I Was Worried about Climate Change. Now I worry about Climate Scientists. 

Lol!

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

@@RavenMobile Laughing Out Loud!

😂

Just say you're the problem......😂

Sabine refuses to reply to any comments that are in opposition to her views or a Q&A video where she will answer 150-200 questions from commenters or hold a live stream to answer viewer and commenter questions.

I honestly think the best practice to battle political/religious dogma in science is the heavy suspension of credentials. Engage in fraud or bad practice once = 6 months of academic suspension, twice 3 years and third strike you're out. The only problem is the faculty and admin are probably more politically biased.

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

@@Apistevist But then what is the "scientific court" that will decide which is fraud, which is bad science and which is just an honest mistake? Who will decide literally the livelihood of scientist around the globe? How will you create such an organisation that its members won't just remove their ideological opposition? Also, what do you even mean by "suspension of credentials"? "you're out" of what? An institution where you're working? What about countries that do not care about what you're writing in Twitter? Journals won't publish you? What journals, how much you want to enforce it and by what force? What you are proposing is effectively a globe-wide scienfic lustration, and that just unfeasible both administratively and ethically.

Usually are US citizen that climate science is politicized. Sure, you politicized in order to just not believe or even consider it. It's a political and economical issue since 1970, but now people just become disillusional and start to really deny.

The deer will see that the deer population is booming, the berries are doing better than last year and the brush is extra thick! The Owl will see that theres more field mice in the newly developed farmland nearby, the trees have thicker foliage than usual, and the voles taste more poison-y than before. Neither recognizes human encroachment, loss of habitats outside of their personal territories, or fertilizer runoff from the fields overloading the forest with nutrients. People see what effects them in the way it effects them, not the bigger picture or the finer causes behind things, even highly specialized scientists...especially the highly specialized...

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

@@LordDucarius Technically a "Doctor of Philosophy" should be a lover of all knowledge, not just a Master of a single subject. But academia has been captured by a rat racing middle class that cares about status and comfort and not about knowledge. Hence the climate change situation where no amount of past wrong predictions can teach them humility (i.e. stop trying to control people based on incompetent predictions). Because they don't care about the truth, only about their social status.

@luxdevoid, as a non-scientist, but loving inventing, I have always screamed that! This side of confirmation bias is also an much bigger problem to the whole of scientific approach than many would think.

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

I've heard a similar quote regarding literary interpretation: "Words are like witnesses. If you lean on them too hard, they will yield false testimony."

So I was Looking at the specific gravity of the gases in the atmosphere. From lightest to heaviest of the 5 most common gases. Nitrogen>Oxygen>Water Vapor>Carbon Dioxide>Argon. Water vapor?=Clouds. I wonder if those have any influence on surface temperature? Also does latent heat from the H2O have any effects? Then there is increasing CO2 from 0.03 to 0.04%. What happens if you do that in a greenhouse? Oh I know if that did not work. Then CO2 generations would not be used to increase plant growth. Plant growth? As in trees? Do tree trees draw water from below the ground? What happens when water evaporates? Why is Barstow 115F in the summer and Chattanooga is generally 90-95F in summer(July)? Oh also why is Barstow in the 30-40F range at night? Just before dawn in July? I did not spend much time in Barstow. I did spend time Ft Irwin. In a tent. If I was lucky to have a tent. Also spent time in Pensacola. Year round. Also been close to the International date line around 0 degrees latitude. More than once. Actually quite pleasant 80-82F in the afternoon. Almost the same temperature at night. I wonder why? Also why is the Persian Gulf 96-98F in July? just askin? I gots numbers? Just do not have answers that go along with my engineering studies. Did somebody repeal the laws of physics and chemistry? While I was busy, away from,+ out of touch with commercial radio and TV?? I guess the only answer is 'One person's Meade is another person's Poisson'. Also it is transforming. I also remember something about lies and statistics

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

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

This is so real, ideologizing is the death of science, and I say that as an admitted radical leftist ideologue myself. When it comes to all matters of empirical reality, scientific rigor, the integrity of all investigative methods, and the authority of the data should always come before any ideology or values judgments. The right rightfully gets a lot of flack for it, but the liberals, the left, and everyone else does their fair share of it too, and its so much more corrosive than people tend to give it credit for.

The antibody response to questions and criticism is the sure sign of obfuscated truth. Any time that science cannot permit debate it is because of financial interest. Alarmist climate studies treat the output of the Sun as a steady constant. Anybody with even a middle school understanding of science knows this cannot be.

All the worse when folks like Sabine get railed for actually pointing out that the climate is getting worse faster than they estimate! The fundamental problem with climate science is that it is much harder to work on compared to other sciences where you can have sterilised isolated experimental conditions of a system that often fits in a test tube. This just makes them excessively defensive about their work.

I'm sorry that happened to you. It's a cult. 200 yrs of analysis Vs the 4.6 billion years of variation. Anyone with an aversion to sunlight is not to be trusted.

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

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

COVID: there were "one way" signs on the floor of the supermarket. Millions of people wearing dirty face masks. Governments shutting down small businesses but allowing mega companies to continue. Funerals, church services, and public gatherings were illegal. However, BLM and ANTIFA riots were free speech.

​@@vmasing1965that's always the case

@docwhammo no one implicitly or explicitly denied that, and the key point in OP line is the adverbs of intensity. Massification of media & information is far from what we've seen in most of human history, for the better and worse. And yes, because of the hyperconnection of last decades and political-economic system of the past 2 centuries we live in, propaganda and manipulation as well as the self-acknowledgment probably is at the top of the charts in the history of humanity

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

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

@@phoenixfire8226 Some of us are old enough to remember when science and the experts were warning us that we were entering a "new ice age". I don't deny climate. I also don't deny that climate fearmongering has been a Trillion dollar money pit that has made some people very wealthy. Always follow the money.

@@stevelux9854 right right i remember those programs from the 70s, though you are right to note they are slightly before my time as an 80s child

Even peer reviewed studies are influenced by money, corruption.

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

@@jaysanguinetti368 Try watching the video. I’ll make more sense once you’ve grasped the subject. I’m also not arguing with anyone. Take emotion out of your critical thinking.

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

@@adamgreenspan4988 Hey, isn’t it crazy that the whistleblower for Boeing is dead now? One day after that testimony. Good luck with that, and please don’t advise people in these arenas without a solid grasp of reality.

I've seen similar tactics working for a local government where traffic models were designed to produce the results desired to justify grant requests, I call it the tail wagging the dog syndrome.

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

@@retiredbore378I remember, when I was a child Pluto was estimated by some astronomers to the tenfold mass of earth.😂The best we can hope is that with the "hot models" happens the same. Surely Sabine is right, to take them seriously.

Dude, climate scientists are the most mediocre in physics. I can't believe they are the ones leading changes in policy. Nobody wanted to go into that specialties except dimwits, that is why they are so terrible at this. There, I said it

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

This happened with the speed of light too.

Yeah, it's funny how people can literally make a living with their understanding of empirical data analysis, but then the most obvious hoaxes go right over their head. It just proves that there isn't really a big point to universities any more. Intellectually inquisitive people can get almost all knowledge from the internet, without getting bullied into submission by shidlib professors. I got a Master's Degree with a certificate for advanced data analysis, and literally all my teachers were double-boosted and completely on board with all the mainstream BS. Really threw a wrench in it.

@@helpIthinkmylegsaregoneyeah I too would say: if everyone just goes with their gut feeling, and we read tea leafs instead of doing science, we could save a lot of money. That’s just my conservative opinion though. 🤤

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

Covid?

She’s getting there.

Sabine wouldn't be exhibiting some of those biases herself would she? Maybe she should really listen to the thousands of climate scientists who disagree with climate change hysteria.

Sabine has selection bias as well.

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

@@jitteryjet7525 Every human uses confirmation bias, steered by their deeply-held beliefs. This includes people like me who make every effort to use logic, reason and evidence to ensure that we do not cloud our logical judgment with the emotional pollution of confirmation bias. With that said, ice cores reveal that 1600 years ago the average earth temperature was 2 degrees higher (remember Romans wearing togas?). In addition, maps created from maps created prior to year 1500 show all the minute details of Antarctica's mountain peaks, which are currently covered by ice, in perfect detail, represented with no snow or ice on them. Also, the "catastrophic" increase in Co2 since 1860 is something in the range of an increase from 320 parts per MILLION to 420 parts per million. Terrifying, eh?

@igilante It is true that the earth is greening and that ice flows are melting and that sea level has risen 6 inches over 200 years. But do you know that the _evidence_ of the asserted cause is as clear as NASA states? Or are you just parroting the programming you have chosen to accept from various government and media mouthpieces? Did anyone consider sun cycles and the effect on changing global temperatures....? Nope. Confirmation bias, driven by a researchers deeply-held beliefs, disqualifies any other cause besides CO2 instantly. And that is crazy, because we have the ice cores that can be analyzed to consider this data. Making us feel guilty about our personal carbon footprint has two results: Result #1: We take all our attention off the big coal-burning and fossil-fuel-burning industries who are actually ruining the planet, and instead focus on our responsibility. Meanwhile Bill Gates etc. flies around the world on his Business jet (which is a 70 seat regional jet airliner) burning TONS of fuel and depositing the emissions into the upper atmosphere to go around the world to tell everyone to worry about their carbon footprint. Result #2: Tracking out carbon footprint is an extremely convenient way to grant the government complete and total access to all aspects of our personal lives, from how we consume electricity to heat our house to where, when and how we travel and, perhaps, how we earn and spend our money. Look through human history.... blind histrionic devotion to belief-based ideologies that make the unbelievers into members of the "bad" tribe never ends well.

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

I wish more people knew about Perrow's work, and that of Per Bak. I think that there would be a little bit less conspiratorial thinking if people were aware of the actual mechanisms of disasters

They apply to many other aspects of life aswell

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

Keeping the profitable status quo "business as usual" and throwing doubt onto decades of climate data and research? Sounds familiar. I Am Worried about the main point of this video being used as "proof" by some wackjob that Climate Scientists were All Wrong All Along. Not that I think that's what this channel is trying to say, just a concern after all.

@@Autonym it's more the fact that certain climate scientists claim they have it all figured out, and anyone who disagrees with them is bad for doing so. then when it turns out the climate scientists *didn't* have it all figured out, they move on to the newer idea and go back to claiming anyone who criticizes them as being anti-science (or whatever pejorative is expedient). then when it turns out that *once again* they didn't have it all figured out, they switch to the new model again and go right back to accusing everyone who disagrees with them as doing so pathologically. they want to have their cake and eat it too, by framing themselves as *always* being correct, even when they aren't, and being immune from all criticism because of this. when you notice this pattern you recognize someone not arguing in good faith. when there's an entire collective of people not arguing in good faith, expect serious systemic breakdowns on the horizon.

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

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

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

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

@@chingron Fauci might might disagree.

Climate science is soft science, not hard science.

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

Actually those were copula based models in the mbs products. It was still the bad incentives from the lenders which caused subprime lending. The model wasn’t the source of the disaster. Very different from climate models in some ways but the human factor remains similar

I have a degree in stats, the majority of people in my statistics course were idiots. 80-90% of my university were idiots. People who actually take the scientific method seriously and search for truth regardless of the consequences? Maybe 1-2% of scientists. Most people are out for themselves. They are not out for science or the human race it takes a special kind

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

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

Thanks for sharing that. That is my understanding as well. Especially when the research is funded by politics or industry, and in the case of climate science, it's both. The UN is funding the vast majority of the research with an obvious political agenda and more than a dozen scientists they've employed over the years have quit in disgust and called them a giant fraud (and the numerous times they've been busted lying and committing outright scientific fraud would seem to support those whistle blower scientist's claims).

@@Zartymil I work in Electrical engineering, which is why I mentioned IEEE, and the reason you don't often see Wikipedia in journals is because most correctors like me will just give an instant fail or re-write if they see it. Most University professors know it by now, but they do slip in from time to time. Usually when I see a Wiki reference it will be when the person is referencing some general knowledge fact, and instead of pointing to a well-read academic reference book used in many classes, they'll point to a wiki page because it's just easier.

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

Sabine's point is, I believe, that doesn't really matter if the number is high or not but that we shouldn't dismiss the data because if it's right and we act as if it is that will also reflect in the climate policies, if they don't turn out to be correct at least we fixed the problem and in case we didn't act as if these numbers are correct we will underestimate the problem and if they turn out to be correct then we are doomed. So, long story short - we don't want to wait and find out the hard way let's just act as if the climate sensitivity index was correct to evade a possibly upcoming disaster.

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

I tend to think data crunching is just the other side of that bad coin. Imagination and ingenuity used to rule the sciences. Physics, for example, is now dominated by mathematicians who hold to their paper theories above experiment.

I don't think you have any authority to judge "science as a whole". I get thats your impression, but generalized statements like yours are wrong and also not constructive at all. Our application of scientific methods are as diverse as anything we do. You can't put a state funded microbiology institute which focusses on basic research in Germany in the same pot as a institute finaced by a US company doing "social studies".

@nostalji75 I think I have as much authority as anyone to give my observations. When speaking about an issue that I've observed in many groups from bio chem to neuro to psych to soc, it would seem to me a general statement is all that could be made. I think it's very constructive to point it out. I think there are too many ideological, arrogant, ego driven, 20 somethings who didn't take philosophy of science. There are certain methods that should be consistent but more than that there should be a consistent underlying philosophy of reporting data that isn't narrative driven. All the "this could indicate..." "this may suggest..." And if you disagree, you're part of the problem.

@@Houston810 So you don't see how speaking from personal experience and narrating it in general absolutes is misleading? Especially if you don't mark it as such? "All the "this could indicate..." "this may suggest..." " You are literally doing the same. Having some negative personal experience and deducing general conclusions based on lacky data. "And if you disagree, you're part of the problem." Are you trying to run for president? What bs rhetoric is that? I do see the validity in your concerns. My critique is you generalize to much. And some of your rhetoric is just polarizing.

The bias does not come from thinking bias but from financial bias. The reason for the terrifying expectations is the project funding. The more important the research sounds, the more money they expect to get

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

No course needed… It’s easy to see that statistics can be made to say whatever you want to say. 4 out of 5 statisticians agree with me always. Two thirds of all viewpoints are proven by statistics. 73% of statistics are made up out of thin air, on the spot, for the purpose of winning an argument. 9 in 10 people can not dispute any of my points. 😁

except 101 statistics is very basic, has to cover to much ground and don't spend enough time with the pitfalls of statistical bias or the practical aspects of how to build good statistical studies. Plus, unless you are doing research, you won't be using and putting it to practice a lot. I think this should be covered under a scientific method course. Or a course on applied statistics or something.

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

You can say that again!

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

The governed are motivated/ruled by emotion. Those that govern are motivated by lust for power and the control over others, which they (to varying degrees) disguise as altruism, wisdom, and empathy. Sadly, there aren't enough of those that are motivated by the desire to think, express themselves and behave as they choose for them to be a concern at this point. There are not enough of them to be a concern to the governments, and the rest of the non-thinking population simply don't care enough.

Not all politicians benefits from fear. Only the ones who need support for what they believe in without thought. There are many types of politicians if you care to look at them in details, not stopping at the loudest and most egregious. Your statement in itself is polarised and is doing the opposite of what you say you want

This sheep Sponsored by Exxon

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

Don't forget about online-video-scientists.

the climate science has been a load of BS anyway. sadly cherry picking data and playing games with stats are the norm. and it undermines everything when people see the absolute BS. modern science is a religion.

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

@@brianhillier7052 That's an insult to Sabine. Judy tells people they're wrong on nothing but a hunch. Sabine explains where their logic went wrong.

Why isn't anyone talking about water/hydrogen motors with electrólisis. Do you guys really care about climate change? You can do it your self while doing something for the planet and saving a lot of money!!! Let's stop talking and let's start doing things, it works, and as I said, you can do it yourself, Why don't we???!!! Is easy, here are the instructions: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Mr_rjQMqrEw.html

Sabine and Tony Heller would make a great debate.

Ideas seem to have an inertia of their own eh

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

Curious about what you are referring to in psychology?

No the best ideas breakthrough it has nothing to do with the scientists or whether or not they are biased. If the ideas match reality they will survive every attempt at being disproved. I honestly can't believe how many people in these comments don't understand fundamental scientific method this is insane.

Why isn't anyone talking about water/hydrogen motors with electrólisis. Do you guys really care about climate change? You can do it your self while doing something for the planet and saving a lot of money!!! Let's stop talking and let's start doing things, it works, and as I said, you can do it yourself, Why don't we???!!! Is easy, here are the instructions: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Mr_rjQMqrEw.html

When I attended college in the 1960s, faculty had absolute power over students. Then came drugs, student protests, and riots. Students took over and faculty melted into the woodwork, concentrating on "researching" over professing. Bring in a $Million or $Millions and a bunch of graduate students to do your research and teaching and concentrate on writing more papers and bringing in more $Millions.

Im not phd or student, but I just know from them that in France for example, when you do your PHD, you are not free to chose any subject, but the one that is "good" for your reference professor....

Imagine you had covid. You don't know what caused covid. So you will not treat yourself with medication, preventative measures, therapy or whatever because you don't know what was the cause. Change covid with climate change. We may never fully understand what causes. But even the biggest skeptics will change their tune when their backsides get burned in the next heatwave, which neither them or their parents+grandparents have no recollection on. This is the parallel. Not some 'public or perish' nonsense.

@@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

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

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.

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

I wonder how much of that historical data is even accurate. Sure, surface temperature measurements are adjusted as best they can, but that in itself could be problematic. Is the "correct" graph according to ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-bOAUsvVhgsU.html or according to 1:00 for example?

yes, primitive societies, tribal and feudalistic. I am not talking about stone age people, i am talking about the so-called scientific community. Because of that primitive social structure, most scientists are not doing science, but oganizing funding to keep their chair warm

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

​@@monnoo8221the thing is, we haven't changed since then. We're capable of building incentive structures to midigate it, but fundamentally, we're the same tribal hunter gatherers from 100 thousand years ago, and have all the same tendencies and biases and neurological hangups we've always had.

​@@monty58thank you! So right!

Why isn't anyone talking about water/hydrogen motors with electrólisis. Do you guys really care about climate change? You can do it your self while doing something for the planet and saving a lot of money!!! Let's stop talking and let's start doing things, it works, and as I said, you can do it yourself, Why don't we???!!! Is easy, here are the instructions: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Mr_rjQMqrEw.html

Good point!

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

@@jasont2986 All the smartest "scientists" I know were working on weather manipulation and modification. Funny that none of the climate alarmists ever talk about all the experiments in weather control gone wrong.

@@jasont2986 "Science is the best method." Not good enough. "The problem is that most 'scientists' don't use that method." The problem is that science is a part of human society which has its own rules. Read Kuhn's "the structure of scientific revolutions". Scientists not following rigorously the scientific method is how science works in reality...

Science is the best method for understanding the world, as opposed to Tarot cards, casting lots, asking the pigeons, sacrificing a goat and interpreting the entrails, checking the bumps on your skull, and looking at today's horoscope.

What bothers me is when NOAA decided to manipulate historical temperature records and try to pass them off onto the public instead of using error bars. In Hansen et al 1999 he said "The United States temperature increased by almost 1C between the 1880s and 1930s, but it then fell by about 0.7C between 1930s and 1970, and regained only about 0.3C between 1970 and the 1990s. The year 1998 was the warmest year of recent decades in the United States, but in general United States temperatures have not recovered even to the level that existed in the 1930s." Yet try to find that 30 year fall in temperatures today. You won't see the decline from 1940 to 1970, and suddenly 1998 is higher than the 1930s.

In medicine x10!

People are overconfident a lot of the time, and don't allow for all the things that can throw something off. Remember a training task at work where we were asked to give a 90% confidence interval for ten values (think things like "number of Facebook users in 2010"). I got 9 out of ten of the values in the ranges I gave which is over performing if you ask me, I think the closest colleagues got 3 out of 10. I realised I may be useful not because I know more, but that I have a more realistic view of what I don't know. That said being a realist is overrated; we are all going to die.

That's really dubious science

Damn right. And climate ‘science’ seems to run its own version of statistics: hugely variable parameters, myriad measurement methodologies changing over time, and yet the end result has these tiny error bars showing great precision.

This is because we're consistently conflating the scientific endeavor with the scientific establishment. The scientific establishment isn't immune to extraneous pressures, it is directly financed and established as an expression of this pressure.

Clevis and tang solid fuel booster stacks defaulted because California manufacture was too long to fit through curved train tunnels. Seals were calked with thermally ceramicizing Randolph type two putty (zinc chromate/asbestos filler). Viton is leather not rubber. "Recovered, recycled" booster segments were whacked out of round by ocean impact. The entire process cost more than casting and machining new ones. Randolph putty was replaced by a "safe" ecological equivalent. Thereafter, Viton O-rings were routinely recovered with char marks.

Sabine refuses to reply to any comments that are in opposition to her views or a Q&A video where she will answer 150-200 questions from commenters or hold a live stream to answer viewer and commenter questions.

Richard Feynman went on national TV and showed that an O Ring would crack in a glass of ice water. But management and tunnel vision engineers didn't want to hear it.

@@milanstevic8424 Not sure how you can disentangle these when conceivably one can’t exist without the other. But overall, I’d say science is still quite productive considering how much it has already achieved and how much that is accelerating. Pseudo science might be able to get away with deceiving people, but if it doesn’t deliver on its promise, it will fail inevitably. Where it seems to exist in abundance is in the promotion of health and weight loss miracles. There are so many BS products claiming to be miracle cures in search of a fast buck and not much in the way of consequences for false claims. And they always try to pretend the billion dollar weight loss industry is trying to take down this ad! This is a routine feature of these modern equivalents of the medicine wagons going from town to town selling miracle cures that were mostly opium and alcohol. The scientific establishment, for all its flaws, is self correcting. The loss of the Challenger did lead to a full scale investigation by NASA and improvements in their culture.

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

Individual people know that we all benefit from the conversation but this is now more about the money and power. Where is that self-correcting mechanism? But the fragility lies in the potential for significant disruption when expectations aren't met, rather than in the absence of any self-correcting mechanism(s).

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

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

The individual, regular ass citizen can’t do shit about climate other than stop patronizing the corporations that actually damage the earth. Also, then you have Asia, particularly China. I won’t be browbeaten about something I am not doing wrong and something that very well might be a bullshit premise in the first place. These multi-millionaires sure seem confident enough to buy beach side properties.

Why isn't anyone talking about water/hydrogen motors with electrólisis. Do you guys really care about climate change? You can do it your self while doing something for the planet and saving a lot of money!!! Let's stop talking and let's start doing things, it works, and as I said, you can do it yourself, Why don't we???!!! Is easy, here are the instructions: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Mr_rjQMqrEw.html

It started 1995. By 2012 the wind was a massive 30% (1 metre / second) stronger than pre-1995. I've not yet found post 2012 so I don't know whether the big 2015/16 El Nino was the end of the massive 17 to 20 year Trade Wind surge. ENSO is an utterly-vast feature of Earth's surface-air. ---------------- Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus Nature Climate Change 4, 222-227 (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2106 Received 11 September 2013 Accepted 18 December 2013 Published online 09 February 2014 Corrected online 14 February 2014 Matthew H. England, Shayne McGregor, Paul Spence, Gerald A. Meehl, Axel Timmermann, Wenju Cai, Alex Sen Gupta, Michael J. McPhaden, Ariaan Purich & Agus Santoso Affiliations "Here we show that a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades-unprecedented in observations/reanalysis data and not captured by climate models-is sufficient to account for the cooling of the tropical Pacific and a substantial slowdown in surface warming through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake." ---------------- Quote: "Atlantic warming turbocharges Pacific trade winds Date:August 3, 2014 Source:University of New South Wales. New research has found rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean, likely caused by global warming, has turbocharged Pacific Equatorial trade winds. Currently the winds are at a level never before seen on observed records, which extend back to the 1860s. The increase in these winds has caused eastern tropical Pacific cooling, amplified the Californian drought, accelerated sea level rise three times faster than the global average in the Western Pacific and has slowed the rise of global average surface temperatures since 2001. It may even be responsible for making El Nino events less common over the past decade due to its cooling impact on ocean surface temperatures in the eastern Pacific. "We were surprised to find the main cause of the Pacific climate trends of the past 20 years had its origin in the Atlantic Ocean," said co-lead author Dr Shayne McGregor from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science (ARCCSS) atthe University of New South Wales." ---------------- Quote: "The record-breaking increase in Pacific Equatorial trade winds over the past 20 years had, until now, baffled researchers. Originally, this trade wind intensification was considered to be a response to Pacific decadal variability. However, the strength of the winds was much more powerful than expected due to the changes in Pacific sea surface temperature. Another riddle was that previous research indicated that under global warming scenarios Pacific Equatorial Trade winds would slow down over the coming century. The solution was found in the rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean basin, which has created unexpected pressure differences between the Atlantic and Pacific. This has produced wind anomalies that have given Pacific Equatorial trade winds an additional big push. “The rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean created high pressure zones in the upper atmosphere over that basin and low pressure zones close to the surface of the ocean,” says Professor Axel Timmermann, co-lead and corresponding author from the University of Hawaii. “The rising air parcels, over the Atlantic eventually sink over the eastern tropical Pacific, thus creating higher surface pressure there. The enormous pressure see-saw with high pressure in the Pacific and low pressure in the Atlantic gave the Pacific trade winds an extra kick, amplifying their strength. It’s like giving a playground roundabout an extra push as it spins past.” Many climate models appear to have underestimated the magnitude of the coupling between the two ocean basins, which may explain why they struggled to produce the recent increase in Pacific Equatorial trade wind trends. While active, the stronger Equatorial trade winds have caused far greater overturning of ocean water in the West Pacific, pushing more atmospheric heat into the ocean, as shown by co-author and ARCCSS Chief Investigator Professor Matthew England earlier this year. This increased overturning appears to explain much of the recent slowdown in the rise of global average surface temperatures. Importantly, the researchers don’t expect the current pressure difference between the two ocean basins to last. When it does end, they expect to see some rapid changes, including a sudden acceleration of global average surface temperatures. “It will be difficult to predict when the Pacific cooling trend and its contribution to the global hiatus in surface temperatures will come to an end,” Professor England says." ---------------- The Tropical Atlantic Ocean surface has warmed and has increased the intensity of the Tropical Pacific Ocean trade winds by 50% in under 30 years because the atmospheric circulation is coupled between the Tropical Atlantic Ocean and the Tropical Pacific Ocean, but the Tropical Atlantic Ocean and the Tropical Pacific Ocean aren't coupled because there's land in the way ENSO is a massive feature of Earth's climate and the GMST trends have been: +0.13 degrees / decade: UAH lower troposphere 1979-2017 +0.17 degrees / decade: RSS lower troposphere 1979-2017 +0.165 degrees / decade: Surface La Nina & ENSO-neutral years 1970-2014 (me from GISTEMP) +0.20 degrees / decade: Surface El Nino years 1966-1995 (me from GISTEMP) +0.23 degrees / decade: Surface El Nino years 1995-2014 (me from GISTEMP, high uncertainty, sparse & varied data points) +0.18 degrees / decade: Surface average 1966-2014 (GISTEMP) +0.11 degrees / decade: Ocean surface 1966-2014 (GISTEMP) +0.047 degrees / decade: Ocean 0-300M depth 1966-2010 89 / 432 = 0.206 (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, talk plots etc.) +0.030 degrees / decade: Ocean 300-700M depth 1966-2010 76 / 576 = 0.132 (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, talk plots etc.) +0.026 degrees / decade: Ocean 700-1000M depth 1966-2010 (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, talk plots etc.) +0.15 degrees total increase: Ocean 0-1000M depth (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, Matthew England talk plots etc.) ---------------- +0.009 degrees / decade: Ocean 700-2000M depth 1966-2010 77 / 1872 = 0.0411 (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, talk plots etc.) Note the +0.23 degrees / decade for El Nino years since 1995 and only +0.165 degrees / decade for La Nina & ENSO-neutral years. A big difference. ------ At 2014 just before 2015/16 very large El Nino Pacific trade winds (Easterlies) were (quote) "at a level never before seen on observed records, which extend back to the 1860s". This has been a huge global warming climate change and I don't know whether it has continued after 2015/16 El Nino or has calmed down now (scientists will no doubt tell us one day). ENSO appears to have "strengthened" since 1995 due to Pacific trade winds (Easterlies) having started increasing in average speed since 1995 and now 1 m/s faster than before 1995. This was the main cause of the "hiatus" or "pause" between 1997/98 huge El Nino and very large 2015/16 El Nino.

Also no mention of the significance of the use of SSP 8.5 (formerly RCP 8.5) here. That model parameter assumes a 20% increase in coal use globally in the 21st century, the so-called 'business as usual' forecast. There has in fact been a 30% decrease. The continued use of 8.5 is not only suspect, it is downright wrong as a reasonable forecast.

In talking with a climate zealot, I asked, "What would you accept as proof that CO2 induced global warming wasn't actually happening?" Nothing. There was no proof that would make a difference. If the actual climate (after 20 years) is below the lowest prediction, thinking that the highest prediction has validity seems, well, a bit silly.

​@@geraldfrost4710predictions for air temperatures are lower than the models from the early naughts, but observations of ocean temperatures actually exceed many of the models. What happened was climate scientists had models for "business as usual" and we have reversed course as a society. Production and burning of coal, by far the highest impact fossil fuel, fell significantly from the figures used in the predictions, and while both natural gas and oil production is increasing, the growth of production is slowing, which again deviated from the figures used for the models. However, even then, scientists underestimated the capacity of the ocean as a heat sink for the atmosphere. The rate of species decline in our oceans, marine environments, and reefs is beyond alarming. Just this year, Florida recorded some of the highest ocean temperatures in history, leading to a mass die off of fish and is currently threatening the fragile and very unique sawfish populations, endemic only to these waters.

Climate science got corrupted the moment the IPCC was established in 1988. It wasn't established to determine IF there was a climate issue; it was established on the PREMISE of an existential anthropogenic climate crisis. In other words science was hijacked to be a propaganda tool for governments to gain power. And the scientific community played right along, because almost all its money comes from government. Finding a neutral climate scientist is like finding a neutral USSR Olympic judge. On the issue of climate models, the competition is NOT to be the most accurate; the competition is who can produce the MOST ALARMING prediction. They are ALL GARBAGE. They can't even accurately model known historical climate changes. The actual data show CLIMATE IS GETTING MILDER, NOT MORE EXTREME. Low temperatures are increasing, NOT high temperatures. But the data have to be ignored or changed, because they don't fit the narrative. If you want to look at the CO2 greenhouse effect, the U of Chicago MODTRAN tool will tell you that LESS THAN ONE DEGREE of surface temperature increase will more than offset a doubling of CO2. But that doesn't fir the narrative, so it must be ignored. And don't start screaming about increases in severe weather, because, again, the actual data show that's false.

It's only 3.6 roentgen, right?

Not a joke. Look…. well anyway. 🍦

@@blinking_dodo yes, it is concerning that Sabine refuses to reply to any comments that are in opposition to her views or a Q&A video where she will answer 150-200 questions from commenters or hold a live stream to answer viewer and commenter questions.

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

@@mortgageapprovals8933 Maybe she has better ways to spend her time than to reply to thousands of comments? And that is something completely different than what my reaction was about.

A lot of people who call themselves Climate Scientists are from humanities/sociology backgrounds and that seems to be the way they are taught to argue. Its depressing.

Why isn't anyone talking about water/hydrogen motors with electrólisis. Do you guys really care about climate change? You can do it your self while doing something for the planet and saving a lot of money!!! Let's stop talking and let's start doing things, it works, and as I said, you can do it yourself, Why don't we???!!! Is easy, here are the instructions: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Mr_rjQMqrEw.html

​@@bobtuiliga8691you can't call yourself a scientists without having at least an undergrad in a science or engineering discipline. but yes I've seen comms consultants who write books about climate comms issues being referred to as Climate Change experts by people who know next to nothing about climate change (but never as scientists). I'm not sure your idea is the right explanation. Take a legitimate and important climate scientist like Michael Mann, he uses all kinds of word games to defend his attacks on others as "doomers" a term with a really ugly history in history of the environmental movement. They learn it because it's effective in shutting down critics.

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

You know, I have to totally disagree with this BS. For one, the very article Sabine cites actually argued for the IPCC to throw out other models and adopt a meritocracy. The guy behind it, Zeke Hausfather, doesn't want CIMP6 to be considered at all. EXCEPT ESMValTool IS A MERITOCRACY. What Sabine is not considering here is that the hot models, which are based on AI modeling techniques, are probably more likely to be right than the older statistical models. Sabine is accusing others of confirmation bias when she is doing it here herself. None of what she says in her clickbait article takes into account the methods in the models. DeepMind released GraftCast just a few weeks ago and its accuracy is unparalleled. Instead of this whining that climate modelers won't be believed how about we lest the science stand? This is just adding fuel to the fire. Note: (Science, 30 July 2021, p. 474) is where they say the new models were contributing to the higher numbers in CIMP6. I tried desperately to find it but every time I rabbit hole about climate change it just infuriates me. Very disappointed in Sabine here.

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.

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

@@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 RU-vid. 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 !

@@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.

@@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 saw that video too. I didn't think it was rubbish but just that it is not convincing enough for me. My view is therefore still with Sabina and not that climate scientist.

​@@samo4003which one? Just by curiosity

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

I also saw the video. I'm wondering if these climate scientist influencer/spokesperson types have been trained to give everyone a watered down hopeful version of what's likely to happen. I've heard debates on wether people will just give up if they think it's going to be too bad or too late to do anything. Personally I think telling people of this extreme possibility will push them out of their complacency, but its going to be messy wether we make radical societal change deleberately or we wait for it to be forced upon us. I see so much about what our future holds is being kept from us in the name of infinite economic growth at all costs.

Why isn't anyone talking about water/hydrogen motors with electrólisis. Do you guys really care about climate change? You can do it your self while doing something for the planet and saving a lot of money!!! Let's stop talking and let's start doing things, it works, and as I said, you can do it yourself, Why don't we???!!! Is easy, here are the instructions: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Mr_rjQMqrEw.html

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

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

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

​​@@noelward8047 because there are a lot of women working in climate science. Using such non-inclusive language such as "you boys" implies that women basically don't exist in this field. I will not stand for such mysogyny.

They disagree with observed data because they underestimate the current rate of climate change. There is a switch of steepness in every societal - global - earth system sphere that's been changing at a certain rate for centuries. It is not a miscalculation, it is a lack of understanding.

Does anyone care about the data? In her most recent video, Sabine says it is all about funding. Now that is the statistics everyone understands

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

@@Mexicannasa It does not matter what you are. What Sabine describes is well known to everyone who has a clue about how academia and universities operate. I am not criticizing them for being money hungry. I am criticizing them for pretending they are above it

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

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

@@InvertOtaku-os9lj Sabine stirred the pot, I think that was the jist of it. They seemed to show no animosity, just that she was a bit of a challenge to their train of thought and research.

@@InvertOtaku-os9lj Because she sees the Billions of USD/EUR/CHF poured into their hardware and work and observes the complete lack of results and worthless noise in academic papers they generate when there is a temporary anomaly that statistically dissipates. And so it's hard to ask for funding when people are wise to your scheme. She's not good for business.

@@leewilson1368 as all colleagues/rivals should do. If you are not willing to stir the put you are a sycophant and should change to a career in the arts

@@smallbluemachine 🤣probably true!

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

Most definitely, and not just politicians but the general public as well. Sometimes science is messy, and mistakes are made, the models evolve, flaws are found and fixed, etc, and there is great pushback from the public when policy decisions are made on earlier conclusions, and then changed later. Any real scientist will always hedge their bets (citing error bars, incomplete models, new measurement methods etc) when asked for specifics, but as it filters it's way through politicians to guide public policy the conclusions become more black and white and people feel betrayed by changes to that guidance. They want simple black and white guidance, not nuance and uncertainty. A vast number of stupid policies are based on inertia, while the science has moved on. And if that policy happens to make money for some industry, it'll be all that much harder to change.

Don't forget- the IPCC releases their "recommendations" for government policy prior to releasing their science months later. The scientists have a job to do, and that job is to make sure their science aligns with the politicians recommendations, so they can continue to receive funding.

@stratmat If you actually read the comment you will see that it doesn’t suggest or give an opinion on the credibility or otherwise of politicians themselves.

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

It doesn't really matter, because the reason for that is that they know "Just not polluting" is utterly utterly laughably UTTERLY delusional, and will never ever happen. So they don't want to know the severity of the answer, it will just make them feel bad and not help anything at all. You ONLY solve this by inventing ways to give people all their stuff they're used to, but in ways that don't pollute, like fusion power, etc. Not by telling people how much they need to live like medieval peasants to save themselves this fate. They don't care. THAT fate is worse to them. And I can't even claim they're wrong, necessarily. The fusion thing (as well as fake meat and so on) are all already incentivized by just profit anyway, so this is all kinda a waste of time as far as I see. The solutions would be worked on just as hard without any of it. Maybe even harder, since the people involved here would more so be working on the actual solutions instead.

Yes, but we now know the opposite happened. The problem with the models is even their "conservative" ones project hotter temperatures than are observed. Worrying that the high values must be contended with when the actual science of observation demonstrates the opposite isn't good science and it makes for very bad policy.

@@gavinjenkins899 Disagree. I think we can reform our current practices while also developing new technology. People have the ability to compromise, and there's a large gap between the way we currently live and "medieval peasants".

@@willw5868 Yes, there's a large gap. A large, almost--exactly-what-would-be-needed-to-prevent-climate-change-sized gap. We would need to be polluting at pre-industrial levels to be sustainable, that is literally medieval (okay maybe renaissance, whatever)

@@gavinjenkins899 You missed the first part of what I said. We need to reduce our current levels of consumption AND develop new technology. Meeting in the middle. I agree that reduction cannot realistically meet the crisis. But waiting on a silver bullet like fusion energy alone isn't an adequate solution either, and may result in irrecoverable damage in the meantime.

Group think, can also be observed in the speed of light measurements during the 20th century ( unless the speed of light in a vacuum actually changes).

@@jamemswright3044 Complete nonsense. That's not group think, that's just peer pressure combined with fear of authority. Authority says or demands 1 thing, so out of fear of ruining their career or getting fired, they 'agree' on the surface. Which makes it harder for others to come out against it since the people who side with the authority have the power to ruin their peers who disagree (and will be forced to basically chase them out because if they don't their own head may roll). And with that a big negative spiral starts. Groupthink is a nonsense term with no actual science behind it. And it came from a social pscyhologist, aka the fake scientists among pscyhologists. Groupthink isn't a thing, it's peer pressure.

I always thought Groupthink was a term George Orwell invented for 1984. Also, "peer pressure combined with fear of authority" isn't a bad definition.

@@defenda1 Groupthink implies that a group is an entity. But that's not the case. The group does not think, the group is made up out of individuals whom each decide for themselves to adapt to a certain thought because they think it's what works best for them in the given situation.

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

Say that again in two years.

I dont care about the numbers. What I know is that in my 47 yrs of age this is the first time that i witnessed or experienced heat index of close to 50- 53 degrees C. Neither did my parents, grandparents or their great grandparents talked about this super heating of the earth. Explain that pls.

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

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!

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

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.

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.

Yeah but than the statement of the climate scientists is right: sensitivity isn´t important. Change as fast as possible the output of CO2. You see the finding always again that some paramters have wrong sensitivity so there is no guarantee. Only thing that is 100% clear is that CO2 heats up the world.

I have pointed out many times that the warming trend in Europe in the 1980-ies that coincided with redused sulfur emissions and that is a an indicator of a high aerosol climate sensitivity. Nobody has taken me seriously, but I am of course also no climate scientist. If the cooling of the 1960-ies and the warming of the 1980-ies to 90-ies were both caused by aerosols, it implies that the curve for global warming the last 40 years is too steep, hence scientists over-estimate the CO2 sensitivity of the climate system.

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.

@@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.

Well said!

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

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.

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.

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.

Well models are suppose to be all over the place, because they have different parameters, and measure different things. Models are just tools; that isolate particular combinations of forcings and data; they are attempts to understand the data either in terms of specific reactions or in historical terms.

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?

'... 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.

@@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.

@@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.

​@@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?

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.

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

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

Yeah, god forbid we expect science to do better. Or deal with skepticism. Are you one of those "all science is settled" people? Even after this video ? Is it ok to be critical of Theoretical Physicists ? They haven't contributed much to anything. Most people would say yes, because nothing theoretical Physicists do matters all that much and the funding isn't even all that high. On the other hand, I would say it is certainly fair to criticize and scrutinize a scientific effort that pushes for global political changes that will bankrupt the wealthy countries and starve the developing ones. I reserve to right to step in and point out weaknesses when even general estimates are a doubling of our annual budget for a few decades to maybe only be ten years late (according to the UN published info a few months ago) to hit net zero "in time".

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

Same keep religion out of government.

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

slayyy 💅🏻💅🏻✨️✨️✨️

Based

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.

Exactly!

As you say, in many cases the surroundings of stations have changed over time impacting their measurements. Stations that used to be in a rural area now find themselves in an urban area due to urbanization. And temperatures in an urban area are on average about 5C higher than in a rural area (Urban Heat Island). Other changes in their environment also have an impact, for instance surrounding forest being cut down to make place for road (or airports). Some stations have been moved over time, either in height (from rooftops down to ground level) or laterally (from the seaside more inland) which also impacts their measurements. And ways of measuring data have changed over time, going from analog to digital, which also impacts the results as it is easy to make a 0.2C error when reading an analog thermometer whereas digital data is much more precise. So if you want to determine what is happening to global temperatures you have to look at digitally measured atmospheric data, not at ground level data.

I am not a climate scientist. I work in an unrelated scientific field so it is difficult to critically evaluate the climate literature. Frankly, I am skeptical about my conclusions regarding climate change itself and hold them loosely. On the other hand, I have spent half a lifetime evaluating scientific research and applying the findings, and have seen several major models - that drove decision-making in policy and procedure, mandated increased levels of intervention (frequently with significant rates of adverse outcomes), and cost billions - be overturned. Many of these models were “the gospel truth” one year and the next year referred to in the past tense, “we used to believe X,” as if it were ancient history. When this occurs there has usually been a body of evidence countering the model, which has been present but discounted for a several years if not a decade or more, before some tipping point is reached and the model is abandoned. In my observation there are elements that appear to correlate well with the total burden and longevity of these mistaken models. These factors include the degree to which the models are accepted and taught as orthodoxy, the degree of censure for not following the model, and the amount of money and or prestige gained by organizations, corporations or institutions through utilization of the model (I do not say individuals here because I am talking about huge amounts of money and extensive, even societal, influence). One can probably see why the current science of climate change is worrisome to me. It appears to be built by piling one model of complex chaotic interactions between chaotic systems, on top of other models that are used to derive the values for multiple variables. Notably, the values for these variables have shifted significantly over the past two decades as methods have changed. Yet the predictions from these models are held, within the scientific community and society at large, as the “truth,” which only the most ignorant and immoral would question. To me, the prevailing models have the hallmarks of potential for great harm if they do not adequately predict climate changes based upon specific factors in the next 50 years and that is a very tall order. There seems to be no healthy acknowledgement among the proponents of these models that the models themselves are abstractions and cannot fully account for all variables. Truly, no model ever can. The rigorous investigation that might help verify the reliability of any particular model to make the predictions we need is effectively shut down, through everything from blocked funding to academic and social proscription. It is concerning indeed.

For those not sure about the sensitivity as laid out (correctly I believe) by @galahad54 and how it works and is applied: The normal climate models had CO2, if it doubled, to increase warming by 1.1wm^2 (watts per meter squared, if we hit 540ppm+) - with a multiplier for Water Vapor of x3 (or a total of 4.4wm^2). This is an Exponential response - and it shown that way with some small variation in the model - which was GISS-E put out by James Hansen. The RCP variations, like seen on Sabine's charts, are variations on this based on total increases. The lowest being RCP2.6 But what was found looking at the ERBE's data, (Earth Radiation Budget Satellite) is that the output, counter to the models, is in fact x.5 (that is times a number less than 1, and a diminishing return.) This is an Logarithmic outcome. This is seen in the water vapor AND in Co2 itself - most of the work being done by the first 20ppm, and the rest of the warming, even up to 600, 1200ppm is less than that initial 20ppm. Logarithmic. Not Exponential. There has been arguments, like Otto et al 2015 (IIRC) that said they might want to lower the x3 multiplier to x2.5 - because the models have outran reality already. But if you put the sensitivity down to a logarithmic difference (below 1) there is....well, nothing to really be super worried about. The warming is not going to run away, and will to some extent self correct - which we have the history to see it does. And when we look at CERES data on a scatter plot it matches this also. The Data and History match a logarithmic curve. The models have an exponential curve. But there is a strong debate to not let the data get in the way of the models. And so far, in just a decade, the models have all shown that they have 3 to 6 times the warming as predicted. All models were falsified in 10 years. That means the predictions for 100 years out are not going to be close.

@@joshcoray3777You're absolutely right. It's been known since the mid 1990's that climate models predict temperatures that are significantly higher than what is observed in reality. On average their predictions are off by a factor of 2. One of the more recent research papers into this is Pervasive Warming Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric Layers by McKitrick/Christy, 2020. They looked at the period from 1979 to 2014, so about 35 years, and found that pretty much all models were wrong and predicting temperatures that were much too high. And that predicting too high temperatures is a trend that has been continuing up to our current day (2020). Climate models use lots of variables to make predictions and if these don't mirror reality their predictions won't either. A very simple example: most climate models use 1.4 W/m2 (Watt per square metre) for outward radiation from the earth for every degree K the global temperature increases. However, in reality this number is 2.6 W/m2 (as seen in collected data), almost twice as much. So in climate models earth retains much more heat than what happens in reality and therefore their predictions turn out way too warm. Here's an interesting interview with John Christy in which he talks about climate models and the so-called "climate crisis": ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qJv1IPNZQao.html

@@easy_s3351 I am fairly familiar with Dr. John Christy, and his 'a Bridge Too Far' presentation is one of my favorites. He has updated his original Models vs. Reality chart in 2021. If we listened to him vs 'The Modelers' we would be in a far reasonable environment. For any one curious, here is a 2021 Bridge too far presentation with some updated material: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-AfdtFdOTnME.html

*"CO2 emissions by humans are about 3% of the annual emissions"* And that's 3% above the naturally emitted and sequestered Co2 emissions which is why Co2 levels are rising! *"CO2 radiation cannot penetrate water"* C02 radiation? I'm beginning to think you have no idea what you're talking about. Co2 absorbs and re-emits Infrared radiation, aka heat. And you can't heat water? You should do more reading then come back and comment properly!🤦‍♂ *"Temperature does not follow increases in CO2 but vice versa"* Not true. More research is needed on your part here too! Start here: "Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation". Shakun et.al. 2012. *"The IPCC models are junk; they cannot even hindcast"* More proof you have no idea what you're talking about. 1) The IPCC is a review body. They make no models or research. They are a consortium of scientists from around the world that review the published research on climate. 2) The models are very complicated equations made from past observed data. Therefore, hindcasting is a way to prove they work by making sure they predict past climate conditions. Once that's done and proven, they can be used to predict future climate conditions. Which they do well within their degrees of uncertainty!

can you cite where u got this info from. Im curious

@@mirabelotc16 let your heart be your guide. I'm sure you can do research; I'll get you running with the first one where human CO2 emissions are only 3% of the annual emissions: archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-7-3.html

You didn't take the video in at all, did you?

@@KaiserMacCleg tell me where I went wrong o great oracle.

Data is not a straightforward thing when experiment is complex. It can be a long way between raw readouts of some voltage to final data on some physical effects. A long way during which you question your understanding of the apparatus and whether you toolk into account other processes which may influence conversion of said voltage to, say, temperature of the microwave background in particular direction

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

data can be wrong because of a bad sensor.

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

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

Yes, the climate models forecast a range of possible outcomes depending on if we change our energy using behaviour. If we transition to non or less greenhouse producing sources of energy then we can reduce the severity of global warming impacts. If we continue to increase greenhouse emissions at the current rate the impact will be greater as we approach the second half of this century.

@@williamgerdtz6798 I don't disagree in principle. There isn't anything wrong with what you're stating. However, it's very, very generalized. There are specific questions that need to be answered: Do we know for sure that CO2 can even cause more warming? If so, how much more? Will that warming have a severe impact? If so, how severe? When will these severe things happen? Next year, or in 10,000 years? All of these questions are answered by this fundamental concept (value) of ECS. We don't know that value so you can't answer any of these questions with accuracy. There is an enormous difference between the impacts of an ECS of 0.8 -vs- 5.68. ENORMOUS. Hundreds of trillions of dollars difference. Don't forget that ECS is only one of the many problems/limitations of these models. Meanwhile, we can't be certain that catastrophe looms, yet we're spending billions on NetZero. This is your [tax] money, and mine. That money can only be spent once. This amount of money could literally end world hunger. Think about that for a minute.

How is outlining a range of possible scenarios not a prediction? Prediction is what someone thinks will happen. Scientists think that the future values will fall in the range of values produced by models, don't that? I guess one could argue that neither single model produces a prediction and prediction only happens once you put them together, but I think it's rather dishonest approach.

@@emack76 Do more people (ending hunger) increase or decrease ECS [in that scenario I'll also ask at what detriment to all other life on the planet], does Elon Musk beating Jeff Bezos (or some other interloper) as king of the heap increase or decrease ECS, does 'our' side or 'their' side increase or decrease ECS. The choice of levels (your scenarios) all have choices of rates of change and choices of rates of onset as well.

@@McFrax You'll have to ask the IPCC. They stated it, not me. However, a 'range of possible outcomes' is not at all the same thing as a specific 'prediction.' Not remotely. I agree that this nuance is a dishonest approach. I call them 'weasel words.' It basically means that you CAN NOT prove the IPCC wrong. Predictions can come true, or not. A sufficiently wide range of possible outcomes will always be correct. The IPCC can literally weasel their way out of any possible criticism. When practicing real science - a hypothesis is falsifiable. This is to say, a proper hypothesis can be proven right or wrong. Thus, the Anthropogenic (human caused) Global Warming hypothesis is not even a proper scientific hypothesis. For example, my set of models runs indicate that the high temperature at your house will be between -40F and 140F tomorrow.

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

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

If I walked blinfolded and ear plugged across a busy motorway (freeway) at night, I would be reassured that the margin for error in crossing safely to the other side was quite large.

The problem here is that the error bars that are published only contain statistical errors, i.e. the likelyhood that the measurement was a random fluke even though the measurement process was perfect. In reality though, every measurement method has biases that will lead to a non-random deviation from the true value. These systematic errors are not shown in the error bars, because they are not known to the authors (otherwise they would correct for the bias). This is not to say that all these climate models are pointless or can't say anything about the future of climate change. Far from it, they have been very accurate in the past.

I have found no information to suggest that the assessment of the models as presented by the author of the video took into account that the models are checked by back-verifying the predictions.@@zockertwins