This explanation of confirmation bias agrees with how I already understood it, so I've got very high confidence in it.

@RavenMobile

2 ай бұрын

Lol!

@therealHogmaNtheIntruder

2 ай бұрын

I don't care who you are; that right there is funny. 😂😂😂

@NoName-zn1sb

2 ай бұрын

@@RavenMobile Laughing Out Loud!

@alanwardrop9575

2 ай бұрын

😂

@will7its

2 ай бұрын

Just say you're the problem......😂

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.

@Denito451

2 ай бұрын

Of course all scientists agree when you censor the ones who don't!

@octavianova1300

2 ай бұрын

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.

@GovmtMan

2 ай бұрын

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.

@Nubbdy

2 ай бұрын

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.

@user-od3rl5mc

2 ай бұрын

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 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.

@nick11crafter

Ай бұрын

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

24 күн бұрын

Interdiscliplinarity should be required for academia, too many people only know about their field and are ignorant to other factors.

@iyziejane

21 күн бұрын

@@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.

@novardifunkegenaamdkaiser3491

19 күн бұрын

@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.

@benjaminjohsnon8286

17 күн бұрын

"Whose bias do y'all seek? -Plato" -Jay Z

As they used to say on Wall Street in the '80s, if you squeeze the numbers hard enough you can make them scream anything.

@WG55

23 күн бұрын

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."

@warrenpuckett4203

11 күн бұрын

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

@brianensign7638

5 күн бұрын

There’s a plaque on the wall of a conference room where I work: “If your torture numbers long enough, they will confess to anything.”

Fighting for improved science practices in politicized fields like climate science is thankless, but very important. Thank you Sabine.

@mortgageapprovals8933

2 ай бұрын

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.

@Apistevist

2 ай бұрын

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.

@gilian2587

2 ай бұрын

@@mortgageapprovals8933 That's a savvy thing to do. It's a good way to prevent yourself from getting caught with your academic pants down.

@Folemaet

2 ай бұрын

@@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.

@ivocyrillo

2 ай бұрын

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.

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.

@vmasing1965

2 ай бұрын

It's funny how both sides of the argument are saying the same thing (thinking exclusively about their opposition ofc).

@Sssthpok

2 ай бұрын

Matias Desmet - mass-formation Psychosis. Look him up...

@Easy-Eight

2 ай бұрын

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.

@Dan16673

2 ай бұрын

​@@vmasing1965that's always the case

@aff1743

2 ай бұрын

@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

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.

@helpIthinkmylegsaregone

27 күн бұрын

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.

@chrisdistant9040

19 күн бұрын

@@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. 🤤

@psychohist

6 күн бұрын

Exactly. Climate "science" has been a joke since the climategate emails broke years ago.

@alanc6781

2 күн бұрын

Covid?

@bwalker4194

22 сағат бұрын

She’s getting there.

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

Күн бұрын

noooooo just give politicians more money and power and quit asking questions. or are you a CLIMATE DENIER?

@user-vy8zs5xz2t

Күн бұрын

"Don't be so naive." He said cheekily.

@stevelux9854

17 сағат бұрын

@@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.

@phoenixfire8226

14 сағат бұрын

@@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

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.

@jcortese3300

2 ай бұрын

Yeah, that was the standard example of assuming you'd agree with the big kahuna I learned in school as well.

@Thomas-gk42

2 ай бұрын

@@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.

@cristianproust

2 ай бұрын

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

@TheGuyCalledX

2 ай бұрын

​@@retiredbore378I still remember my 1st grade science book showing Mercury as the smallest of the 9 planets, smaller than Pluto.

@HereBeDragyns-ql8se

2 ай бұрын

This happened with the speed of light too.

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

2 ай бұрын

I saw data analysis act unethical so I assume climate scientists are too. This is a dumbest argument.

@benc2972

2 ай бұрын

@@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

2 ай бұрын

Alternatively, you could blow the whistle. As was done with Boeing and Volkswagen.

@benc2972

2 ай бұрын

@@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.

@daviddow3260

Ай бұрын

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.

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.

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

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.

@tinfoilhomer909

2 ай бұрын

Climate science is soft science, not hard science.

@geraldbutler5484

2 ай бұрын

I don’t think extreme confirmation bias was the main cause of 2008. I think it was the biggest human failing, namely greed.

@kiminonawa2550

2 ай бұрын

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

@chickenbroski99

2 ай бұрын

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

@androkguz

2 ай бұрын

Maybe you were not wrong. Maybe it's just confirmation bias again

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.

@chingron

2 ай бұрын

They won’t do this because it would expose them all as frauds, destroy their narrative, and their funding would dry up.

@SteveAkaDarktimes

2 ай бұрын

the way modern Science, is funded, published and used is deeply. deeply flawed, and the cracks are showing.

@msimon6808

2 ай бұрын

Without the "source data and the code used" it is not science. Let alone settled.

@chingron

2 ай бұрын

@@msimon6808 You are wrong. Bill Nye says it is settled science. And he is the science guy.

@michaeltrumper

2 ай бұрын

@@chingron Fauci might might disagree.

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.

A perfect example of using experience in your own field to understand what's going on in another! Well done Sabine!

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.

@gdiwolverinemale4th

Ай бұрын

@@markholtdorf56 Also, why would scientific research depart from the adopted political model in the West?

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).

@jimbo7577

2 ай бұрын

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

2 ай бұрын

Sabine has selection bias as well.

@cybervigilante

2 ай бұрын

@@jimbo7577 Even NASA has said increased CO2 is Greening the earth. Funny how that is never in headlines.

@StratMatt777

2 ай бұрын

@@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?

@StratMatt777

2 ай бұрын

@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.

Back in 1971 my first college course featured Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions. One takeaway was that scientists find it just as tough to change their mind as anyone else despite their vaunted objectivity. The famous paradigm shift problem. Hence, eg, the reluctance to accept plate tectonics for decades. Climate science is so abysmally complex I would wager very few grasp it. Especially people outside the field and no doubt many within it. A problem is the consequences of being wrong are so dire. But it’s akin to predicting the path of a hurricane ten years from now. Or 50. Thanks as always for your insights Sabine. .

Think we have more to worry about than climate

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.

@CalebDiT

2 ай бұрын

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.

@nostalji75

2 ай бұрын

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".

@Houston810

2 ай бұрын

@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.

@nostalji75

2 ай бұрын

@@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.

@gdiwolverinemale4th

Ай бұрын

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

"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_

@matthewbarber4505

2 ай бұрын

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

@CausallyExplained

2 ай бұрын

They apply to many other aspects of life aswell

@echelonrank3927

2 ай бұрын

terrible title. this cant sell. forging ahead into oblivion in 9 easy steps for dummies by chuckie perrow could do it.

@Autonym

2 ай бұрын

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.

@BlackMasterRoshi

2 ай бұрын

@@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.

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.

@chuckschillingvideos

23 күн бұрын

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.

@turnipsociety706

18 күн бұрын

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

@joekonopka2363

9 күн бұрын

This sheep Sponsored by Exxon

@chuckschillingvideos

9 күн бұрын

@@joekonopka2363 You true believers are the sheep - as Marx called you and your ilk - the useful idiots who seem incapable of critical thinking.

@FernandoWINSANTO

7 күн бұрын

Don't forget about online-video-scientists.

All scientists become too fond of their models. They think they are hot even when they are not…

@Bebopin-69

23 сағат бұрын

They all mostly are fond of the funds, which mostly come from gouvernments who all want the same thing: controle and money.

Everyone needs to take a Statistics course. Then you’ll realize how incredibly easy it is to play with “results!”

@jongoff7829

2 ай бұрын

"There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics." Mark Twain

@bobinthewest8559

Ай бұрын

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. 😁

@Alkis05

Ай бұрын

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.

@stirfrybry1

Ай бұрын

And how easy it is to spot bullcrap. LOL Highly recommended

@C_R_O_M________

Ай бұрын

You can say that again!

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. 😆

@Zartymil

2 ай бұрын

What field you work on? I've never once in my life seen a paper reference wikipedia. That's extremely odd to me.

@emergentform1188

2 ай бұрын

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).

@Rody_le_Cid

2 ай бұрын

@@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.

@lwmarti

2 ай бұрын

​@@ZartymilI saw a Master's thesis a few years back in which EVERY reference was to Wikipedia. The field: cryptography.

@heldstop5442

2 ай бұрын

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.

This is... very interesting because what I was taught is that one of the most basic things about science is that if new evidence comes along that's provably more accurate than what was previously thought correct, then you look at the most accurate source as the authority. The fact that they could throw away the most accurate models that they had baffles me.

@brianensign7638

5 күн бұрын

That’s how it should work. I work in scientific research myself, and I can attest that we are not superhuman. The problem is when we forget that and start seeing ourselves as some kind of priestly class-infallible oracles dispensing truth to the masses. It’s really the same problem that’s plagued mankind from the beginning: Pride

they can barely predict the weather 12 hours in advance, yet scientists have developed tech to predict what the weather was like thousands of years ago and what it will be like next few hundred years lol.

“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

@earnestlanguage4242

Ай бұрын

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.

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.

@monnoo8221

2 ай бұрын

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

@castheeuwes1085

2 ай бұрын

There should be a bonus for falsifying other people's science work.

@monty58

2 ай бұрын

​@@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.

@lillia5333

2 ай бұрын

​@@monty58thank you! So right!

@sandro9uerra

2 ай бұрын

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: kzread.info/dash/bejne/f6aT1MyKfdTYddo.html

We love your work! 🫡🙌🏽🙌🏽🙌🏽😁

I found myself nodding my head "Yes, that's it! She's got it nailed down!" all thru your excellent explanation about confirmation bias, so kudos for being so spot-on!

Sabine, you are a thorn in everyone's side. Thanks, and please keep making videos.

@chrisoakey9841

2 ай бұрын

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.

@brianhillier7052

2 ай бұрын

haha i love her shes great shes the real judge judy of science

@brianvogt8125

2 ай бұрын

@@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.

@sandro9uerra

2 ай бұрын

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: kzread.info/dash/bejne/f6aT1MyKfdTYddo.html

@puddintame7794

2 ай бұрын

Sabine and Tony Heller would make a great debate.

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.

@roger7341

2 ай бұрын

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.

@Bugy34

2 ай бұрын

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....

@aquilavolans6534

2 ай бұрын

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.

@aff1743

2 ай бұрын

@@roger7341 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

@tzenophile

2 ай бұрын

Sturgeon's law applies to science also: 90% of anything is trash.

Thanks so much for your perspective in reality and sharing

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)

@jaleach123

17 күн бұрын

Those boxes are usually a way to identify good videos that tell truths.

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.

@BayLeafff

2 ай бұрын

Ideas seem to have an inertia of their own eh

@anonymousaustralianhistory2081

2 ай бұрын

what things did you see in psychology that you thought may of been a bit of group think? curious to know thanks

@babyqueenxo

2 ай бұрын

Curious about what you are referring to in psychology?

@joeyenniss9099

2 ай бұрын

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.

@sandro9uerra

2 ай бұрын

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: kzread.info/dash/bejne/f6aT1MyKfdTYddo.html

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.)

@johnmartinsen963

2 ай бұрын

Good point!

@jasont2986

2 ай бұрын

@@johnmartinsen963 Science is the best method. The problem is that most 'scientists' don't use that method.

@johnmartinsen963

2 ай бұрын

@@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.

@btudrus

2 ай бұрын

@@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...

@DMahalko

2 ай бұрын

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.

Nice, I always love down to earth approaches

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.

@milanstevic8424

2 ай бұрын

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.

@uncleal

2 ай бұрын

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.

@mortgageapprovals8933

2 ай бұрын

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.

@susananderson5029

2 ай бұрын

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.

@kurtiserikson7334

2 ай бұрын

@@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.

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.

@cubertmiso

2 ай бұрын

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).

@jameslynch8738

2 ай бұрын

Just beware that story of the sparrows that were eradicated for eating crops, then insects caused a famine that killed millions..

@dr.tonielffaucet5988

2 ай бұрын

Boogieman Savior David Keith and Associates are going to save you. Don't worry.

@artOVtrolling

2 ай бұрын

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.

@sandro9uerra

2 ай бұрын

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: kzread.info/dash/bejne/f6aT1MyKfdTYddo.html

Was mich besonders an diesem, wie auch an anderen Videos in diesem Kanal, freut, ist die Kombination aus aktuellen Neuigkeiten aus der Wissenschaft, reflektierten Beobachtungen und vor allem, dass Ideen und Ansätze aus der Wissenssoziologie (in der ich promovierte), gelebt werden und Anwendung finden. Finde ich faszinierend und macht einfach Spaß zu sehen!

The best youtube channel for climate based conversation is The Climate Discussion Nexus.

@anthonymorris5084

6 күн бұрын

Agreed. Also Tony Heller. One of the greatest voices in the climate discussion is Alex Epstein who has two great books. Cheers.

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.

@chrisharshman5838

2 ай бұрын

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.

@mikeavison5383

2 ай бұрын

In medicine x10!

@51monw

2 ай бұрын

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.

@funnyguyinlondon

2 ай бұрын

That's really dubious science

@grimwat

2 ай бұрын

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.

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.

@grindupBaker

2 ай бұрын

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.

@stephenfleming8030

2 ай бұрын

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.

@geraldfrost4710

2 ай бұрын

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.

@TheGuyCalledX

2 ай бұрын

​@@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.

@dzcav3

2 ай бұрын

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.

Look at who makes the most off of fuels and cut down forests that like carbons

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.

@swiftlytiltingplanet8481

29 күн бұрын

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.

There is nothing more scary, than a person in power refusing valid concerns of others.

@blinking_dodo

2 ай бұрын

It's only 3.6 roentgen, right?

@mkhud50n

2 ай бұрын

Not a joke. Look…. well anyway. 🍦

@mortgageapprovals8933

2 ай бұрын

@@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.

@Apistevist

2 ай бұрын

Does CSJ ideology being so spread in academia not severely concern you regarding the future of academic rigor and integrity?@@mortgageapprovals8933

@blinking_dodo

2 ай бұрын

@@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.

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.

“Humans are a part of nature, and if nature isn’t doing well, humans aren’t doing well either” yep. Deep ecology right there. Also, thank you for the nuanced explanation of confirmation bias.

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 ☺

One of my professors (I study geology) has a lot of issues with this as well. He has done several studies where he looks for CO2 and temperature indicators in ancient sediments, and a lot of the time, there really isn't any significant correlation. He often meets a lot of resistance when publishing this, and has become quite bitter about it. I think he has gone a bit too far in the other direction in response to this - he thinks politicians are pushing the whole global warming thing solely as an excuse to remove our dependence on oil states, while I think the lack of correlation is because he looks at periods with massive amounts of volcanism, which also produce aerosols that cool the planet down - but it is quite frustrating that some people are so unwilling to accept evidence they don't agree with.

@staubsauger2305

2 ай бұрын

Take a look at the papers by Shaviv and Svensmark in Nature. They show how between 1/2 and 2/3 of observed climate change is due to a complex process originating with solar magnetic variability (something the UN IPCC does not consider). This agrees with your professor's work.

@MrMawnster

2 ай бұрын

But Arrhenius showed the connection like 100 years ago...

@staubsauger2305

2 ай бұрын

@@MrMawnster The atmosphere is much more complicated than Arrhenius' simple experiment. Read the two papers in Nature by Shaviv and Svensmark or see one of their lectures on KZread. Oh, and the debate is not about CO2 but about the effect of water vapor, CO2 has a small effect and everyone disputes the much greater effect of water vapor. So anyone that talks about CO2 instead of water vapor shows they don't know the basics of the UN IPCC AGW hypothesis at all !

@Grandmas_Favorite

2 ай бұрын

@@staubsauger2305why do you think it’s all about CO2 emissions and not the water vapor? Because we can possibly control our CO2 output, but not the amount of water vapor that’s in the air? I also find it funny, because I too, had no idea for years. That water vapor was the biggest cause of climate change. I thought I only had to do with methane and CO2.

@staubsauger2305

2 ай бұрын

@@Grandmas_Favorite why water vapor matters is because it is the dominant effect on global climate. How water vapor changes then becomes MUCH more important than human-emitted CO2. This is why the papers in Nature (the premier science journal) by Shaviv and Svensmark are so important - they explain the mechanism of how solar magnetic variability changes cloud formation (and water vapor) and it is this that dominates the climate. The reason most people don't know this is because the information is suppressed because the UN wants to 'Seize the Means of Production' by pretending human-emitted CO2 is the cause of change, and not solar magnetic variability. Hence, we no longer are debating science anymore, but are instead under a global coup disguised by Lysenkoism masquerading as science.

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.

@bobtuiliga8691

2 ай бұрын

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.

@sandro9uerra

2 ай бұрын

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: kzread.info/dash/bejne/f6aT1MyKfdTYddo.html

@alastairleith8612

2 ай бұрын

​@@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.

@jemezname2259

2 ай бұрын

I saw a number of videos like that and your observations are spot on.

@joshcryer

2 ай бұрын

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.

The model of a narcissist is someone who use anger and reputation attacks when they encounter someone who points out flaws in their work Then you just look at the money and see that they rely on the urgency of a climate crisis to support their lifestyle … then you understand why they don’t care to have their science questioned with data

@signalnine2601

Ай бұрын

you realize she's saying the officials in this case threw out the more dangerous models? that they ignored the high values indicating the potential for more rapid climate change.

@enderwiggen3638

Ай бұрын

@@signalnine2601 they don’t throw away the models they change them to try and make them fit the new data. You would hope they would start over again … but they don’t. They had predicted massive droughts worldwide with scorching temperatures in the late 70’s and early 80’s. When that didn’t happen they adjusted their models and began to say the climate would actually cool. When that didn’t happen they then began to say severe weather and individual outlier events in isolation were the new prediction of their model after adjustments. Geologists have a better view of what happened to the earths climate of the life of the planet. When they are excluded from the discussion or even derided for weighing in an opinion it makes you wonder why the need to exclude their knowledge of the earth and its history of climate change. This entire issue has been politicized now and credibility of the science is being brought down by circus acts. All the doomsday predictions made by Al Gore or by more recent claims that we have less than 12 years to live … they are acting too cult like to be credible. Unfortunately it’s gotten so stupid now that they are looking at mining the ocean sea floor for minerals to make batteries and other technology to fight climate change. Talking about zero emissions industry and other coin terms that make zero sense. All while we try to migrate to electrical generation without fossil fuels in ways that make no sense for grid stability in an energy driven economy.

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

@Crosshair84

19 күн бұрын

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.

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?

@juandrod8

Ай бұрын

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.

@gdiwolverinemale4th

Ай бұрын

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

@Mexicannasa

Ай бұрын

​@@gdiwolverinemale4thshe is looking for clicks and money since they can't hack it as am actual scientist.

@gdiwolverinemale4th

Ай бұрын

@@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

@Mexicannasa

Ай бұрын

@@gdiwolverinemale4th it does matter. You wouldn't go to to a mechanic if you have a broken leg.

Glad you revisited this. I saw a video criticizing your last one and thought it was rubbish. I'm worried too.

@samo4003

2 ай бұрын

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.

@derelictor

2 ай бұрын

​@@samo4003which one? Just by curiosity

@skytron22

2 ай бұрын

@@samo4003 agreed, that video was rubbishly unconvincing. Sabine’s points are very spot on

@squeaker19694

2 ай бұрын

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.

@sandro9uerra

2 ай бұрын

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: kzread.info/dash/bejne/f6aT1MyKfdTYddo.html

Same thing happens in many fields, archeology, geology, astronomy, ... at least scientific minds can move toward truth but it is still a hard job

Covering up measuring mistakes with lies on top of lies. I think this points to unscientific methodology.

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.

@StratMatt777

2 ай бұрын

You used "politicians" and "credibility" in the same sentence. You are a comedian! Well done!

@daemn42

2 ай бұрын

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.

@InsouciantSoul

2 ай бұрын

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.

@rodneyfungus8249

2 ай бұрын

@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.

@StratMatt777

2 ай бұрын

@@rodneyfungus8249 I forget that sarcasm doesn't work in text.

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.

@gavinjenkins899

2 ай бұрын

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.

@Mudpuppyjunior

Ай бұрын

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.

@willw5868

Ай бұрын

@@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".

@gavinjenkins899

Ай бұрын

@@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)

@willw5868

Ай бұрын

@@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.

Sabine ROCKS !! We need much more effective communications like hers.❤❤

Thank you for this response and for your previous video. Your attitude and approach is what is needed now.

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. ❤

@PavlinMavrodiev

2 ай бұрын

The only one who brought boys vs girls in this discussion is you. Why did you do that?

@jamesquinn8632

2 ай бұрын

I agree. The boys are doing the wrong thing wrong and she is showing us how to do the wrong thing right.

@noelward8047

2 ай бұрын

Good grief. Why are you so excited about a phrase !?!

@PavlinMavrodiev

2 ай бұрын

​​@@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.

The better analogy is for the ECS being 3 or 5. Are the riflemen coming to execute you walking or running?

Is a model particularly good if it is off when it is perdicting past events? If you know what actually happened in the past and you apply the conditions to your model and the outcomes do not match what is recorded is that model really reliable or does it need improvements?

It is hard to turn the boat around when there are so many people rowing in the other direction.

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

2 ай бұрын

Hmm I would like to know more about why they said she was a problem...

@leewilson1368

2 ай бұрын

@@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.

@smallbluemachine

2 ай бұрын

@@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.

@mikeavison5383

2 ай бұрын

@@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

@leewilson1368

2 ай бұрын

@@smallbluemachine 🤣probably true!

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.

@jamemswright3044

Ай бұрын

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).

@thenonexistinghero

Ай бұрын

@@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

Ай бұрын

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.

@thenonexistinghero

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@jamemswright3044

Ай бұрын

@@thenonexistinghero How about you look up the definition of group think, before commenting.

I’m a little late to this party, but just want to say thanks for the work that you do. Your videos are great, and I’ve really enjoyed how you present information. Amazing educator 👏🏻👏🏻

How can we know the change in atmoshperic temp if we don't know specifically what it was before? Maybe now we have the ability to know the entire temp distribution over the entire atmosphere of the earth at a moment in time, but certainly not many years ago. The temp is different at different altitudes, different on the dark side vs the sunny side of the earth, different at my yard vs a half mile away. I don't think we can accurately say the change is 1C or 2C if the noise in the system is > 1C or 2C, etc.. Any comments on this, Sabina?

Some commentators are missing the point. Climate change exists and all models show this. Some of the models that are more pessimistic from a human perspective have been eliminated for no other reason than they seem too pessimistic even though there are reasons to believe that they may be more precise as they also agree with short term weather models. Sabine’s point is that this is not scientifically sound and even worse, this also has an impact on public policy. We could be lulled into complacency using models which show that the timeline is longer than it should be.

@LivingNow678

2 ай бұрын

Very few people know what, abrupt means. Governments are not interested to spread panic. Better talk about 2050/2100

@danielh.9010

2 ай бұрын

But it's somewhat amusing how anything that Sabine says can be warped into anything else by viewers to reinforce their beliefs. Viewers who are so sure about being smarter than those climate scientists, and almost as smart as Sabine. It's a live demonstration of human irrationality!

@LivingNow678

2 ай бұрын

@@danielh.9010 Douglas Vogt was a great scientist Egon Cholakian is working with a team to ....

@JoHouse533

2 ай бұрын

Dare I say, there seems to be some confirmation bias at work in the comment section.... It seems the video its getting a lot of traction and the algorithm is pushing it to these people, or they are just more likely to comment.

@4203105

2 ай бұрын

Exactly. The number of people who say "yeah I never believed in climate change and this proves it's fake" is too damn high. This actually means: best case it's as bad as we thought, worst case it's much worse. There is no better case.

without accurate predictions it is faith, and I am already a Christian. In science I want proof. Let's Keep faith in religion, and cold hard science in science.

@Bcsknees

2 ай бұрын

Also I am a greenhouse grower. I add co2 to achieve 1200 ppm and keep temps between 80-85 F. plants use co2 better @ higher temps BTW. Adding Co2 nets me about 10% better results. this is a FACT

@carlosegonzalez678

2 ай бұрын

Same keep religion out of government.

@kvaka009

2 ай бұрын

Your faith in cold science and its capacity for proof is admirable, though misguided.

@_Alexalra_

2 ай бұрын

slayyy 💅🏻💅🏻✨️✨️✨️

@isaacclarkefan

2 ай бұрын

Based

I’ve been trying to find out more about this issue. I keep searching for ‘hot model’ and the results are very interesting.

Scientists need grants. If the field is politicized they will provide results that please the deciders, or they leave the field.

Im so glad you are concentrating on this topic and educating people Sabine. We need more minds like yours.

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.

@user-om1xb5xx7s

2 ай бұрын

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.

@ingvaraberge7037

Ай бұрын

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.

A better comparison than riflemen… sliding down a hill vs falling off a cliff? The social science output into what is a physical data structure will get easier the closer we get to…

Thank you so much for your constant honesty. Your willingness to change your mind when the data changes is unique and refreshing.

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".

@BlackMasterRoshi

2 ай бұрын

yeah what a shame to rattle the foundations of such a great grift

@_sx_

2 ай бұрын

"why is it ok if partical physicists make such an error" Who said that?

@michaelrogers1771

Ай бұрын

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".

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 problem here is there's definitely a political motivation on putting thumbs onto the scales of studies to get the results that politicians want. We're not making policy decisions based on studies, we're making studies based on policy. The temperature data that so many researchers depend on for climate models is mostly garbage simply because NOAA has been putting their temperature stations within cities or other heat-biased locations. Without good data you can't have good models.

@stavrosg1113

2 ай бұрын

Well said!

@roger7341

2 ай бұрын

There is an acronym for that: GIGOSIM or Garbage In-Garbage Out Simulation.

@donaldduck830

2 ай бұрын

Thank you very much, at least one sane comment here. Pity that Sabine has not opened her eyes yet and still shills for that nonsense.

@Bystander333

2 ай бұрын

You're just as guilty of the confirmation bias described here though! Analyse if you questioned the statements that agreed with you - if your answer is "I don't need to" then watch it again. There are ways to do this properly that physicists do.

@BoothTheGrey

2 ай бұрын

Its not only politicians but more or less the whole world that wants our economy just to go on like the last few hundred years.

What’s the difference between confirmation bias and strong priors? Are we more skeptical toward information that contradicts what we believe because of confirmation bias or because we Should require more information to overturn strong priors. What’s the difference between healthy and biased Bayesian reasoning, in other words. Edit - she basically answered my question with the pre-registration thing.

Truly excellent. The UK Hadley Centre models have been on the receiving end of the hot model discrimination and yet I think they are amongst the best in existance.

Hot models definitely may be one way to draw attention to climate change problem.

@Thomas-gk42

2 ай бұрын

Exactly!

I started out in a climate science group in the early 1980s although I really have been in other fields since about 1989. But I had quite a bit of training in the field at that time; our research group had all the top level seminar speakers (we knew Lorenz and Schneider very well, but everyone came by). I went to conferences where we rubbed elbows with everyone in the field, both climate, and dynamical systems. And even though that was a long time ago, it was not before the field of climate science was politicized. To some extent, the planetary scientists opened the door with the idea that Earth = (Mars + Venus)/2 which led them to speculate on the effect of a full nuclear exchange: the concept of Nuclear Winter. My advisor explained to me why he declined to be another initial in the TTAPS paper: "every letter they add costs them a factor of two in the direness of their predictions". Now if you want to have an extreme scenario to worry about, then there you have it. But the politics, once brought into the field, have significant effects. Two young scientists who were committed socialists were circulating a petition that they wanted everyone to sign (incuding graduate students like me) which was more or less to the effect that if the US didn't remove Pershing missiles from Europe, the world faced an apocalypse. Now you can come out however you want on that. But I personally witnessed many young climate scientists, who, regardless of their sympathies or antipathies for socialism, were pretty vocal about not taking such a position because of the danger of politicizing their field. And yet, many of those young climate scientists grew up to be major players in the field. And when they did start to make clear that their science had serious implications and should inform policy, these scientists, who I personally had witnessed refuse to compromise their scientific integrity for politics, were some of the first to be accused of being part of a "liberal conspiracy". People accused them of various malfeasance when not only there was none, but when I knew they were not the sort of people to become part of a liberal conspiracy; I had seem them refuse such an opportunity. What I take from this is that anyone who IS in climate science now, has very likely grown up in an envirornment where they want to keep the public policy aspects of their work grounded on very high confidence results. In the early 2000's I invited Gavin Schmidt to give a talk in an interdisciplinary seminar I was running. I had already been out of climate science for a decade. During that talk he made clear that the models predicted increases sea surface temperatures in the intertropical convergence zone, and I asked "won't that increase the severity and frequency of storms?". He said no, he didn't think that prediction was warranted by the data. I pointed out that should be a consequence of increasing energy input there, but he said, yes you could see why I would say that, but he made clear that he didn't think the link to the data was solid enough, and that climate scientists have to avoid being seen as "alarmist". Well he was right, and I was right. But the point is Schmidt didn't come on the scene back in the nuclear winter days, but he still knew why climate scientists can't just say everything that MIGHT need to be worried about. There is enough to worry about already that is supported by high confidence. When you shake your finger at climate scientists, I wonder whether you have considered what it already takes for someone to actually BE a climate scientist at any time in the past thirty years? The physicists already knew about the cost of getting on the wrong side of the politics, right? There was a recent movie about such a thing.

@olecranon

2 ай бұрын

This is what bothers me about Science News of late. It feels like clickbait. Sabine could have done a response video that engaged with climate scientists, but instead we get this which is.more fodder for deniers to say, "see? scientists are uncertain about climate change, so wtf does it matter?" I have been a big fan and sub to this channel, but it smacks of privilege to use this topic with a paid promotion (at least it's at the end) to get clicks. My question for Sabine would be this, isn't it the height of hubris, that with our privilege and wealth, because of the sheer dumb luck to have been born in post industrial society, to sit around and have debates on social media while the Amazon burns and the GBR dies and the global south suffers? (yes, I know these examples are multifaceted and the GBR has recovered slightly). What would Einstein say/do in this situation? I believe a thought experiment would be his first inclination to approach this uncertainty problem. Anybody up to the challenge?

@i.marchand4655

2 ай бұрын

'... climate scientists have to avoid being seen as "alarmist".' Right, but really tough. The true alarmists are in the political arena and the Media. The former have their agenda and the latter are after attention more than anything else. I would find it so refreshing if some of the scientists would stand up to the alarmists instead of backing them up with silence.

@lolyungmulaBABY

2 ай бұрын

@@olecranonIf they are uncertain it’s a problem. The media has spouted ‘scientific consensus’ ad nauseam. With all the recent research scandals, and a dishonest government agencies, people’s trust in institutions is it an all time low, and it is entirely their fault.

@8rr725

2 ай бұрын

@@olecranon At least the paid promotion is a good charity helping nature instead of most promotions that are about materialism and phony self-help nonsense.

@olecranon

2 ай бұрын

​@@lolyungmulaBABY​ I see your point, the media and politics around climate change have clouded the issue. But the consensus in the scientific community is that the current warming is largely the result of human activities, i.e., buring fossil fuels. The rate and magnitude is where the uncertainty lies. When hot, how hot are the questions the models are grappling with. Does that uncertainty justify denialism about what is going to happen if we do nothing?

"There are just TOO MANY PEOPLE and it is harming the Earth! Whatever are we going to do about it?!"

@Toxicpoolofreekingmascul-lj4yd

26 күн бұрын

Convince them that being single and childless is the key to happiness and poison the environment with chemicals that drastically reduce testosterone and sperm content in men. Seems to be working as planned.

CO² levels increase after the temperature increases, been that way since the earth formed.

@hamfranky

23 күн бұрын

see oh squared

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.

Data is data, no matter how much it tickles or pains, the frail human ego

@dmitripogosian5084

2 ай бұрын

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

@goofyfoot2001

2 ай бұрын

Why is warming only bad and never good? More green, more food, more nice days, more vitamin D.

@wout123100

2 ай бұрын

data can be wrong because of a bad sensor.

@paulsnow

2 ай бұрын

Data can be wrong because it is tampered, er... "corrected."

@FIREBRAND38

2 ай бұрын

"Data is data"? "the frail human ego"? Yeah, you just provided sufficient data proving where you're coming from.

I think that switching away from oil and coal to natural gas is the best stepping stone till we come up with a technology that will provide us with abundant and cheap electricity generation.

@mirabelotc16

28 күн бұрын

i agree. because even just stepping away from the argument about whether climate change is real or not...at the end of the day, fossil feuls are NONRENEWABLE and once theyre gone, they're gone. People need to understand that we will run out eventually and if we don't have the technology for sustainable energy by then, we (our future) is f*cked.

While I obviously question the "does it matter?" statement, scientists those who research climate are a conservative lot, just like the majority of other researchers regardless of field of study. When a new finding conflicts with so many previous studies, they deserve a more intensive examination by peers. I don't see that as a problem. It's the way science is supposed to work.

This channel is amazing, thanks for these videos!

I admire your courage, Sabine! Kudos to you!

@arthurfoyt6727

2 ай бұрын

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.

Excellent video. Thank you Sabine.

Well spoken. I believe I'll watch more from you.

Agree. The actual margin of error in those models is surely larger than we're led to believe.

@susanss70spartymix77

2 ай бұрын

I have no idea why. Ever see a measurement like 14.10457824N of force +/-1.5% lol

@MikeWalls7829

2 ай бұрын

How about infinite, they only have a partial understanding of what they are modelling

@garethrobinson2275

2 ай бұрын

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.

@zockertwins

2 ай бұрын

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.

@user-jo4eu2ep3v

2 ай бұрын

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 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.

@easy_s3351

2 ай бұрын

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.

@ColdHawk

2 ай бұрын

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.

@joshcoray3777

Ай бұрын

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.

@easy_s3351

Ай бұрын

@@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": kzread.info/dash/bejne/o36qk6uJfr23kdI.html

@joshcoray3777

Ай бұрын

@@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: kzread.info/dash/bejne/c5qY1qidf7fUfag.html

I think giving politicians more money and more control over my life will definitely help the climate. Since they have such a good track record it seems like a slam dunk they’ll succeed this time too.

The Haus & Dessler reaction was that years can be spent arguing about the precise number or choose to respond to the problem as best and swift as possible. Fighting climate change may even produce a more reliable number for future models, as changes start occurring. As for the climate models, could there be a disrupting feedback loop similar to that of ai visual models ?