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

Current migration patterns have nothing to do with climate.

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

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

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

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

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

I didnt find this to be a problem tbh.

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

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

Thanks well stated and thought out...

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

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

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

@@chatteyj It is a problem. If humans want to live healthy and prosperous lives into the future, it's a huge problem. That's an objective fact, not a claim.

did you even watch the article?

@@Anax100 😂 I'm waiting for the movie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ha!

Just glue a map onto a record player.

Frisbee's have more freedom of movement

But the image is flat!

Will it come with a 23 degree tilt?

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

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

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

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

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

"Cloud seeding"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

what's up with all the trolls

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. We need way fewer STUPID demented people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The risk is not extinction of the human race! We are incredible resilient and adaptable. The real risk (apart from the enormous cost that climate change will incur for us) is the resulting extinction of countless other species.

​@@gibbogle If earth gets too warm humans can not survive. That’s just a fact. They will not evolve fast enough as a species to stay alive. That’s called extinction. Within the last few days we have heard flooding in northern California and also the East Coast. Weather events are getting more extreme by the day. It should be noted that Although Northern California has flooding, Southern Cal is worried about the fire season. We’ve got different cataclysmic weather events happening at the same time In the same state. Global warming is increasing exponentially. These are facts and well-documented. Species do go extinct. there’s nothing magical about the human species that makes them exempt. If you’re thinking that we’re so clever that we will just engineer our way out of this while still burning fossil fuels, think about this: we can’t even get people to get a vaccine or wear masks during a pandemic. or this: in 2016 and 2020 more than 60 million people voted for Donald Trump for president United States. I have much more faith in horseshoe crabs avoiding extinction than humans.

@@solarwind907 That's just silly. It has nothing to do with evolution. We have brains, we are resourceful, we can live in any environment, hot or cold. Look where people are living all over the world. By the way, solar and wind are not going to do it, we need nuclear power, the cleanest, least carbon-emitting power source.

@@gibbogle I like science fiction myself but when people don’t understand evolution and call nuclear waste “clean energy” there’s no reason to continue.

@@solarwind907 Who doesn't understand evolution? I have a good understanding of it - some genetic mutations improve survival and passing on of the genes. I didn't call nuclear waste clean energy, you are making things up. Storage of radioactive waste is not a show-stopper, we already store many kinds of toxic waste. The point is that nuclear energy is the least bad option, and is the only feasible way to reduce atmospheric carbon. Mark my words, solar and wind will prove to be insufficient, although they will be an important part of the mix.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m seeing nasa data with >150%

His wife should iron the cable ... :)

Orwell would not.

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

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

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

Tbop3 now I understand. Thank you.

No that is _not_ his answer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not linear. The 20th century had cooling periods and warming periods, even as CO2 continued to rise. It didn't warm at all for the first 20 years of the 21st century. If the solar physicists are correct, we are going into a cooling period of many decades because we're entering a Grand Solar Minimum. Check out Valentina Zharkova.

Let’s all go to sugar rock Mountain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Except historic CO2 levels have been more than 10X higher and the dinosaurs survived just fine through that.

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

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

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

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

"Palmers indeterminacy principle" Palmer 2019 et.al

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

esreve1 Excellent observation and comment.

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

@@patricklincoln5942

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

Jacob Zondag that makes no sense

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

Facts don't change, they come to light.

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

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

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

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

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

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

@@Brian-gk2hg an example?

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

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

@@guido4231 lol

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

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

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

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

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

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

He has a better singing voice than Bob Dylan.

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

@@guepardiez Just about everyone has a better voice than Dylan.

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

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

judgement without arguments promotes dumbification

judgement without arguments promotes dumbification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Denialists.

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

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

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

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

Two words for you: tipping point

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

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

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

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

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

Also look up Prof Valentina Zharkova's work on the sun. Her calculations do go back in time and accurately 'predict' times such as the Medieval warm period and Little Ice age, which none of the CO2 models do. There's no real correlation between CO2 and temperature in the paleoclimate history, except a negative correlation in the current ice age where CO2 rises and falls in response to temperature. He talks about 60-70 years as if that was a long time, but it's the short time since the earth was cooling in the 50s. 60s and 70s, when they were predicting a return to glaciation.

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

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

Dunning Kreuger again!

So you live on the tenerifa airport?

Dundoril Muy cerca del airopuert Reina Sofia, que si.

The reason is there is a bunch of deniers on here who can’t handle the truth

@@Mevlinous - I'm a "denier" (curious wording - usually "denier" is used in religious debates), and I did find this interview interesting. It didn't make me less of a "denier" but it rather supported my views.

@@Mosern1977 To me “denier” doesn’t tell me a whole lot, because there are various groups that would fall under the umbrella of “deniers”. Some of them can be infuriating, but others are quite sensible (same can be said of proponents). Some skeptics deny the science altogether - think it’s a hoax so scientists can get that sweet grant money, while others accept that we’re warming but don’t think it’s a big enough deal to warrant drastically changing our economy. I’m a proponent of the science of anthropogenic climate change, and due to its importance and uncertainty, support efforts to minimize emissions of greenhouse gases. However, I must admit that I find much of the mainstream media coverage of this issue to be reductive and irresponsible. I can understand why this type of coverage can fuel doubt in CC. They spend so much time talking about Greta Thunberg than experts in the field, because it’s the shiny new toy. But it looks like they’re desperate and reaching. I get it. It’s Economics 101 - give audience what they want, not what they need. The demand for entertainment exceeds the demand for education. It’s as true in adults as in children. A conversation like this would not be appreciated by most. There’s a reason why Pewdie pie has 2000 times the subs that Sabine does. Admittedly, I’m a bit jaded from interactions I’ve had on this topic. Most people don’t wish to do the work but want the easy answer (right or left). They are quick to form a strong opinion on the matter, despite their ignorance. I don’t even like it when people ask me, “do you believe in climate change?” It’s a malformed question. It should be, “Do you understand the science of anthropogenic climate change?” And then go from there. Afterall, we need to know the claim and evidence for the claim, before forming a strong argument either for or against it, right? I work with many conservatives. When the topic of climate change comes up, I just want to beat my forehead against the desk - I’ve heard arguments involving Al Gore, polar bear population increase, CO2 is only a small % of atmosphere, how the medieval warm period being was amazing, satellite data showing no temperature increase, etc, etc. But not one of them know how molecules absorb energy from light, or about the carbon cycle, hydrologic cycle, radiative-forcing components or paleoclimatology. They know about Milankovitch cycles, but do not know the time scales for those cycles. They have facts that are insulated from context - Facts used to muddy the water and cast aspersion on the integrity of individuals studying the field. There are skeptics who accept that the temperature is increasing largely due to human activity, but are concerned of the economic consequences that might arise from imposing excessive regulatory constraints, incommensurate to the level of risk. They fear a situation where the antidote is potentially worse than the ailment. I share some these concerns. But that’s all the more reason to speak to the individuals who give their life to studying, painstakingly analyzing, the various aspects of the climate system and not the bloviating media/political pundits who have ulterior motives. That’s all the more reason to get educated on some of the basic aspects of the physics underpinning this phenomenon, instead of sound bites (and yes, this includes the 97% number). Listen, scientists are human and have flaws. Group think can occur in any area of life (science is no different); for this reason, peer review and public discussions like what Dr.Hossenfelder is doing are vital to keep everyone honest and also to inform the public. I just wish it was more prevalent.

@@Mosern1977 I know, I know, “You talk too much.” :)

@@LearningWithSuj the problem is while some people are diciding if "the antidote is potentially worse than the ailment" we quickly approaching tipping points which can not be reversed. The antidote is absolutely better than the ailment and we can't get enough of it as of now without some radical moves towards said antidote. People are afraid of change but it must happen. The science is there and economic concerns are not nearly as bad as they seem by general public, in fact there's clear advantage to the global economy and human wellbeing but it's being hold back by corporate greed of those who are unwilling to look further than their nose in future.

Yes, but now they're so much better. The science of global climate will make fools of us all! 😆

The climate should be cooling based on the position in orbital mechanics. But it is warming instead.

Climate change goes up and down while trending. Like a stock ticker on a downward trend. It has ups and downs but ultimately trends downward. When talking about heading into the ice age it takes thousands of years so you will have a century or so where the temps go up and then turn back downward. We are trying to squish climate into a small time period instead of looking at the big picture.

Yes, but how much fossil fuel was burned to keep it floating?

judgement without any argument; HOLLOW

Interesting as the CO2 started up around WW2 the temps went down for 30 years. In the 70s many were predicting an ice age. Most of the last 8000 years were warmer than today at 280PPM.

@@ColoradoHiker Nobody but sensationalist media claimed there'd be global cooling. There have been papers on the effects of global dimming because of aerosols and particles we put into our atmosphere and papers that neglected the influence of our growing co2 emissions, though. It's become more than obvious that models that do not account for our co2 emissions don't work past the industrial revolution.

@@willguggn2 Not true. There was a letter penned to Nixon in the 70s by a couple of geologists, backed by dozens of scientists, that warned of future cooling. There was a series called "In Search Of" that in the late 70s did a look into possible cooling that included scientists. There were discussions then about dumping soot in the Arctic to melt it. This was 30 years into the CO2 rise. Interesting video if you want to hear from scientists in the 70s.... kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gsVoaZSm2J6oaYE.html

@@ColoradoHiker Yeah, I heard about that letter a few years ago. Expert opinion which didn't reflect scientific consensus, and US media didn't bother to check iirc.

@@willguggn2 Interesting as about 40 scientists backed the letter. So what is "consensus" when it comes to science? 51 out of 100 can be a consensus.

Seems to be global phenomenon. In the Netherlands there was a row because the official government agency for meteorology adjusted the temperature data before 1950. For those who understand Dutch see the recent discussion on this subject in the parlement of the Netherlands. see kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mt6BqLKDuZu4nZ8.html

To scare people. Make it look like temperatures are rising...

because they're not "adjusted to colder".

@R Dubya You need your nuance topped up.

Aaand 8 months later, it's been raining heavily since then, one of the wettest years on record. I guess Guardian and Dr Tom Beer’s will have to wait bit longer for their dooms day prophesies to come true.

There is also the unconsidered fact that almost any prediction will prove accurate, given a long enough time span.