interactions) to model the climate so that it is "real world", because this computer already exists, and it is the Earth.

@daffidavit

4 жыл бұрын

@@massecl Exactly, it's almost like what Dr. Heisenberg concluded. Interesting how in 1815 a volcano exploded which was 150 times that of Mt. St. Helens. It was equivalent to over 60 Hiroshima sized atom bombs. In Indonesia, a large mountain named "Tambora" exploded and killed over 300,000 people. Its effects lasted over two years. The Global temperature cooled by 1.5 degrees (F). Most crops in Europe didn't grow for a year and a half. Thirty-six (36) "cubic miles" or about 100 megatons of sulfur and smoke and grit encircled the Earth. There was no spring season and the summer never warmed. The following year, 1816 became known as "The Year Without Summer". There was a famine in Ireland. In New England, the year became known as "1800 and froze to death". Morning frost would last until June and almost no planted seed would grow. Livestock died. However, the 19th century was already known as "a little ice age". But after the "Tambora Event" was over after two years, the Earth's "natural thermostat" took over. Eventually, precipitation brought the smoke and dust to the ground. The "stuff" eventually went to the bottom of the ocean which eventually gets recycled into the plates and digested inside the molten magma beneath the ocean. So what do we do? Do we spend trillions and trillions of dollars to reduce carbon emissions only to have another large volcano or a huge rock suddenly fall from space and start all over again? Source and quotes: A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson

@nyoodmono4681

4 жыл бұрын

"Palmers indeterminacy principle" Palmer 2019 et.al

Thank you Sabine and Tim, this was really good discussion and great summary of the state of things!

I would really like Sabine to have the same format of discussion with scientists of the 'opposite' persuasion. I put it in quotes because these other scientists are not denying anthropogenic climate effects, but disagree that it's an existential threat.

This linear CO2 molecule doinig all this work at 15 microns IR is simply amazing. If it can warm the planet that much at a concentration of 0.04% why the hell can we not harvest this and provide free energy for all?

Just a few intelligent questions and the patience to listen to the answers of a person using the best science we have, and you get this wonderful talk.

@andrewrivera4029

4 жыл бұрын

? This guy is a babbling idiot! Sabina looks like she’s listening to rapist testimony...

@patricklincoln5942

4 жыл бұрын

@@andrewrivera4029: What? That is just because you don't understand him.

@pspicer777

4 жыл бұрын

esreve1 Excellent observation and comment.

@massecl

4 жыл бұрын

They are discussing: how the hell could we stop this fucking globe just in the middle? What? The video camera is recording? Too bad…

@TheCompleteGuitarist

4 жыл бұрын

@@patricklincoln5942

Why so many dislikes? I'd genuinely would like to hear about what it is supposed to be wrong about this discussion.

@Bannockburn111

3 жыл бұрын

My guess would be that many people (myself included) weren't as much interested in how the climate model spoken about here is accomplished, but were more interested in why that climate model is inaccurate in terms of predicting whether or not CO2 is at a dangerous level now, or will likely be at a dangerous level at anytime in the future, and whether or not the amount of CO2 we dump into our atmosphere is truly a problem, or just appears to be a problem because the models commonly used are very flawed. This discussion was not about that, at all, but the title was, in my opinion, kind of a "click-bait" in its wording. That said, Dr. Hossenfelder stated what the discussion was about immediately in the beginning, and so, while many of us might have been disappointed, the video should not have been "down-voted" because it did discuss the issue as was stated by Dr. Hossenfelder.

@NuisanceMan

2 жыл бұрын

Denialists.

Sabine gently asks all the questions the skeptics have been asking. Palmer's basic answer is "it's complicated".

@HumanAreYou

8 ай бұрын

No that is _not_ his answer.

I find the arguments behind the belief that warming is an impending catastrophe to be dubious for three reasons. One: If we are close to a "tipping point" where the current "delicate balance" will become disrupted if we don't take drastic action right away, then why hasn't any of the historic climate excursions already caused such a latchup? If positive feedback in the climate system is so dominant, then why didn't previous CO2 levels that were TEN times current levels cause disaster? The fact that we haven't experienced a tipping point event already is evidence that negative feedback mechanisms may dominate the Global climate instead of positive feedback mechanisms. Two: How can we be sure that the current climate is ideal for humanity? Couldn't raising global temperatures, and liberating much of the buried carbon back into a potentially lush biosphere be a good thing? The assertion that the global climate right now is ideal for life on Earth is more of an article of faith than an honest assessment of the likely outcome. Three: Time Scales. If sea levels rise to the levels predicted in the worst case, people aren't going to wakeup one day and find their house floating away. Houses get torn down and rebuilt on a much shorter timescale than the predicted rise. Multiple generations will come and go while we are waiting for the rising oceans. On the scale of human existence, I doubt anyone besides historians will notice sea level rise

It's not enough that the politicians have the information on the risks of continued CO2 emissions. In democracies, we need the voting public to understand those risks otherwise politicians who are willing to take the needed action to reduce CO2 emissions won't be voted in.

4 жыл бұрын

Only WASPS are stupid enough to pretend climate change doesn't exist.

Thank you for your efforts. Blessings.

It would be very wise to have this sort of honest interviews/discussions on the subject of va€€inations. The brutal arrogance of the pharma industry and their bought scientists and its misleading manoeuvres and manipulation of politicians and people with the help of corrupted media is appalling.

One very harrowing thought watching this video near the end of 2022 is that as the video is now at least 3 years old the CO2 content has continued to rise, is still continuing to rise, and regardless of how accurate the climatologists models are we know we are heading for disaster. Professor Palmer made the very important point near the beginning of the video that people generally don’t understand the impact of increases in global average surface temperature but do react when weather extremes result from those increases. We have all now experienced that in one way or another.

@petneb

Жыл бұрын

Fear is the true enemy and the politician's and their army of psychologist know how to make us fearful and obedient. Isn't it funny that 20 times more people die from cold weather compared to warm weather. Below 150 ppm photosynthesis stop and we all die and we are at the lowest CO2 (but it's getting better now) we have ever been. Please study som well known geological CO2 history before getting scared to death.

@MsBiggles51

Жыл бұрын

You're equating CO2 with temperature, but there has been no positive correlation for 4,500,000,000 years on this planet, except from 1980 to 2000. CO2 does not equal warming. In the Ordovician ice age the CO2 was 4,400ppm. The average for the planet is around 1200ppm. You've been lied to and brainwashed.

What wasn’t mentioned was the effect of o. The atmosphere brown cloud o. Deforestation Each of these is arguably of similar importance to CO2 in terms of climate change. Ramanathan has written extensively on the importance of particulate emissions on atmospheric convection. Convection is crucial for the Earth’s ability to dump excess heat to Space.

@chrismast5626

3 жыл бұрын

thankyou for stating this,,its always bothered me the deforestration and the reduction of rainfall,desertification, and other effects of deforestration on temperature and heat. The emphasis is always carbon, and the political,finacial global governance from agenda 2030 that comes from the CO2 debate.

@disturbedfan545

3 жыл бұрын

@@chrismast5626 Yeah, people seem to forget that there is more to climate than CO2. There's more than one greenhouse gas peeps.

@spillarge

3 жыл бұрын

This is precisely my argument I have been making for more than a decade. The climate will react with more convection when temperatures become warmer. This process skips the CO2 within the Troposphere and dumps the heat at the base of the Stratosphere where it escapes to space. More heat loss and more ice cloud reduces average temperatures. The machanism of the natural properties of the atmosphere opperates a bit like a safety valve. However if climate model scientists over state the value of CO2 in the modelling then they will always make CO2 the problem and the reason for political change.

So the guy in the video who talks so fluffy as to not be understandable is trying to say that c02 is bad for us? What about the science that shows we are in a co2 drought? When people talk in such fluffy ways ignore them. Total speculation based on research budget justification. Off with his head.

What is the ideal temperature for the earth?

I’ve built probabilistic models most of my career. The complexity of the entire climate system is impossible to forecast with any accuracy.

The real problem with climate modeling is the bias of the inputs, which is a natural human failing, we all do to some extent accept or discard information based on what we want the outcome to be By the way over the last couple of decades we are having a decline in extreme weather And the reason Asian African and South American are migrating is people are running away from Despotic Governments not climate change

So I guess what he is saying is the computer models are not that accurate due to complex variables

@grindupBaker

4 жыл бұрын

No it's mostly the grid too coarse at 90 x 90 x 1 km and the time slice 15 minutes too long.

@iii-ei5cv

4 жыл бұрын

No. The issue is with the underlying process or "model", which is highly non-linear, and the need to use linear approximation in order to make the *modelling* of the processes computationally tractable

@PaulPukite

4 жыл бұрын

@@iii-ei5cv Yes, the model for ENSO/El Nino is non-linear but it can be solved and tidal forcing factors can be applied to model the erratic cycles of El Nino.

@Mosern1977

4 жыл бұрын

@@coreyander286 - so I program my computer model in such a way that human C02 emissions cause global warming over time. Then I run my computer model, and publish the fact that in 100 years time, the computer model predicts that we will have global warming. Can I get a Nobel Price now please, like Al Gore did?

@darkwingscooter9637

4 жыл бұрын

​@@PaulPukite Last I checked, predicting El Nino over the season change is no better than a coin toss at the moment.

10 mega danke meiner geschätzten, respektiert, und geehrt Frau Professor Doctor!

I would like to see Sabine do a talk on aerosols and particulates and how they affect the atmosphere. I heard they have a cooling effect depending on the particle size. She did a really good one on the greenhouse effect before.

I didn't know that Bob Dylan was now working at Oxford University.

@guepardo.1

3 жыл бұрын

He has a better singing voice than Bob Dylan.

@guepardo.1

3 жыл бұрын

@Yolo 2.0 It's a wonder that you still know how to breathe.

@Cryptonymicus

3 жыл бұрын

@@guepardo.1 Just about everyone has a better voice than Dylan.

@CygnusEight

3 жыл бұрын

"You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows"

@mator2339

3 жыл бұрын

@@Cryptonymicus Dylan's voice got bad only after the 90s before that he had one of the best voices for his songs.

As Keynes once said, “when the facts change, I change my mind”.

@yingyang1008

4 жыл бұрын

More like " When those who pay me change their minds, I change my mind"

@australianmade2659

4 жыл бұрын

Jacob Zondag that makes no sense

@tricky778

4 жыл бұрын

"when the facts change, I try to find a way to phase back into my own universe"

@psyclotronxx3083

3 жыл бұрын

Facts don't change, they come to light.

@duncanthaw6858

3 жыл бұрын

@JZ's Best Friend Quoting Keynes anywhere and not expecting to be mocked like the darn mug you are is pretty much a blasphemy against intelligence.

Interested to learn more detail about the four RCP variables. Interesting.

Thanks much for this vid. I appreciate the style of argumentation of Palmer, T. and S. Hossenfelder (calm and precise). I particularly enjoyed T. Palmers clear differentiation of his scientific statement from political claims. For a trained soil scientist, working in environmental education, it is some kind of merciful release from ever hotter becoming discussions and struggles among people. Many of them have, thanks to some search engine, read headlines, turn into climate experts over night. Whether you search in groups of peers or politicians, those experts tend to engage themselves in emotional biased mock discussions, which merely lead to frustration and anger, but not to a glimpse of solution...

How to create an interview distraction: Put a spinning globe in the background right between the two subjects.

@Marmocet

3 жыл бұрын

The interview was interesting, but I do have to admit I found myself wondering if anyone manufactures a magnetically levitated rotating globe whose axial tilt matches Earth's.

@doublesandtrips

2 жыл бұрын

It's placed there to prevent people from falling asleep.

Weather extremes are local weather, not climate. Climate is the whole world, not your local weather.

@petejones4808

4 жыл бұрын

And therein lies the problem. The whole world is too big. Not enough data collection points and not enough computing power to analyse it if we had all the data.

@rad858

4 жыл бұрын

@@petejones4808 There's more than enough data collection points and computing power to be very confident about the basic facts of climate change. Climate science is all about assessing what can and cannot be deduced from the data we have. The answer is lots. Obviously more would be better, but there's no excuse for pathetic conspiracy theories or pretending an entire scientific discipline is incompetent. Pretending is for children.

@davew4998

4 жыл бұрын

@@rad858 I thought Prof Palmer spent the last 10 mins explaining that much more computing power was needed to be able to reliably predict local events, as this is what is important to people, rather than say a 2 deg rise in overall temperature.

@chrisgriffiths2533

4 жыл бұрын

Peter, You raise the Chicken and Egg Dilemma. Does the Egg come before the Chicken or Vice Versa. Does the Weather come before the Climate or Vice Versa.

We now have those once in 100 year flooding happening ever 3 or 4 years.

A rise in temperature always PRECEEDS a rise in CO2. It's always been that way.

@Arturo-lapaz

Жыл бұрын

exactly, they keep using the word change , when they always mean limit warming, so whatever happens its change.

@Arturo-lapaz

Жыл бұрын

back to the reason that temperature leads co2 content, presently at 0.49 grams/m³, at sea level. Co2 has high solubility in cold water and very low solubility at warmer conditions in the tropics, where it is expelled in great quantities, after seawater circulation removed the co2 enriched arctic water. In both polar regions it was absorbed readily, This absorption can easily be observed by cooling a bottle with warm water and co2 above it, after cooling the plastic bottle crumbles, there is a pressure reduction caused by the absorption process. This oceanic circulation proves your point.

I notice that the temperature where we live started to drop in 2015. Now I know the reason, more low clouds and no rain. This is caused by a weak sun (electromagnetic, no sun spots). Cosmic rays form the clouds. During Solar cycle 25, 26 and 26 you will experience colder weather...Henrik Svensmark, Valentina Zharkova.

@Dundoril

3 жыл бұрын

No sorry but svenmark already predicted cooling in the next few years in 2009...it got much warmer since than... And solar irradiance had been going down since 1970 while temperatures got warmer and warmer...

@osopolarmovies

3 жыл бұрын

@@Dundoril I trust thermometers: www.dropbox.com/s/1pm1oq7i95mvfsc/AA.jpg?dl=0

@hambonemusk

3 жыл бұрын

Dunning Kreuger again!

@Dundoril

3 жыл бұрын

So you live on the tenerifa airport?

@osopolarmovies

3 жыл бұрын

Dundoril Muy cerca del airopuert Reina Sofia, que si.

Thank you, Dr. Hossenfelder. There are a lot of scientists and engineers who enjoy hearing conversations at this level of detail, something that can be rare when things get political. Keep up the great work.

Thanks. Nice talk. One expects the climate, one gets the weather. Signal to noise ratio. Don't forget these. And, the declining bad weather events....don't forget those...... Reed Koonin's book " Unsettled. Adaptations.....!!! No mitigation's. That leads to dystopia....

Again, all this was said all along. Models plainly said they couldn't factor in everything. For example, just two years ago they said they didn't figure that any time soon there would be any change in the Gulf Stream. Then suddenly they started noticing that it is changing. THey ALWAYS said that things could be far worse than predicted, and largely that has been the case. While governments and media go along as if the status quo is just fine, things are much worse, and forget about STOPPING climate change, there aren't even any plans on dealing with the growing EFFECTS. I'm in Canada where the western part of the country had fires all through the spring and summer, and still ongoing, and its not even treated as NEWS.

One just has to look at the climatologists predictions of near term catastrophes during the last 40 years to get a clear answer: climatologists have been constantly getting it wrong.

@thedalillama

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I'm half way into this video and they haven't addressed what actually matters regarding Global Warming.

Aw... Tim Palmer could have gone on for longer. He sounded disappointed straight at the end. "Time's up? Already?" Wouldn't have minded a longer video.

People often forget it will hit harder in some areas than others. But I will never understand how money can be more important than deal with what most thinks are the most efficient way. Nuclear power. Molten salt or Thorium. And why the heck we don't plant trees in a very big scale is plain stupid.

@autohmae

Жыл бұрын

carbon offsets is a whole industry now, which even have it's share of scammers, etc.

Thanks for this information, I get the sense that modeling plantary processes is very complex...... but this year, someone got a Nobel Prize in complexity studies related to climate change studies... can we do a follow-up on that?

@waynepatterson5843

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks for this information, I get the sense that modeling plantary processes is very complex...... but this year, someone got a Nobel Prize in complexity studies related to climate change studies... can we do a follow-up on that? Wayne Patterson --- The Nobel Prizes have been falling into disrepute for a long time as the prizes have been used for political purposes.

@Graham_Wideman

2 жыл бұрын

@@waynepatterson5843 You may wish to distinguish the Nobel prizes in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature (and the more recent one in Economics) from the Peace Prize which is perhaps more controversial. Their selection processes are different and awarded by different bodies.

if Cloud cover is a factor, then wouldn't those studies on Cosmic Rays and how they affect Cloud Cover be important? There are some interesting videos around here on that subject.

Thank you for that, this was very interesting!

Very, very good interview. Should have gone for full 2 hours.

I think the number of dislikes of this video (rationally, there should be none) is an indication that by asking some relatively gentle and uncontroversial questions that the argument that there is a climate crisis appears to hover somewhere between uncertain and shot to bits. But given that climate has been successfully whipped up into a religion, any examination however gentle, is clearly viewed as heresy.

What I have been looking for, and have yet to find, is a laboratory demonstration that CO2 will slow down the rate of convection in our atmosphere. I envision a very tall (at least a kilometer) vacuum encased containment of atmosphere. The containment should be a highly elongated O shape with one side allowing upward convection of heated air and the second side allowing downward movement of cooled air. Heat would be added at the bottom and the exact same amount of heat would be removed at the top. Various atmospheric compositions should be tested. The key variables would be CO2 and H2O. Thermocouples should be arrayed up and down both sides of the containment to measure the distribution of temperatures. If anthropogenic CO2 is causing heating of our atmosphere, we should see a pooling of heat at the bottom of the apparatus as the percentage of CO2 is increased. I used to write computer models for a living. I know how easily they can be tweaked. Given the political supercharging involved in the global warming controversy, we need hard physical data collected under controlled conditions that can be duplicated by more than one researcher. Sorry, but computer models are much too vulnerable to scams, and too many researchers have personal vested interests to be trusted in a matter of this significance.

@grindupBaker

4 жыл бұрын

"What I have been looking for, and have yet to find, is a laboratory demonstration that CO2 will slow down the rate of convection in our atmosphere". If you do ever find that laboratory demonstration then it will be fake because the so-called "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere causes warming by a mechanism that has nothing whatsoever to do with "slow down the rate of convection in our atmosphere" fuckwit.

@grahamnumber7123

3 жыл бұрын

@@grindupBaker GHG theory is wrong plus the earth does not cool at an IR spectrum affected by CO2...You describe yourself well. I cite the papers in an earlier post. Perhaps calling all them names will sooth your broken cult, it won't change the science. Please name the mechanism whereby adding 1 part of something will heat 2500 parts around it bypassing the rest of physics climate scientists bypassed.

@SECONDQUEST

2 жыл бұрын

Take a bottle, breathe co2 into it, watch it heat up differently than a bottle filled with "air". It's been done and is a school children's project.

@davidtuer5825

2 жыл бұрын

@@SECONDQUEST Well the temperature of your breath, which is mostly nitrogen, will be at body temperature Ca 36degrees C.

But, they can't even predict accurately the weather for next week!

@jeanf6295

3 жыл бұрын

Weather is not the same thing as climate, if you roll a six sided dice you don't know for sure what face it will end up on, but if you repeat the experience many times you can be quite certain that roughly each face will show up 1/6 of the time. Even if weather is chaotic, we know that summers are warm and winters are cold : we can predict the mean and the range of likely temperatures (the climate), and not the exact temperature at a specific date (the weather).

@jamesm9534

3 жыл бұрын

@@jeanf6295 very erudite, but you have missed the point.

@jeanf6295

3 жыл бұрын

@@jamesm9534 and what is the point ?

@webx135

3 жыл бұрын

"Oh, investing us a good idea because stocks generally grow? They can't even predict the stock market in a week!" This is you. This is how you sound.

@chadparsons50

Жыл бұрын

​@@webx135I don't think you're comment is as well thought out as you believe.

People move from one country to another frequently because of political climate, not the weather.

Thanks guys. This is a favorite climate discussion. I expect to rewatch for the forth time within a year or so. Thanks again.

She does a wonderful job of explaining things.

Freeman Dyson concluded, "Climate models solve the equations of fluid dynamics. They might do a good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry, and the biology of fields, farms, and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in."

@thalesnemo2841

3 жыл бұрын

And Dyson was not in his lane and became a climate chang e denier.

@zoeherriot

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, that's a poor assessment I'm afraid.

@mu99ins

3 жыл бұрын

@@thalesnemo2841 - Dyson is a lifelong leftist. He is not a climate change denier. He has stated that the earth is warming. He agrees that the carbon emissions have warmed the planet, and this may be wrong, he thinks there is a limit to the warming to be done by carbon. If I interpret him correctly, he thinks there are benefits to increased carbon, one of them being the increased vegetation worldwide. However, he is for reducing carbon emissions because carbon in the atmosphere attacks the ozone layer.

@mu99ins

3 жыл бұрын

@@zoeherriot - Dyson has been interested in the atmosphere for decades. You might want to watch one or more of his interviews to get a better idea of what and why he has his opinions. Not all scientists will agree that the models have been correct. One of the problems is that most scientists are trying to make a living, and they may see their walking papers if they don't dance around the facts a little. What seems to be consistent is that most of the scientists who disagree with the current global warming scare are retired, and not connected to our left leaning universities. Politics is affecting science. You can see this when there is the debate about men becoming women. There are no scientists speaking up. In our cancel culture environment, scientists want their paychecks, because they have house payments, wives, and children to support and send to university.

@thalesnemo2841

3 жыл бұрын

@mu99ins Not what I’ve read and seen some interviews where he denies climate change .

Very interesting and balanced interview. I learned a lot, not the least that things are not so black-and-white.

Value, not temperature, should be the final determinant.