Why have climate change predictions been so WRONG?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ส.ค. 2024
- Improve your understanding of statistics and scientific graphics with Brilliant! www.brilliant....
In this video I wanted to address a common talking point - why have climate change predictions been so wrong? Year after year predictions are made that have no basis in reality, so why - especially in the aftermath of the latest IPCC report - should we trust climate scientists? In particular James Hansen and his prediction in 1988 didn't turn out so well, did it?
Well, as it turns out, there's a very good reason. Because they're right most of the time, and their predictions, including those of the IPCC, have been borne out by reality. Sorry lol.
REFERENCES
(1) agupubs.online...
(2) pubmed.ncbi.nl...
(3) WG1 AR6 www.ipcc.ch/as...
(4) This figure originally taken from skepticalscien...
(5) Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press.
You can support the channel by becoming a patron at / simonoxfphys
Check out my website! www.simonoxfph...
--------- II ---------
My twitter - / simonoxfphys
My facebook - / youtubesimon
My insta - / simonoxfphys
My goodreads - / simonoxfphys
--------- II ---------
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com
Some stock footage courtesy of Getty.
How have predictions made by climate change experts been so wrong? This video is about why climate predictions have been divorced from reality, analysing the performance of past climate change predictions, in particular looking at James Hansen in 1988 and how his prediction ahead of the first IPCC report was so badly wrong.
Huge thanks to my supporters on Patreon: Rapssack, Daniel Cook, Kevin O'Connor, Timo Kerremans, Thines Ganeshamoorthy, Jerry Moore, Sam Harvey (soon to be PhD), Ashley Wilkins, Michael Parmenter, Samuel Baumgartner, Dan Sherman, ST0RMW1NG 1, Adrian Sand, Morten Engsvang, Josh Schiager, Farsight101, Liam Margetts, K.L, poundedjam, Felix Freiberger, Robert Connell, Jaime Stark, Kolbrandr, , Sebastain Graf, Dan Nelson, Shane O'Brien, Alex, Fujia Li, Harry Eakins, Cody VanZandt, Jesper Koed, Jonathan Craske, Albrecht Striffler, hennersfl, Jon Sjöberg, Igor Francetic, Jack Troup, SexyCaveman , James Munro, Oskar Hellström, Sean Richards, Kedar , Omar Miranda, Alastair Fortune, bitreign33 , Mat Allen, Anne Smith, Rafaela Corrêa Pereira, Colin J. Brown, Princess Andromeda, Aron Kári Ágústsson, Leighton Mackenzie, BenDent, Thusto , Andy Hartley, Lachlan Woods, Tim Boxall, Dan Hanvey, Simon Donkers, Kodzo , James Bridges, Liam , Andrea De Mezzo, Wendover Productions, Kendra Johnson.
One of my biggest pet peeves with how the media reports science is overemphasis on individual studies rather than the body of evidence.
Ya, same here. Its annoying, and is a problem for people...doing their own research...
My biggest problem with medias is how journalists DONT unedrstand science and don't have the academics requirements. I wish they would invite more scientists and people who are actually competent in the field.
The medias are just spreading ignorance as they are right now.
@@etienne8110 Would help employment for countless hard science students who are "not good enough" to become professors honestly.
I have seen that pop up from time to time. Though, it could be argued the IPCC report is a collection of observations, studies, etc., and that was pretty heavily emphasized. So...in some ways, both studies and large amounts of evidence are emphasized (keep in mind, that was just one example).
Its also interesting to see one climate graphs china’s industrialization very clearly defined.
The other problem is that nobody cares about error bars. I can't remember if I've ever seen any error bar or confidence interval in any news source.
Also the parameters they consider can really manipulate the data inadvertently.
In that case you’re looking in the wrong place...
You shouldn't be getting your scientific information from the news. The details are everything.
@@tmcche7881 I don't think they're saying that's where they personally get their science but rather that most people, including the people who really should watch this video, won't really consider (and so not care about) confidence intervals.
@@soyoltoi Exactly!
Always remember: it’s easier to deceive people than it is to convince them they’ve been deceived.
I'm still hiding in my garage with a camping stove and a handgun awaiting the Y2K disaster.
The Y2K threat was actually real. Luckily we realized it in time and could fix the most important systems beforehand.
If global warming is real, why does Simon have a cold
I’d love to see Simon interact with Bjorn Lomborg
@@thetrollpatrol8799 Bjorn is not climate scientist, he just think " it's fine" !
Username checks out.
@@klokoloko2114 The point Bjorn is making in his books is just simply that the global warming is just one of the humanity's problems, but the main one. There are lots of others that needs attention from the governments, such as famine. He on his side is proposing several working methods on how to deal with a consequences of global warming, but yes, he's mostly optimistic about it
@@thetrollpatrol8799
I know you made a joke, but the reality behind it is sorta funny:
I live in the Netherlands, and mostly travel by bike. Depending on the weather, I wear a t-shirt, hoodie, or jacket.
Due to warming, I can get tricked into thinking a t-shirt is fine. But if it's more windy than I thought, then I get sick.
Now, Simon cycles a lot too, and we've all heard of the weather in England, so....
It certainly doesn't help when politicians who claim to be fighting climate change throw their own predictions like "kids won't know what snow is by 2020" or "florida will be underwater by 2025" into the ring
Well nothing seems to motivate humanity as a whole, i really don't know what people can say to get humanity into action.
Most people can see what is going on, but only a very few people actually changed their habits to reduce their footprint on the pollution.
Me and my family have been working to lower our CO2 output drastically for the last 10 years, but i don't know anyone who comes close to our efforts.
People just don't want to for whatever reason.
Now this does not demotivate us from still looking for more options to save the planet, we can at least tell our son that we did try.
@@Fastbikkel True widespread changes in behaviour usually need a big driving force, and no single person can achieve that unless they already are in a position of power. But if one person can convince a few others of something, and those also convince more people, then some change may happen. If you can convince enough people that they can do something to help fix the climate, perhaps things could get better. Maybe. Better than just giving up at least.
I haven't heard DeSantis say Florida will be underwater by 2025, but if it happens, he will be against using scuba equipment and oxygen tanks.
@@pablopereyra7126 It seems pretty damn hopeless to me to expect change to be driven by individual action. I mean, good luck telling people who work 10 hours a day at a job they hate they now can't ever go on a vacation... or eat a steak they enjoy, meanwhile they still have to commute every day 300+ days a year putting carbon into the air doing something they don't actually want to do. Even personal changes that are positive in terms of combating climate change will, on the flip side, have negative economic repercussions.
What we need is revolutionary change in how we utilize technology and infrastructure. Unfortunately the profit motive is causing nothing but inertia now. It just won't redirect productive resources towards things that need to happen on it's own. Capitalism has become this ugly inflexible dinosaur. Change will eventually be forced, but when that time comes there will already be a LOT of suffering.
Being in the US I just have trouble feeling any hope at all. Nobody even has any imagination anymore. Our whole culture has just stagnated. This shithole is just full of rigid-minded unimaginative myopic people that unfortunately have a lot of political power.
@@marshallsweatherhiking1820 'Capitalism has become this ugly inflexible dinosaur...'
Well what do you propose to replace it with? Socialism/Communism? We ran that experiment last century and we have 100,000,000 - 120,000,000 dead to show for it. No thank you buster!
This video is like telling in a job interview that your most negative trait is that you can’t stop working
😂
I think he's using an approach sometimes called a Null Hypothesis. Basically, you make a statement then attempt to falsify it.
The media has often portrayed the view (esposed by a vocal minority) that the climate models are inaccurate/wrong, when in fact the opposite is the case. This video attempts to highlight and correct this misinformation.
@@GonzoTehGreat Media often shows that the climate models are wrong? Are you living under a rock?
This video doesn't address any of the doomsday predictions we were all taught (and i wanted to beleive) growing up, it just addresses the fact that yes the climate is slowly warming. It basically moves the goalpost
To which doomsday prediction are you referring to?
Please give an example with a source.
@@hg6996 U.S. newspapers and television networks. They _all_ predict a climate catastrophe, due to our profligate CO2 emissions.
But they only report half the story. For just one example, they never report on the numerous peer reviewed published studies, which conclude that the warming effect of CO2 is negligible to nonexistent.
Instead, they report only the most alarming points of view. The result, after a couple decades of alarming stories: a large percentage of the population is so thoroughly indoctrinated that they believe a climate calamity is right around the corner.
Based on what's observed, that belief is errant nonsense. The UN's IPCC has been preaching climate alarmism for almost five decades, but there is still no climate threat on the horizon.
Every IPCC prediction has been flat *wrong.* None of their alarming prognostications has ever come true, and their latest wild-eyed prediction of a climate doomsday is contradicted by the real world:
_Not a single extreme weather record was set in the US in 2022, per NOAA._
There were no record temperatures, no record rainfall or snowfall, no wind extremes, no record hurricanes or tornadoes.
Despite the ±50% rise in (harmless, beneficial) CO2, global temperatures continue to be the mildest recorded in the Holocene - which has seen far more benign, mild temperatures than the previous Pleistocene. Global temperatures have not begun to rise past their previous highs, and there is no indication that they will.
Draw your own conclusions.
[typo fixed]
@@hg6996 Sorry, Ive been very busy at work lately. Here are a few 1: 1989 Noel Brown informs the UN that we have only a 10 year period to reverse global warming or by the year 2000 we will see massive famine, drought and eco refugees. 2: In AIT Gore predicts that hurricaines will become more frequent and more severe, yet we've actually seen a drop in frequency over the past 15 years 3: In 2009 Gore claimed there was a 75% chance that the artic will be ice-free during the summer time but in 2015 we saw the biggest refreeze on record. 4 AIT predicted that polar bears would soon go extict, Yet today in 2024 there are more of them than there were in 06. 5: In 1989 Dr David Rind predicted largescale global droughts by 2020 which would lead to famine and widespread death, and yet we're producing more food thatn ever. 6: In 2011 Dr Paul R Epstien predicted more severe and frequent tornadoes for the american midwest, yet we've actually seen a slight decrease in both. I can go on all night without mentionint all the vague "we have x number of years to save the world " scenarios that Ive heard since childhood. I remember arguing with my dad that New Orleans would be under water by 2020. I could also mention that Al Gore invests alot of money in ocean-front property for someone who's convinced the sea levels are rising at a dangerous rate.
(I'd also like to add I was full on the climate change bandwagon, in full crisis mode until I saw that the only thing happening was a slight increase in temperature, Global warming is very real but not much of a threat, and one that can be handled by increased human adaptation through technology and geo-engineering....besides more people die of the cold every year than of the heat)
Here are some links: www.westernjournal.com/10-failed-global-warming-predictions/
www.westernjournal.com/10-years-ago-climate-scientists-said-wed-move-to-antarctica-its-95f-right-now/
www.cato.org/commentary/global-warming-apocalypses-didnt-happen
www.sciencenews.org/article/changing-climate-10-years-after-inconvenient-truth
scienceline.org/2008/12/ask-rettner-sea-level-rise-al-gore-an-inconvenient-truth/
www.npr.org/2013/02/02/170779528/the-inconvenient-truth-about-polar-bears
@@romanpen Al Gore isn't a scientist. A lot of the predictions have come true as we are already seeing widespread drought and never seen extreme wildfires.
I don't know in which bubble you live but the effects of climate change have arrived in basically all places in the world.
Sea level is rising faster than predicted and so is the shrinking of arctic sea ice.
Again, I refer to predictions of the IPCC, not of Al Gore or some dude who once said something.
Get the facts straight. The effects of Climate change are here.
The warnings are appropriate. The WMO reports extreme weather events due to climate change have increased to 500% what they were 50 years ago. Ice is melting at an accelerating rate decade by decade and look up Blue Ocean Event to learn what can happen when the Arctic has a mostly ice free summer. It ain't good.
The worst part of predictions being right is when their premise is "if we do nothing" because it means we did nothing (or did something that was countered by other things)
Most people THOUGHT they do something, but in reality didn't and companies who say they did just lie.
For example, recicling was always picture as THE SOLUTION when ifyou thin about it is just a band aid, a cop out to get time, but even the recicling in REALITY is even LESS useful, only 10% is really recicle, the part that I
MAKES A PROFIT to recicle, the rest is just hurried or BURN, you can fact check this on China, china was the most recicling country EVER, mostly because low salaries, but when its economy grow the salaries rise and gaianings lower, so the china just BAN importing reviling, and use the system EVERYONE ELSE do.
There is also studies and lawsuits on 80% of recicling companies (especially electronic ones) because they just take everything, put it in a ship and send it to be dump to an isle, out of sight, out of mind, and keep the profit of "doing the job"
The predictions have not been right. They have manipulated the temperature date to match their predictions. These people really should be brought on fraud charges and put in jail.
@WorldFlex You watch too much TV and movies. The earth is not becoming less habitable as it warms, it is becoming more habitable. As the earth warms it would also become wetter and wetter. More areas would green. Crops could be grown in more areas, not less. More CO2 is a good thing, not a bad thing. Without CO2 life doesn't exist. What people should be truly alarmed about is that CO2 is too low. Plants don't grow as well below levels of 500. Your 90% die off would happen if CO2 were to fall off to 150 or less. Higher CO2 levels would lead to more life. The Cambrian explosion around half a billion years ago saw a massive increase in the diversity of life. CO2 levels were at 4000 ppm at the time.
@@62Sketch You do realise the deserts are growing at an exponential rate due to global warming and soil erosion? China (the lovely wet, green place) is and has already funnelled money into a "green wall" to help combat the Gobi Desert and the same thing is happening in Africa and Asia. Yes some places are becoming wetter, but I don't think floods in New York are really what you have in mind when you think that eh?
You can stand outside right now with a thermometer and get your own data, it will show the earth IS WARMING as a fact and has been for at least 50 years. I can't believe people can still deny it as though they just get to decide?! The world doesn't revolve around you and this is happening without your permission..
Except the predictions that were right were not the one premise by "if we do nothing"...
Politics got hold of climate science. Money was called in to make things happen.
As it should. Because we need more people trying to find solutions. Incentives matter.
I'm yet to know of all those millionaire climate scientists that people refer to as getting all this money though. But I know of quite a few paid by the fossil fuel industry who are millionaires.
My family saves a lot of money by reducing our CO2 output.
Many more people can do that, but they need the will to do it. This often lacks.
@Vegan Zombie no one contradicts that there is climate change. Now the contradiction is how much humans have contributed due to burning fossil fuels and deforestation. And there is a lot of incentive to contradict that; fossil fuel companies will give you millions.
@@SachinGanpat How is the climate changing?
You don't get it huh
The biggest issue with climate data is the money funding them and preventing research into reports that may show counter statistics.
What in the hell money are you talking about? Are you referring to the BILLIONS of dollars the big oil companies rake in every year? Or the TENS OF MILLIONS that oil company executives take home every year, to fund their super yachts?
Or maybe you mean the MILLIONS of dollars that oil companies have paid to PR firms and friendly scientists to spread misinformation? Or the MILLIONS they've spent lobbying Congress?
Or are you talking about the veto power that fossil fuel interests have over practically every legislative vote and policy decision around the world (except in China)???
You can bet that Big Oil funding is waaay bigger than climate change funding. Just look at how much trillions big oil make every year.
You would think the oil and gas industry with a market value of $4.6 trillion would have the means to fund the research that could prove everyone wrong. They did fund it, in fact. And it showed the same thing. That’s why they have to rely on articles deliberately misrepresenting data and on making the issue political.
"The biggest issue.........."
That is all absolute made up nonsense!
There's long been much more money being pumped into refuting climate change than supporting it.
The reason models are wrong is always the same. Either the assumptions in the models are wrong or omit something important or the way the results are interpreted is wrong or omits something important.
In other words, they don't know wtf they're talking about? In that case, why should anyone listen to them?
Wait. So you're telling me someone would distort the science for profit motives? That can't be right. Can it? /sarcasm
That's not what this video is about at all. Did you even watch it?
@@quamb OP is writing about the misrepresentation of hansens prediction, 5:55
Your mind:
Billions in Profit from wars and exploitation < couple million dollars of data collection to see if the world is ending or not
Oh yes.
Yepp, try getting any funding if you're not in support of the whole global warming scare, and then you probably realize why most vocal voices against it are retired scientists.
Hansen also predicted the Maldives would be under water in twenty years. I went there in 2019 and things seemed just fine. Do you think the Koch brothers have had the islands raised to make Hansen look bad?
They are in the process of building a new runway for the influx of tourists.
It would be a hell of a lot cheaper to resettle the 543,617 population in any case.
@Sam Boshove I don't think you have read what I wrote. Having a correct average of a number of models isn't the same as having a correct model. Why does this matter? Well models are set up to fit existing data and if you pick only a small time frame thereafter its likely that the divergence from reality will not be too bad. 13 years is not long for climate change. Surely you've seen say if you do curve fitting using excel and are not extrapolating then you can get a simple form of the equation which fits over a narrow range but breaks down completely when extrapolated. If you have correctly identified the dependencies of the parameters then the form of the equation will fit over a much wider range of conditions, including time. Thus arguing that you have cracked the problem because the averages fit over a narrow time band is intellectually rubbish. I'm surprised that someone with a PhD would make such an obvious mistake. I suppose he is relying on the fact that most of his audience don't have a background of mathematical modelling so he can say what he wants unchallenged.
@Sam Boshove If you look at the many claims/predictions made at the outset - circa 1988, there are many that are 180deg wrong. Predictions of climate change have only been largely accurate once the data has been adjusted/homogenised, and current weather events claimed to have the fingerprints of climate change on them. When you can constantly adjust your predictions, without being challenged, it is easy to be right.
Turns out Hansen wasn't that far off, despite all the horse laughs from the cheap seats.
This presentation uses comparisons with ground temperature records, however, scientists know those measures are very open to Urban Heat Island distortion and outright manipulation as was shown in the Climategate scandal. It would be more meaningful if compared to NASA's Satellite temperature data set which shows only 1.5 degrees increase per century. Satellite records also agree with weather balloon records.
You mean the climategate scandal that wasnt a scandal at all but rather a smear campaign as further facts released?
Actually the data is adjusted. The datasets we as humans work with are adjusted. Which is why different datasets wit hdifferent methologies from different organizations match pretty close with each other and with sattelite data...
"... scientists know those measures are very open to Urban Heat Island distortion...." B.E. concluded that the UHI effect is -0.11c +/- 0.11c and thus not a factor in any global average temperature databasxe.
@@Desertphile they concluded from the adjusted data that urban and rural lacked any big difference, when we look at the adjustment techniques there is a part in which they try to "correct" the UHI effect by equalizing the most urban to the most rural measurements making the urban temp colder and the rural temp hotter; so yes there is a big difference, if we take the data from actual rural zones and actual urban zones without the adjustments the rural mark much lower to no waming that urban
@@RabeltCorez ;"they concluded from the adjusted data that urban and rural lacked any big difference...." Indeed. In fact it is unnoticeable and found to be " indistinguishable from zero."
@@Desertphile your lack of reading ability is incredible, tho expected, only the adjusted data showed that lie, the raw data produced the opposite, so taking into account that NOAA and NASA controls the adjustment looks pretty bad
Did anyone else notice that the predictions/observations chart shown at time marker 2:20 and again at 8:03 do not match the data depicted on the chart at 4:48? Simon's rhetoric actually breezes over the fact that the 0.15 - 0.2 degree change per decade (10 years) is not what is represented on the chart at 4:48, even though it is the model he has been tracking all video. Simon also gives a passing reference to the error bars, but does not inform us clearly that in statistical models, overlapping error bars show there is no significant difference between the data points. In other words from the chart shown @time 2:20 not only are the predictions not significantly different from the observations, but the observations are equally accurate if you draw a straight line at the bottom of the error bars attached to the blue dots. Drawing this straight line would lead to the conclusion that although temperatures are rising (0.1C/decade) they are not accelerating. That is truly boring science and will never get you grant money.
You realize that the study was about comparing forecasts to observations that we now have, right? 0.15 - 0.2 degrees are for around 1970 to 2017 (check 2:20 and 8:03)
4:48 depicts forecasts starting 2015 to 2100, a completely different timespan. Both charts have nothing to do with each other...
And you are correct that these error bars mean, that you can get a lower limit on what the true change per decade was by drawing a straight line through their lower ends, ending up with around 0.13 C/decade. You did not inform us clearly though, that in statistical models, drawing a straight line at the top of the error bars is an equally valid option and leaves us with a bit more than 0.2 degrees of warming.
Not sure why you think this is boring science, as its a clear warning sign that we are about to lose whole ecosystems, when temperatures keep rising like this (leading to catastrophic 3 C warming in total up to 2100, as seen in 4:48)...
@HeartlandInstitute
Do not listen to Simon. Check them out. They speak on the real truth. The evidence speaks for itself.
@@austinmeredith6647the Heartland Institute is a conservative think-tank that famously argued that cigarettes and second hand smoke are not dangerous.
It’s VERY ENLIGHTENING how many climate skeptics bring this group up.
@@andyghkfilm2287 And you have not presented any information to the contrary that would rebuttal the claims that the Heartland Institute talks about.
I have read the IPCC reports, I have seen the left leaning news outlets and so called journalists sensationalizing the debate,, I have seen the graphs, I have listened to John Coleman, I have listened to other academic institutions that speak about climate, I have listened to Al Gore and all of the politically charged institutes pushing for climate change reform, I have seen the 97% of climate experts saying global warming being debunked, and so much more.
For you to use the ooo they are a conservative institution does not mean anything. As a citizen it is your job to look at both sides claims but also actions and then look at the data and what is really going on and after doing my job, it is quite clear on what is really going on. Your argument is weak just like every other person attacking people like me who truly use their brain and look at all the material and let the truth speak for itself.
I also have a Masters of Engineering. I know how to read peer reviewed literature, read graphs, understand causality, correlation, and association.
Generally speaking, not all, majority of conservatives can actually speak on the topic and have looked at both sides and can cite sources and know the actual terminology where as I am finding more and more these days that liberal / leftist news sources, academic outlets, people in general have only heard of one side, do not do real research, are emotional triggered when presented opposing views, attack those whos eyes have seen elsewhere, do not present any valid argument, can not produce a logical string of sentences, and avoid the actual argument being discussed.
So sorry, I have heard all the parrots talking, I have seen the 32 governmental models, seen the truth behind the NASA data, seen the truth behind the IPCC lies and the United Nations attempt to hijack out world behind the World Economic Forum, the lies of the academic community and so much ,more.
Clearly you are driven by wanting this lie to push through or you have not looked into it all because if you have and you still choose to deny the real reality that the warming is naturally made and will cool down soon, then you are just willfully ignorant.
Also only a fool would listen to the body of the IPCC because they have been wrong since the inception and have over predicted the claims. Miami Florida is not under water like Al Gore said it would by 2014, India's wheat is booming where as IPCC said they would be loosing crops, not to mention most of these graphs only go back to 1979 or as early as the 1850s, what about all the oceanic core samples, lithosphere core samples, and the ice core samples... I am going to trust the core samples over a generated model based on inaccurate models based off of proxies and when blended give you "am acceptable model" with inherent bias.
Oceans are not rising like they claim, heat waves in the 1930s were hotter than now, the core samples demonstrate there has never been a period were Co2 and temperature have any association other than a time lapse, and that plants love Co2. Humans have lived in hotter periods. The scientists ignore the Holocene period as well. Science is about being object and building a hypothesis that can be repeated and if producible, you can infer further questions to expand on your hypothesis.
All of these scientists that are producing fear claim the science is settled and use the word consensus. That is the opposite of what science actually is, in fake that is cherry picking through sorcery to fit a narrative which is an agenda... OOO that is right.... Agenda 2021 and 2030. Gee works perfect how they want to attack Co2 and methane.. Both from natural fuel sources that boost the economy and bring so much wealth to countries and its people along with eating meat which is the most nutrient dense food you can eat and is essential for a healthy functioning brain and healthy hormones and metabolism. Suppose Bill Gates wants you eating is cancer filled slum meat or Klaus wants you eating "DEE BUGS"....
You will own nothing and be happy...
Your climate denialism on the real truth is hilarious.
Ultimately sure I could be wrong, but when push comes to shove, I listen to people who can speak on the topic, produce literature, and have an open debate and argue their side and rebuttal the other side, not listen to someone who has proven to be lying, is tied to an actual agenda, forces real scientists to change data to continue to receive grant funds, etc.
Also seeing leftists want to abort babies, hate marriage, not all of them. and conservatives enjoy hunting and fishing, and want a future for their children, not using this as a valid argument, but it would seem conservatives would be more inclined to push for the best solution to ensure their kids are taken care of and they can enjoy their wildlife hobbies. Just saying.
All in all the evidence shows warming is occurring, it is natural and is expected, and time is the revealer of all truth. Just in the past 23 years, since 2000, the climate alarmists have been wrong, just like they said in the 1970s, 1950s, the 1920s and so forth. Always lying.... Clearly predicting climate is more mass control oppose to actually understanding the true nature we find ourselves in.
Forgive my grammatical errors. I am not going to go back to peer review this.
Whelp. Bye.
@andyghkfilm2287 libertarian group, though, tbh any group being a bit too self-righteous is appalling, in my opinion at least (no matter what they are standing for).
It’s sad you devote your life to this and have to keep explaining why it is fact and science to some people who just won’t listen. Absolutely love your stuff. Keep kicking butts :)
I'm torn on this. When we look at how much bad publishing gets done, and how long it takes to find and retract, is discouraging, especially as it's getting worse. We've been led to believe there's 'good' science, and there's Goop and all the obvious sciency guys spouting crap, and not much in between. Science is done by humans, and will suffer all the corruption and frailties humans are prone to. I can't point out The Slippery Slope Fallacy is itself a fallacy, as almost everything starts from small causes and grows, without getting into an argument from 'scientists' about how I don't understand science. If I point out how the way they argue goes against human nature, and is not the best way to convince someone, boy, do they get defensive. Try it sometime.
In short, way too many 'scientists' are reluctant to point out the weaknesses of science, how flawed it can be before it's corrected, how bad decisions can look in hindsight when more is known, etc. They're as prone to the Dunning-Kruger effect as anyone, but only see it as something others suffer. And, I'm totally distraught over the notion technology can fix our problems, when what we need is less people, less consumption, less energy use, and more trees. But, who's going to listen to someone who says, "Stop buying stuff, get off the computer, and go plant some trees." It's best for mankind, but not for scientists.
@@inthso362 Would you be kind enough to give some statistics on "bad publishing" ( that was not retracted within few months) by reputable journal having high citations?
@@inthso362 Science is about experimentation, modelling and observations. It is something that relies on information which constantly evolve. Science is not static. Most of the scientific facts are based on consensus among many different scientists, having performed different experiments and repeating them several time.
Nothing is perfect and nothing can be proven with absolute certainty, that doesn't mean all information is equal, as some things have better and stronger evidence than others.
@@lostboy3080 I absolutely agree. And if we were taught that way, or picked it up through years of trial and error, as I did, it would be different. But, consider how many say, "Follow the science!" on FB, for example, and think saying that makes them critical thinkers when all their info is still just coming from FB, and, as Fauci is being demonized by the other side, that means he must be faultless, and canonized by this side, and, you know, it just goes on... The fact is, there is such a thing as info overload, and we all take mental shortcuts, 'cause we don't have a choice, and trying to communicate that to others- my humaness is the very same as yours, you're not without biases- becomes a battleground.
@@inthso362 i really don't think humanities only problem is to plant trees XDD
Missed the chance to say "I *predict* you'll find it interesting"
But then he'd be wrong right?
Personally, it's the potential of getting named called if I have questions or doubts that makes it all sus.
HELLO SIMON. Sorry to have to correct your presentation again. So many errors to correct, however I will try to be brief.
1. What comes first, temperature of CO2? Ans - Temperature with CO2 lagging well behind. In other words temperature controls CO2. This on its own destroys the Alarmists argument, however I know you need more to convince your green streak.
2. Is CO2 good or bad? Ans - Really, really good. In fact so good we would not exist as we are ‘carbon-based life forms’ along with every other living thing on this planet.
3. Guess where all the life creating carbon came from? Ans - Atmospheric CO2.
4. What is causing the greening of the planet and creating enormous amounts of food for every living thing? Ans - The best fertiliser ever created, yep CO2.
5. How often has the temperature varied during the last 4.6 billion years? Ans - Continuously, and not once due to CO2, until of course the physics of the universe reversed itself in the Alarmists handbook of dirty tricks.
6. Is CO2 clean or dirty? Ans - Clean according to nature. Dirty according to Hanson, Gore, Obama, US EPA, science illiterate Politicians and media, UN, IPCC, Greta, Boris, Greens, Scientists accepting government funding and ?
7. How many climate models fail to match reality? Ans - All of them.
8. How long was the temperature pause from 1998 to 2018 while CO2 shot through the roof? Ans 2018-1998 = 20 years.
9. How long has the temperature been trending down since the Holocene climate optimum? Ans - 6000 years give or take.
10. Has temperature and CO2 been higher in the past than they are now? Ans - Much higher, and all our ancestors survived and did not cook.
11. Who got caught cooking the temp data books? Ans - NOAA, NASA, Hansen, UK BOM, AUS BOM and many government funded ‘climate scientists’.
12. How did they correct the over heated terrestrial data? Ans - Satellite and ballon data.
That should be enough.
PS - Looking forward to your next video.
Former Labor PM in Australia had her Government’s ‘Climate Science’ “expert” predict sea level rise that would inundate some coastal communities near Sydney. After the Gillard Gov was resoundingly defeated in the next election, her man was out of a job. After that he built a waterfront house on the Hawkesbury River (in the same general area he was spruiking sea level rise) this said river has a large river mouth and is tidal by nature.
To me….that says it all!
Like Obama...same hypocrisy, paid for by the poor.. Im all right Jack keep ya hands off a my stack.
That tells you about politicians but nothing about the science.
@@hm5142
If leaders selling the oil are snakes, that's a pretty good hint that you're looking at snake oil.
@@hm5142 The only thing about science the IPCC needs to follow is the scientific method, but they absolutely refuse to abide by it because if they did, the first thing they would find out is that their manmade global warming conjecture has been repeatedly falsified.
When the most extreme temperature predictions are used to justify the need for action, it is fair to criticize the prediction and, more importantly, to criticize the “end-of-world” consequences that have not come true. Manhattan is still not under water. If we are to believe the predictions, then we should believe that we passed the “tipping point” a long time ago, so any action we take today would have to be considered futile. If the climate is changing, the proper course of action should be to adapt to the new climate conditions. It is the height of hubris to believe that we are capable of commanding the oceans to rise or recede, and it’s the height of stupidity to destroy the world economy trying to do so.
Scenario-prediction means that the imagined future should come in some middle point btw extremes. Your idea is like criticizing financial forecast because they work with 'worst case scenarios'.
@@greenlaw6503 What I’m criticizing is the use of the most extreme scenario to garner support for political objectives without specifying that it is the most extreme scenario. In other words, if you don’t adopt my political agenda, the models show that we’re all certainly going to die. The hysterical scare tactics have been fundamentally dishonest.
greenlaw These aren't presented as worst case scenarios. They are presented as irrefutable fact and have been so far off the mark each time that it's hard to tell whether it's laughable or horrifying.
Are these scientists the idiots to have such wrong predictions, or is the general population who are the idiots, given how readily they accept the next apocalyptic premonitions?
Dan, your comment makes more sense to me than the video.
Dan the Man, my man
The biggest problem with all Global Warming predictions is they are based only on the last 100 - 200 years. Very few pays attention to the fact that our earth is much older, and through history we always had these warming and cooling cycles. And even fewer mention that in the mid last ice age the climate was much warmer than it is now.
Irrelevant. Not only do climate models form a reliable guide to potential climate change, they have predicted many of the phenomena for which we now have empirical evidence. Also mainstream climate models have accurately projected global surface temperature changes. You obviously don't know how well the models that scientists use actually work nor how they work.
Climate projections from main stream climate science have been accurate for fifty years. No lack of predictions on track. The general circulation models are right enough to project future climate trends to usable accuracy and usable confidence. Problem is deniers and “skeptics” of climate science often cherry pick the extreme end of projections, which is statistical malpractice. Mid-range projections (models always produce a probability-based range) have been strikingly accurate for over 50 years.
Look up Hausfather et al 2019 "Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections," Geophysical Research Letters. You will notice from the figures, observations are inside the projection cones.
@@rps1689 Indoctrinated nonsense. Models are _never_ accurate. If they were, everyone would agree that human CO2 emissions are causing rapid global warming. But they're not.
Models are used in place of verifiable, replicable data and empirical observations. If those supported the global warming scare, models wouldn't be necessary.
Models are opinions, nothing more.
Answer this. I remember back in the 200s that scientists predicted many and more hurricanes due to global warming. And right after that prediction, hurricanes dropped off dramatically. Why?
The predictions were wrong?
It depends what graph you look at. Skepticism in science is healthy and very necessary. If you plot CO2 levels and global temperatures on a graph over the last 500M years, you will see that there is very little, if any correlation. You will also see that earth is currently in one of the coolest periods in its history.
" you will see that there is very little, if any correlation"
Only if you are stupid, or dishonest, enough to omit changes in solar radiation, which over 500 million years have been considerable.
If such changes (basically a steady increase in solar radiation) are included then the correlation with CO2 becomes obvious.
The problem is that life, say, 150M years ago was well adapted to the planet with the CO2 levels and temperatures at that time. Modern life is built for the climate that has existed for the past few million years, and human activity is changing it faster than life can adapt.
So if you don’t mind waiting 10 million years for life to come and go as a result of our actions, manmade climate change isn’t an issue. But I have a hunch that most people - who rely on earth’s current climate for agriculture and fishing to work - would mind.
@@alexsiemers7898
The climate will almost certainly change dramatically at some point in the future regardless of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Humans will have to adapt just like every other species has through geological history. With regard to anthropogenic CO2, even if it doubled to 800ppm, the planet would most likely be far greener and the avg global temperature would most likely rise by about 1 degree. Most mathematical models predict doom and gloom with a 1 degree rise but the further into the future you go, the more inaccurate mathematical models become. The models also leave out various ocean phenomena and the actions of atmospheric water vapour are poorly understood.
you cannot plot previous co2 levels of a certainty , without many data points of real time observation. because seeing what is in the soils and various forms of water are impossible to say what was in the atmosphere at any given moment.
@@domm6589 There is no scientific basis for your claim that 800ppmv CO2 would "most likely cause a rise by about 1 degree".
Numerous studies, using several independent means of measurement, show that doubling atmospheric CO2 causes a rise in average global surface temperature of around 3degC. We have already added sufficient CO2 to eventually cause a rise of over 1.5C since 1750 by increasing CO2 from 280 to 415ppmv. Doubling that to c.800ppmv would thus cause an overall rise from 1750 of around 4.5degC, which would be utterly catastrophic.
"All predictions are wrong. Some are useful. Most are dangerous" - Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Can you make a vidoe of the Holocene temperature variations after the Younger Dryas
After hearing phrases like "irreversible catastrophic climate change" enough times, one just rolls their eyes and moves on with life. We're bombarded with such unbelievable fearmongering that it's hard to take the topic seriously. It's all a joke for clowns in suits.
Hansen used a pretty good strategy. Make three predictions and then promote the one that matches the outcome.
I will make a prediction on stock x.
1. It will go up
2. It will go down
3. It will stay flat
I’m amazing. Look I was correct!!!
Hanson clearly thought scenario A would be the most likely outcome. This video is wrong to say he thought the three scenarios were equal according to Hanson.
Your criticism is very ignorant. Prediction models in general use different assumption to account for various scenarios, and Hanson managed to get reasonably close with just 3 predictions.
Temperatures (ie data) are being falsified to suit the model, instead of it being the other way around. That's why the models seem to fit.
But if you put side by side the "data" and actual news from the past, you'll notice disturbing things. Extremely hot weather in the 1920-30s with glaciers retreating like never before being marked as some of the coldest years on record... as well as snow in Miami being marked as hot? Models fail to depict that. Not only that, they predict the Maldives going underwater years ago. Yet not a single one has sunk to this day? More evidence to what I'm saying.
That's just temperatures, mind you, and we can debate about those. What we can't debate on however is the Maldives not sinking. Like I said, despite predictions of doom for dozens of years, not a single one has sunk. Yet if we look at pre-industrial era, ie before CO2 release, a few _did_ sink. That's undebatable as it's simply a fact. It casts doubt unto the whole theory that CO2 is the bane of all things... even though our basic biology classes teach us carbon is the source of all life, and plants breathe in CO2 to breathe out O2. In other words, the more CO2 there is, the more plants can thrive -- and they have. Even the NASA is forced to admit the Earth is greener than decades ago. The Sahara has shrunk by around 8% in 30 years. These are all facts.
And all these fact brings to light a problem with the story we're being told: if the models _truly_ are accurate, why is it they constantly fail to hit all the "landmark" targets? Like the Maldives sinking? Or deserts growing? Or the Great Barrier Reef dying, even though it's recently hit a record high coverage? What this proves is that the models are failing to predict actual events which _would_ be provoked by those trends of doom. And if it's not happening, then those trends aren't happening either. Meaning the data is being tampered with because...
Money. Climate change sells. Wind turbines have got quite the lobby and are bullying nuclear out of the equation despite immense progress that would let us consume our current nuclear waste in order to produce _clean_ energy for hundreds of years. Meanwhile, those wind turbines have to be replaced every few dozens of years at most with some materials that can't be recycled. Some graveyards can even be seen from space, and with more wind turbines on the way, the issue will only get worse. But don't take my word for it, have a look for yourself: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8294057/Hundreds-non-recyclable-fiberglass-wind-turbine-blades-pictured-piling-landfills.html
TL;DR: we're being _sold_ a lie. And yes, I used "sold" purposefully here. Fear sells. So wake up.
So, you're claiming decades of climate records are being faked by Big Government?
That's a very shiny hat you're wearing. Is it tin-foil, by any chance?
@@btf_flotsam478 Yes, and you've provided no counter-argument other than "lol u stupid".
Do get rid of the hypothesis that the government is nice and friendly, we've got tons of events proving they're not always.
Ok, it's all a lie. And the decline of oil and gas production from the North Sea isn't real. Or the government wants to light a fire under industry to start building alternative energy sources before Britons have to start burning furniture to keep warm. And when it's clear that dinky little solar arrays can't heat a dollhouse in December, there'll be no difficulty simply jailing anti-nuclear protestors and getting back to work on the power plants that will run things for the next hundred years. Or did you think they're pouring billions into fusion research because it's a fun science project?
@@RandyTWester You're deflecting quite hard. I'm talking temperatures, climate and wind turbines, you're talking oil and gas.
To respond briefly, the government isn't one whole entity. It's comprised of a whole lot of different people, many vying for power while others are trying to do the right thing. Then you've got lobbying, which is thinly veiled modern bribery and corruption in plain view. One such lobby is the wind turbine lobby. They're making craptons of money despite producing precious little energy. But they keep getting enormous funds and more due to their lobbying, pressuring officials to comly to their demands and claiming taxpayer money for themselves.
That is what I was saying. As for oil, gas, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, that's an entirely other talk. Not an uninteresting one, on the contrary. Just one I won't have here as it's not the point I was trying to make which was that some people are _selling_ so-called solutions to the climate change lie by using people's fear and good-hearted, trusting nature. Keyword: selling. It's a classic scam. Create a problem, sell solutions that don't work, profit until found out.
@@btf_flotsam478 55% of the hockey stick is pulled from thin air. Data which doesn’t fit the model is discarded. So Yes.
The "discrepancy" isn't at the surface temperature, but at the lower troposphere. The debate has always been between lower and higher sensitivity.
They told us by the year 2000 the sea level would increase 2 meters and for that New York, London, Rio etc would be under the water. And Holland is under the sea level and is doing OK but they closed 3.000 farms to "help" climate change
No THEY didn't say that. The disinformation mongers tell you that's what THEY said.
That's strange, I'm old enough to remember the scare of the next Ice Age looming large just over 40 years ago, but according to Simon everyone was predicting warming at the time.
Yeah the majority of scientists were predicting warming. The ones you're talking about were in the small minority
@@cathaloregan9317 You are free to believe that if you wish, I guess that's why Leonard Nimoy bothered to do a special on the coming Ice Age, due to a small minority.
@@ExpatriatePaul it's not a belief, it's fact. It's time you looked at the facts
@@cathaloregan9317 LOL, yeah OK, if you say so, but I'm betting you're not old enough to remember 40+ years ago.
@@cathaloregan9317 looked at the facts. Ok hey how is the great barrier reef doing? I ask because I remember all the news a few years ago terrifying. Us that is was dying at a massive rate and almost dead according to new York Times. If you look now it's almost all fixed. OMG THEY REVERSED THE DESTRUCTION. Awesome!!! Well how? Because it would have taken the entire world to fix it and I'm pretty sure every politician would have bragged his ass off he helped fix it. So please Google how they fixed the great barrier reef just from certain complete destruction a few years ago. Oh you won't find it. You won't find any article on the massive fixing of it. It just WENT THRU ITS CYCLE. Now it's ok and not in the news. It was a lie. The lead researcher told us it was a lie and the cycle was cherry picked and for telling the world the news lied what was the lead researchers reward. Being fired. It's a fkn lie. Please look back at all civilizations of the past and look what most agree was the death of almost every civilization. THE CLIMATE CHANGED. They could no longer grow food or survive. Weird huh cause their was no cars
If you skew raw data to meet the modeled prediction you'll get that result everytime
If you accuse people of academic misconduct you can ignore all the evidence.
@@btf_flotsam478 If you ignore actual evidence then nothing makes sense.
@@btf_flotsam478 is fake science academic misconduct? Are scientists allowed to be wrong? If your conclusion helps get the next grant to employ you another 10 years will you have bias? I say yes.
Prove that it happens.
@@raymonlandry228 lol it's there for all to see. You barely have to scratch the surface just to see the basic change done to historical data sets. They do it in front of everyone's eyes but barely anyone looks.
are you saying if combine 100 studies and half are off by the 100% neg and half are off by 100% the and take the average the spot on?
No
YES. Fuck.
How do the models perform when the hindcast goes back to the 1940’s? We had a declining temperature from the 40’s to the 70’s while CO2 levels were rising at the same time. For the climate models to have any forecasting ability they need to explain how temperatures fall with rising CO2 levels as well
"We had a declining temperature from the 40’s to the 70’s" No, we didn't. We had a ~10 year spike from ~1935 until about 1945, which declined back to the trendline by 1950. This was on the high end of decadal variation, but within it.
@@Crispr_CAS9 I think if you look at the IPCC report below it show a clear decrease in global temperature from the mid 40’s to the early 70’s.
archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/index.php?idp=75 . So my question still stands. You will also note that the global temperature increase from 1900’s to 1940’s was pretty much the same increase from the mid 70’s to 2000 even though increase in CO2 levels in the former period were much less than the later period. This could suggest other factors are at play with increasing global temperatures
@@joeblow8994 "So my question still stands." Sorry, but your misunderstanding of a 20 year old summary doesn't make your misunderstanding of the data any more valid.
@@Crispr_CAS9 its irrelevant that the summary is 20 years old. The data in question hasn’t changed in the last 20 years. You still haven’t addressed the core question I raised whether the model hindcast accurately reflect the temperature pre 1970 or just after as shown in the video
@@joeblow8994 "its irrelevant that the summary is 20 years old." It's very relevant that you didn't understand it. Funny you didn't pay more attention to that part.
"You still haven’t addressed the core question I raised" I did, you just didn't like it because you misunderstood a 20 year old summary.
Hi Simon, fantastic video! I have a friend who's a bit of a climate skeptic and would really find this video valuable, but unfortunately he doesn't speak English particularly well (he's an older gentleman and never learnt it at school). Is there any way I could get the script so I could translate it for him? If not I'm happy to just go line by line myself, but it would be super helpful!
@@ZeroRelevance Thanks!
I think part of the problem is people are prophiting off of the green movement.
Not anywhere within five orders of magnitude of the profits of the ppl & enterprises profiting off fossil fuels. Just ask Joe Manchin (if u can get near him in his Maserati or on his yacht) or the Kochs (if u can get past their Blackwater security teams).
If these model are so correct as you state why IPCC presented greatly different scenarios?
When you say "different scenarios" what are you actually referring to?
a) The RCP scenario options that show what is likely to happen depending on how humans decided to react/behave.
or
b) Any apparent changes to the active scenario trajectory we are indicated to be on, from one IPCC report to the next
If it is "a)" then that is provided as a range of scenarios to assist in mitigation planning and objectives priority and adoption advice.
If it is "b)" then the active scenario trajectory can be impacted depending on our mitigation effort progress between one report to the next.
Are we talking about the same people who created carbon credit. I wonder why they did? More profit?
Tropical areas have huge vegetation growth. Colder areas not so much. Therefore since CO2 is increasing (trees like CO2) and temperatures are getting hotter trees and grass growth should increase which in turn should lower CO2 levels.
I has happened before. All our coal and oil and methane come from fossilized vegetable matter in addition to fossil algae.
Can you please make a video about the temperature 'corrections' and the data that is added where it is missing....
What are you referring to, exactly?
Hi there logitech - the graph shown at 1.53 is not the collected temperature readings. The temperature record gets 'officially corrected' to improve errors. Unfortunately this means that a US temperature that is actually getting cooler then looks like it is getting warmer and the 1930's dust bowl 'never happened'. What I want to know is what are these corrections? and what is the scientific justification for them... then they take the corrected data and add estimated data from missing areas where no records are available. What process is there for this??
It's been twenty years since the hole in the ozone killed us all....
But It didn’t because we took action
2:30 - In the 70's they predicted an impending ice age. Where can I find daily high/low temperature RAW data for cities for the past ~100 years. I want RAW data, not data that has been adjusted in any way. Why is this data hard to find?
Cities produce and hold heat much more than open land. As cities grow I would expect their average temperatures to rise over time. So this data might not be the best to look at for a full representation of what's going on
they didn't PREDICT an impending ice age... there were some scientist who assumed this could happen based on theoretical models which were not based on data and it was even highly controversial then among the scientific community and never became broadly accepted and verified by other peer reviews. That's why it very quickly disappeared again from the scientific discourse
The chart that you showed looks strange. It shows a steady climb from 1970. The 1930’s were as hot or hotter than today and the coolest period went to 1982, then started warming again. It should show a descending temperature from 1970 to 1980 and then warming again.
Halfway in. I think one of the big issues is that the media focuses in on the low-likelihood, high-impact worst case predictions because they are the headline grabbers, and are also the most likely to be wrong and overproject the actual. Lets see if I guessed right :D
Hrm, but you left out a key groups that also pushes the alarmist prediction. Fossil fuel companies are not the only ones that benefit from that graph. Media companies benefit from the alarmist prediction because it drives clicks. The environmentalist also uses the alarmist prediction because it gets peoples attention and funds them. Each group has fundamentally different reasons to use the alarmist predictions from the report even though we would be all better off if we looked only at the most realistic prediction.
I cant seem to figure out why the alarmist prediction is even in the IPCC report, I actually do not think it should be included due to how counter productive it is politically. It probably should include the most likely high impact scenario, but not something that is more than certain to be overpredicting the increase by a large margin. Unless you think the oil lobby is writing the report.
Absolutely! The environmental movement is its own worst enemy. The fact is that most of them have hijacked it for other monetary or political goals. It has become a mire of misinformation and hyperbole that the average person becomes disengaged with, although they outwardly pay homage for an easy life.
@@GGTutor1 I partly agree, but ulterior motives aren't the only reason movements go bad. Well-intentioned mistakes are a problem too, and we shouldn't jump to corruption or ill intent for all misuse.
@@fellinuxvi3541 Very true, but it is easier to call out the bad actors and then those who are actually interested in finding the truth can hopefully float to the top. I think it is too late for that now, unfortunately, the waters have been so muddied that it is very hard to get an accurate picture unless you make it a full time job. The average person just doesn't have the means to know what is actually going on.
We're going to drown in 2 inches of rising sea?
Dragon Korean
Those doing the predictions don't study why the last five 10-year predictions were wrong. Government grants. "This time is different."
Antarctica is a land mass, covered by ice a mile thick. Snow falls, melts, re-freezes, and adds to the already mile thick ice, which pushes down on the ice in the interior. This causes the ice on the outside of the ice shelf to FALL OFF the edge of the Antarctic continent. The ice is getting bigger in Antarctica, NOT smaller.
and what picture do we get if we don't cherry pick and talk about all landice on earth? Galciers and greenland to be specific.
@@chimp09 Point well taken. But perhaps Artic ice has been a geologically recent phenomenon? And also Greenland ice?
@@Inalienablerights15 "But perhaps Artic ice has been a geologically recent phenomenon?"
Way more recent than antarctic ice, yes. But that does nothing to the problem.
It is not the melting ice in itself that is the problem, nor is it the warming in itself that is a problem. The problem is the rapid change.
@@chimp09 Speaking of rapid change, what happened to the claim that the polar bears were all dying due to ice melting. Turns out, the bear population has DOUBLED since that untrue inconvenient truth was revealed.
@@Inalienablerights15 I have never seen this claim made in any scientific paper. I have only ever been linked to blogs or some crappy media site, who (surprise surprise) get all sorts of stuff wrong all the time. So I don't really care about polar bears to be honest.
Do you have a scientific source that claimed that polar bears will die out because of climate change / ice melting in a short time? Otherwise lets call this claim what it is: crap. And move on.
Hansen's scenario B also overshoots by about 33% (0.6C increase vs 0.8C), but what were the actual green house gas emissions during the time? Given China's and India's growth, and the relative stability of the Western World, I'd guess (!!) scenario A isn't that far off (IIRC CO2 emissions have increased by about 50% since 1990 [and since it was about 10% increase until 2000, I'd say that's pretty exponential]).
While this might come off as a bit conspiratorial, unfortunately surface temperature data is woefully inadequate. The amount of measurement points outside of the Western World is miniscule, and within often distorted by urban development (and this change is then attempted to be removed by adjusting the data, with varying degrees of success).
western world(including australia) is still responsible for more than 80% of the green house gases emissions. They may not produce it themselves, but they are buying goods and services produced by those emissions.
@@ritwikreddy5670 Makes no difference when the talk of reducing emissions only happens in the Western World.
@@defeqel6537 The pollution went from the West to the East. It's like you think moving something doubles it.
About surface temperature data being inaccurate - this was indeed true decades ago, and has been a challenge for short term measurements (ice cores are good for long-term temperature estimates but not so great at individual years or even decades) but satellites have greatly improved our temperature measuring ability globally.
Infared radiation relates fairly directly to how hot a surface is - it's how blackbody radiation works, and how thermal cameras work. Many infrared and microwave satellites orbiting around Earth regularly measure these wavelengths to gain temperature readings, and have been taking simultaneous measurements for the past ~50 years to compare and contrast how these measurements change.
Almost all temperature records you see in the modern day are based on satellite data, taking into account ground-based temperature data only to calibrate the satellite measurements as accurately as possible. As such I'd argue they are quite accurate at preventing systematic error from measurement biases from only recording in a few geographic locations and whatnot.
@@aperson1 "Almost all temperature records you see in the modern day are based on satellite data"
They very much are not. Surface temperature data is exactly that, thermometers on the surface measuring temperature. Satellite data is separate and more rarely used when doing these comparisons. I cannot remember actual figures (or whether they were relative to land area), but there were something like 1000 times more measurement points in the North America compared to South, and something like 10 000 times more compared to Africa.
Satellite data seems really accurate and all, but not sure how useful it is when tracking climate change if the premise is that less radiation gets out as it is trapped in the atmosphere.
You present the multiple scenarios of Hansen's model, but you've missed the significant point that Hansen's Scenario A was based on his under-estimate of the amount of CO2 that has actually occurred, and as such, his model significantly over-estimates the amount of warming and thus over-estimates climate sensitivity. Your attempts to besmirch climate skepticism as being fueled by money from the fossil fuel industry - that is ad-hominem and as such has no place in a reasoned discourse.
It is all about control, these people will tell you anything to get control of you.
What happened to the prediction of the coming new ice age back in the 70s???
The scientific consensus in the 1970s was that the planet was warming and humans were responsible.
Maybe if they stopped "adjusting" the data the models would not be so spot on as you say. We used to call this draw your graph then plot you data.
Garbage in. Garbage out.
_slides on tin-foil hat_
They're faking everything to get our money!
@@btf_flotsam478 actually it is a million dollars scam
You have zero proof for your claim.
For what it's worth, I feel a bit deceived by the title, "Why have climate change predictions been so WRONG?".
I didn't have any preconception that they *were* usually wrong. So when I read that title, my reaction was, "wow, I didn't know that; I'd love to hear Simon tell me why!" But then the video was basically "Actually, they're not wrong" which is what I had thought before reading the title. So I'd suggest changing the title to something that doesn't implicitly claim that they are wrong.
(Love your channel overall, and congrats on the book!)
Yeah, felt a little too click-baity for me. I understand what audience he was aiming for but I think people who believe in climate change and are interested in the science and the nuances make up a lot more of his audience.
TH-camrs do real time A/B tests with video titles to see what works best. Let’s come back to the video in a few days to see if the title changed! I agree with you though that the current title is deceptive and therefore feels wrong, but ultimately creators are going to do what works best which I find to be an acceptable rationale. Watch veritasium’s video on clickbait, it was pretty cool
This is part of his Trojan Horse strategy to bring in deniers (see also "Where's the rise in sea level?" and "Why aren't the polar bears dying?" videos he's made). I'm not fully convinced that this is a good idea also, but I think any manner in which to critically engage with climate science rather than dogmatically repeating bumper sticker sayings about it, pro or anti, is a good thing.
It's called clickbait.
@@deawinter If you look at the number of dislikes on his videos "Shouldn't sea levels have risen by now?" or "Whatever happened to GLOBAL COOLING?", I think it's clear that his videos with these types of titles do reach climate change deniers. (You could argue that the fact that they're disliking it means the videos aren't effective, but it would be very surprising if their beliefs were fundamentally altered by a single video.) I get that it doesn't really make sense as a title for us, but the people who it's actually important that these videos reach are climate change deniers.
Can I just say that the emotion of not wanting to try to understand a theory because it might shake your world view is applicable to all humans
The climate is changing.... but we are not the be all end all when it comes to the equation......
There's many natural processes at work here..... the magnetic poles are shifting and have accelerated over the last 100 years.... this has decreased the strength of the magnetosphere allowing the energy from solar coronal mass ejections to have a greater impact on our atmosphere.... this in turn has helped change the trajectories of the jet streams, upsetting our "normal" weather patterns.....
There is also the chandler wobble which effects the geographical north and south axis.... the earth wobbles in precession every 26,000 years.....
There's also the milankovitch cycle..... this changes earths cyclical precession around the sun from a circular shape into a oval shape. This creates tidal heaving in earths core and continental plates, leading to more earthquakes and volcanic activity.....
None of the above we can do much about.... that's why we're not told about it in the news daily, they also can't sell us a solution to these problems...... notice how many are buying bunkers though?
We do however need to change our behaviour, we can do more to stop poisoning our environment and the air we breath, this is our home, let's stop poisoning the well before we can't anymore.
Peace, power and freedom to all.
@@WSmith_1984 So can't we do both? Ajust and prepare.
We need a strong econemy to help against the disasters we can't avoid. Why destroy it to maybe avoid one disaster?
@@wildshape yeah we need to do both.... but the powers that be aren't trying to encourage us to prepare, they want us to spend and fund their crazy ideas, they don't care what happens to you and I, they are trying to protect themselves after spending years profiting and poisoning our earth..... when all we really need to do is go back to basics. But regardless of what we do with Co2, the climate will still change and alter because of the natural processes I've mentioned.....
@@WSmith_1984 Indeed they don't care. They own all those factories in China and other 3th world countries. They can improvce them in the next few years. That will greatly help the enviroment.
But they don't talk about that now are they?
They all go their super Davos club on their private jets to discus how we normal people must change our lives
@@wildshape precisely.... this is more about controlling us and how we live our lives than saving the planet..... Central planners, think of the whole as an ant colony, they don't mind losing some ants here and there or even a few hundred thousand as long at they keep achieving what they set out to do, which is gain more control, more resources and more power.....
It's time to tell to fukc off, it's time for none violent non compliance.
The problem with the global warming narrative is that it fails to show that CO2 levels are important to the overall trend. For example, Hansen predicted two volcanic eruptions that would help keep the warming trend from being severe. But there was only one during the period he covered so his model was worse than even the critics are saying. Another big problem is the reported actual temperature. It comes from estimates made by people like Hansen who manipulate data from working stations. But when we look at the stations that have been continually operating in rural areas not impacted by the addition of artificial warming sources, the trend disappears. And then there is the assumption that having very high warming in the polar regions is bad for the planet or humanity. It isn't because the higher AVERAGE temperatures come from higher nighttime lows, mostly in the winter. The number of melt days seems not to have changed so seeing the average in an area go from -35°C to -18°C has no impact on sea levels and does no harm to life in the region.
Stop being silly with your mischievous manufactured talking points. I know you think god is taking care of everything. That is what got us into trouble in the first place. LOL.
The lie is in the timeline of the chart, which starts in the 1970's. Prior to this there was four decades of cooling especially in the Northern hemisphere. Publications of the era prove this unequivocally. Further , I remember the time ! For a quick reference , National Geographic November 1976.
The unfortunate fact is that most people who watch this already trust you and science and that the people who really need to watch the video likely won't.
And people who doesn't watch this channel will only see start of the video which doesn't explain the problem and will only make them don't believe in climate change science
🤔 Ditto for Brexitards and their incoherent nonsense.
feel sort of manipulated that the observed matched the green hansen model more then the blue and red like you suggest
So the temperature graph matches. Good. But where is the change? The Germany sized prairie that has become a desert. The Portugal sized river basin that is now a lake? The drop in grain production due to change in temperature? Was the warming in daylight or night time. Were temps warming more in winter, summer or spring and fall? No one breaks this down. If evening and night are warmer that would mean later frost and earlier spring so a longer growing season.
fUnNy tHaT YoU bEliEve iN gLobaL wArMinG whEn yoU hAve tHe cOld
The speakers on behalf of fossil fuel has now changed the goal post from "no global warming" to "yes global warming but nothing we can do about it" and to some even say "we should do nothing about it"
Then what they're doing is trying to amass as much wealth as possible on their way out the door, without even a shred of concern for the well-being of humanity. Which is consistent with the notion that the vast majority of corporate oligarchs are greedy, narcissistic, sociopaths.
Is a healthy warm up or warever
th-cam.com/video/vnmzOeG_N64/w-d-xo.html
@@coloneloftruth9621 Be careful what you wish for. With additional global warming comes more frequent, severe and widespread floods, droughts, wildfires, hurricanes, infestations of pests, and on and on.
@@coloneloftruth9621 Yes, but as I say the weather-related disasters have been getting more frequent, severe, and widespread in concert with the rise in average global temperature. And that observation, based on actual measurements with thermometers, etc, is completely consistent with what the immutable laws of physics, chemistry, and biology are telling us SHOULD be happening.
Question: the errors bars shows uncertainties level in the measurement. What is the percentage of uncertainties are the measurements? At what point will the uncertainties make a measured or predicted value obsolete? Also, as I am trying to read the graph, what are the values on the vertical axis (temperature vs. time)? You said the warming temperature, so I am assuming it is the increase in temperature from different models ranging form 1970 to 2017. Do you have year to year data so show how this is related to the graph? Would love to see that. And do you know where they took the measurement of the temperature to get the average?
When I was calculating the ECS from temperature and CO2 concentration data, I assessed the error in the CO2 data to be negligible , but the temperature data showed a great deal of year to year (actually the data is collected month to month) variation. We say that the data is 'noisy'. So to calculate the change in temperature to put into the equation, I took the temperature trend line since satellite data began in 1979 rom a calculator by Kevin Cowtan which gives the trend in C per decade and multiplied by the number of decades, which is 4.4.
The output from ther calculator for RSS lower troposphere data is:
Trend: 0.210 ±0.050 °C/decade (2σ)
σ (sigma) is the standard deviations from the mean of the trend line. Two σ means that there is a better than 95% probability that the fit is not due to chance. If the 95% threshold is met, the trend is "statistically significant".
So the change in temperature is 0.90 C ± 24%.
The advantage of expressing the uncertainty as a percentage is that at the end of the calculation, the uncertainty in the final result can be obtained by simply applying that percentage to the result. So the final figure for the ECS is 3.0 ± 0.07 C.
Hansen said that new york would be under water .
NO HE FUCKING DIDNT YOU FUCKING CHRIST I CANT
Almost a year ago you did a great video about 5 books to understand climate change.
What are your thoughts about The Thinking Person's Guide to Climate Change by Robert Henson (2nd ed just published in 2019)?
Oh, you mean the journalist with no background in statistics at all?
No, I haven't read his book, because with my statistical background and access to the scientific reports, I can come up with a better conclusion than that particular sub-human.
@@btf_flotsam478
What do those statistics tell you about calling people "subhuman" ?
Remember to factor in 'history repeats itself.'
and "I am a superior human".
@@bellezavudd "Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best, he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear his shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house.” - Robert Heinlein
@@btf_flotsam478
Really an appeal to authority !? The bureaucracy of ism
will be so proud.
Looks like you need to factor in a double dose of the "history repeats itself" and add at least one " by those who forget it".
@@btf_flotsam478 Really good logic; criticizing a book that you didn't read. Then judging a man because he disagrees with you.
There needs to be some sort of Logic With Practical Applications, basically Logic, class that is part of the curriculum where the focus isn't on and/or gates or how to execute statistical or mathematical formula's or how to design an experiment, but a more broad way to apply logic or the scientific method to gather actionable and truthful information. I.E implications and semantics of data variance, data interpretation, how to ascertain what is fact (journalism) and what is opinion (smear, confirmation bias appeal), general risk management based on available data, etc. Sort of "Discreet Math" but more so "Discreet Social Logic." A lot of science and math classes are intensely focused on the building blocks, but there really needs to be a well constructed class focused on looking at the entire pyramid.
I took a class called “Critical Thinking” in college. Great class.
I remember we once were made to consider whether or not it was morally okay for a brother and sister to be in a sexual relationship if they both mutually consented and there was no possibility of a child being born-and how that ethical question put a fat halt on everybody’s preconceived notions about morality and disgust, lmao.
Some one needs to learn the difference between predictions and projections in climate science. Predictions from mainstream climate science have been accurate for half a century. If anyone could refute any of the principal findings from climate science, they's be one very rich and famous person. They'd be the biggest name in science since Albert Einstein.
If the models disagree between themselves then why has somebody not written a model that simulates all the factors and that can accurately hind cast previous "global" temperatures. Models disagreeing indicates inadequate modeling or inadequate physics. Years ago, I did a statistical model of experimental data using two programs. Had the programs not produced essentially identical results I would have raised large red flags with my defense contractor employer.
My masters mainly was on numerical modeling and I worked with statistical modeling on my work terms from UniWat so I have some experience in this area. I read R A Fisher in the original on work terms.
No I do not find the graphs shown at 8:07 the least bit intimidating once I understand the axis etc. Don't be stupid.
I think this is one of the most deceptive video headlines out there
agree, won't be listening to this guy again
@@marcokite Hey; it's sponsor is the UN so no surprises there. Pretending to say one thing while saying the opposite.
What about the predictions in the 90s that definitely stated as a central estimate that sea levels would have risen 60 meters by 2020?
do you have a source for that,.....
Check your sources. Do you really think this was scientific consensus?
@Mark Jones What's your source for 1 to 5 meters? Sea level Rise is measured in millimeters per year.
You shouldn't believe any random stuff you read or hear. Meters of sea rise in such a short span of time has never been the scientific consensus.
It's funny how he doesn't apply his idea of human behavior to those he thinks are going to save the planet.
BANG ON comment
Thank you
Dang, true and real.
You again!
…You’re an idiot!
Yes, we should look at who is sharing it and why they're sharing it. Most likely it is they that are heavily invested in government subsidized alternative energy provisions.
The pay for denial is 2-3 orders of magnitude gtr than the pay for supporting AGW. Obvious xmpl: Harvard's "Willie" Soon (astrophysicist, not climatologist) who famously got 1.25 MILLION Exxon-Mobil $ for his screeds. Given the hi incentives, the fact that virtually NO climate scientists still push the denial narrative is... impressive. U'd think @ lst a FEW wld sell out. But no. The "scientist" deniers all turn out to be geologists, physicists, doctors (!) -- no climate scientists. Fancy that!
As opposed to the much more heavily subsidised fossil fuels industries?
Scenario A should be accurate because co2 emissions have increased exponentially, there's no point using scenarios B or C because the assumptions they made are now verifiably false?
Just an honest question
To answer your question, If you do a quick search for CO2 emissions graph you will see that from about 1945 to the present the increase in emissions has been linear (i.e a straight line on a conventional graph).
@@ezza200 straight line until around 2000, quite a bit higher afterwards
Appreciate you putting references in the description :)
Me too.
... should be giving him a face slap if he didn't. Simple. And the deniers too.
The description makes no sense.
03:50
I haven't forgotten that I went to the Maldives after Scientists said it would not be there.
I remember that prediction
True Maldives Islands Did not Sink in 2018 as they said would happen.
No credible source said that. This has already been disproven. But you continue to deny. Until you can’t. I just wish I could be there to see the look on your face when your whole illusion shatters around you.
@@EncephalitisifyIt won’t. They will never realize they’re wrong.
The liquid dinosaurs in your car’s fuel tank is the best solar storage battery in the universe.
Eh. Energy density and availability suck.
Liquid single cell organisms (mostly) from the era of the dinosaurs.
In terms of efficiency? Possibly.
Ignore the increasing cost of extraction, the emissions, and other negative aspects... not the least of which being the finiteness of the source.
"Oil good, it's stored solar."
Simple concepts for simple minds, I suppose.
Stored up solar energy.
Does anyone seriously think that there ever were enough dinosaurs to make possible the billions of barrels of petroleum that have been recovered so far?
@@geoh7777 It was single celled life, something akin to plankton or algae, not dinosaurs.
Big problem is the feedback parameter, which is based on limited research. I don't know anything about the author I cite below. But I do know that his argument is consistent with that of Richard Lindzen, Prof Emeritus of Harvard, an atmospheric physicist.
I have worked with hyperbolas in my own applied research and have found that slight variations in the parameters can produce big variations in results.
In my opinion, variations in the feedback parameter is the main reason the 35 leading climate models display a fan shape that has not converged in 30 years. The modeling groups cannot agree on cloud physics, closely related to feedback from water vapour.
There is a way to test these models that, from my knowledge, has never been used. What is the implied Bond albedo of the 35 models? The global figure should be about 30% plus or minus a small error. Small, because a 1% difference would account for 1% of 102 Watts per square meter of the globe. 1Watt per square meter. And the estimate of energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere was estimated as 0.5 Watt per square meter in 2012. A 2019 paper confirmed this but was withdrawn because the error bars were too big.
My guess is that the Bond albedo is all over the place.
climate.mr-int.ch/index.php/en/modelling-uk/feedback-uk/ipcc-mistake
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_albedo
www.easycalculation.com/constant/bond-albedo-earth-constant.html
Lindzen is a well known skeptic who's gotten most of it wrong.
"A disservice to the scientific method: climate scientists take on Richard Lindzen:
"“A pervasive aspect of [Lindzen]’s presentation was the conflation of uncertainty with ignorance; in his view, because we are uncertain about some aspect, we therefore know nothing about it and any estimate of it is mere guesswork. In this way we believe [he] does a disservice to the scientific method, which seeks to develop understanding in the face of inevitable uncertainties in our knowledge of the world in which we live. The scientific method has served society well for many hundreds of years, and we see no reason to doubt its validity for trying to quantify the risk of climate change and its impacts on society this century.”
They go on to point out that Lindzen’s arguments are not anywhere near sufficient to discount man-made climate change:
“[…] We reassert that there is a substantial risk of human-induced climate change considerably larger than 1°C in global average this century and beyond. There is nothing in [Lindzen’]s talk to cast doubt on the existence of this risk.”
Quite honestly once I read the words "Richard Lindsen" I turn away.
He is one of the individuals who is on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry and can't be taken seriously.
Just google his name and find out by yourself.
Well the conclusion of your first link may be seriously questionned because Ecs is clearly not based only of models estimations (see the ecs multiestimation graph on the ipcc ar6 wg1)
You talk about cognitive dissonance and then go on to claim that only one side of the political spectrum utilizes the oitliers of the data at their will?
Think again!
The reason that the models do not work is that they are overemphasizing impacts of trace gasses and underestimating the contribution of water and solar forcing. Trying to build a model that generates fear based on natural cyclic trends in climate. The climate has never been totally stable, proven by the many ice ages coming and going.
I was around during the massive heatwave of 1976 in the UK. What was the cause of that, and why do all the latest graphs start from 1980?
@Mark Jones How can satellites take accurate measurements of sea depth when the moon is constantly pulling the oceans this way and that? Also, the atmosphere is always subject to jet streams, cloud formations, etc. so temperature measurements are subject to a vast number of other variables. Seems like a very inexact science on which to base the world's energy policies.
climate change studies need to include explanations of past temperatures. i.e. the dust bowl of the 1930's.
Right and please explain the medieval warming period, The end of the last ice age.and the younger and older Dryess. None of those were caused by humans the world has natural warm and cooling cycles. So yes the world might be getting a bit warmer and there are things we can do to mitigate or take advantage of the situation however human intervention won't stop the natural cycles of the planet.
No they don´t. Papers are meant for people who know their shit to at least some degree or at the very least are capable of looking it up properly. The reality is barely anyone and certainly none of the nutters actually read papers. So where is the issue? Well with the reporting of said papers and the interests actively distorting it.
@@cynthiamarquez3370 If you bothered to read any scientific literature you would understand that the MWP Younger Dryas have all been accounted for and are relatively insignificant events compared to what we have coming. The Earth will transform to something similar to the Pilocene, which was 5 million years ago, before end of century . I suggest you start by reading about Milankovitch cycles, followed by looking at the IPCC report it would help you to become less confused and hopefully better informed.
@@tonyvu1853 There are so much wrong with what your statements I don't know where to begin and I haven't got much time. so I will answer your first question for starters as I cannot spend all day. Climate scientists do no just look at 40 year trends but go back millions of years, your confusion is based on the fact the definition of climate is weather taken over a few decades. Obviously temperatures have been higher or lower before, just ask anyone child over 5 years old, You would have got this information from the paleoclimatic records, probably from a climate scientist, which is a bit ironic...... These climatic changes would have been in the main caused by Milankovitch Cycles, if you spent five mins understanding climate science you would have known this... The Earth was in a different orbit to today with different eccentricity, procession, obliquity and continents were in different places. Submarines have c02 levels of between 3500 ppm and 10000 ppm so I do not think humans have a problem with high levels of c02 to function. however the planet is not the same as the human body. I haven't got time to waste on answering the rest of your questions as all the answers are widely available to the public, you just need to look it up. You score very well on climate denier bingo, go look it up...... ;-)
Very simplistic argumentation. Whenever someone says "Trust the science", I get sceptical and it is a major red flag. Science is not static in the first place, which you should know. Rather, encourage people to look at all sides of the debates, provide links to various studies providing evidence for both sides.
sure if the two sides both have merit, for example disputing the methodology of how people got the predictions because you think that they haven't factored in something important and you can at least logically prove it. however stupid claims like the earth had more co2 in the camberian, therefore who cares. is a dumb argument therefore shouldnt get as much debate time as climate warnings. also just to cover my bases about my dumb claim, its not really the amount of co2 in the air thats the problem, its the speed of the increase that is gonna cause the issues, if we had 50 million years to reach 4000ppm, life and humanity would adapt to a very slowly changing climate and the effects would be minimal compared to just natural extinction events. however we have put in more then 50 percent extra since the industrial revolution, thats only about 250 years and the sharpest increase has been in our lifetimes. this is too fast for most eco systems to adapt too
The problem is that the side that says climate change isn't caused by humans has no good evidence to present. It's disingenuous to present both sides as equal.
As a geologist when ask by a lay person "Is the climate warming?" My response is: "the planet has been warm for the last 12,000 years." For the record even if we disappeared from the planet, it would continue to warm. To blame the warming on humans is wrong. To demonize the fossil fuel industry is unfair because that industry has given the first world its standard of living. This video like so many videos like have an agenda to demonize the fossil fuel industry when the issues are far more complex. It can be further argued that a substantial parts of the northern hemisphere would be deforested so the population could stay warm. As an example, compare the percent of forests in Vermont in 1860 as compared to now. In 1860 only 20% of the state had forest (1760 95% of the state was forested), now 80% of the state is forested. That change began when coal became the chief fuel to warm a home.
The warming is not a crisis. It is events that occur in slow motion. We have the time to plan and prepare for the changes that will occur in the next 100 years. And given that we need how we use the technology to help the third world develop so they do not starve. Windmills and solar panels will not power the first world economies let alone a developing economy. Compromises need to be made, technologies need to be developed so all peoples can afford to be environmentalist and not worry how one will survive the next 24 hours. We further need to stop listening to fools that the world is ending. The planet has been warmer in the past and life thrived.
OMG. I doubt you are a scientist or you're either very bad at it or completely dishonest. The interglacial warm period peaked 6,000 years ago. The planet had been cooling since until the Industrial revolution. Since then GHGs have made the temperature soar.
The fossil fuel industry takes in trillions of dollars a year and spends billions in denial to ensure those profits. Documented. See: Merchants of Doubt)
The rest of that nonsense you wrote is shameful disinformation. Vermont has reforested because farms were abandoned. Not because of climate.
At 5:40, you show Hansen’s prediction for 2010, compared with actual observations, and say they are a close match. If you think that’s a close match, I have a bridge to sell you.
I think that you might be confused because the colour scale for Hansen's prediction is different from the colour scale of the modern map.
Look at the contours, not the colours.
@@IamGrimalkin There is no colour scale for Hansen's prediction, at least not in this video. Nice try, but this video is not convincing on that topic at all. There is therefore no way to compare the two maps and know how close Hansen's prediction is to reality. And when fractions of degrees are pointed to as evidence of impending doom, it's very important to know exactly what is predicted and when. Especially if you are advocating abolishing tried and true means of supporting a standard of living that far exceeds that of only a hundred years ago.
When Obama was elected in 2008 , James Hansen said "Obama has 4 years to save the planet". Since the planet is still here, Obama has saved us.
LOL true,.... Obama is God.
🤣🤣🤣
I like when people fulfill their promises.
@@businessproyects2615 well if Obama hadn't saved the planet I suppose we wouldn't be here to call him out on it.
@@lewisner Fair enough, still we should call him SuperObama. :)
Why did Dr Michael Mann choose to lose the law suit he initiated against Dr Tim Ball suit by refusing to provide his hockey stick data ?
He did not lose the case and he did not refuse to supply data. The judge ruled that too much time had elapsed.
@@pshehan1 LOL - and why did the time lapse ...
Because Mann failed to provide his part of the deal to the judge.
Not only did Mann lose because he failed to produce his data on time -- ten years for what was done is not enough???
Mann was ordered by the court to pay Ball's legal cost -- the loser did not pay as he deserves to.
@@thomasmartin406
Michael Mann v. Timothy (“Tim”) Ball, The Frontier Centre for Public Policy, Inc. and John Doe
Filing Date: 2011
Reporter Info: Court No. VLC-S-S-111913
Status: Partially Settled and Dismissed
Jurisdictions:
Canada British Columbia Supreme Court
Principal Laws:
Canada Libel
tist Michael Mann filed a libel claim against Timothy (“Tim”) Ball, The Frontier Centre for Public Policy, Inc. ("FCPP"), and an unnamed defendant ("John Doe"). The defendant Ball participated in an interview with the FCPP and John Doe during which Ball made allegedly false and defamatory statements inferring that Michael Mann is guilty of criminal fraud in relation to the alleged “Climategate” scandal or alternatively that there are probably grounds to find Mann guilty. The plaintiff sought damages, an injunction against further publication of the defamatory statements, and a court order for the defendants to remove the interview containing the defamatory statements from all electronic databases, including the FCPP website. In June 2019, the FCPP settled with Mann and issued a retraction and apology on their website.
On August 22, 2019, the court dismissed the case on account of delay. The court found that two periods of delay totalling 35 months constituted "inordinate delay" that could not be excused on account of the plaintiff being occupied with other matters. The court further found that this delay had caused prejudice to the defendant because three of the defendants' planned witnesses had died. The court dismissed the case and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's court costs.
@@thomasmartin406 LOL? There is a great video featuring an episode of a TV show, Conspiracy with Jesse Ventura show where the narrator says 'The governor's source [Ventura is a wrestlemania star turned state governor turned tabloid TV personality] has led June Sarpong [breathless reporter] to a small town on the outskirts of civilisation. It's here that a global warming critic says he is hiding for his life."
Sarpong on a ferry says: "I admit I'm worried. When I get to the other side, I'm going to be outside of cell phone range. i don't know if anyone's following me or what to expect."
The narrator continues: "She finds a man who does not want to be seen or named. A climate scientist who has been at the top of his field since the nineteen seventies, when the concern was global cooling.
Sarong;:Can you tell us why you are in silhouette today for this interview?
Frightened source: "Well because of the attacks on me personally..".
Potholer 54 [Breaking in at this point]: "Now I've got no idea who this mystery climatologist is. One person we know it definitely isn't is Professor Tim Ball. After all the climatologist in hiding is described as a climate scientist who has been at the top of his field since the nineteen seventies, and we know that Tim Ball is a retired geography professor, he didn't study climatology until the nineteen eighties, and his only contribution to climate research was three papers looking at the history of the Hudson's Bay company, all now around thirty years old.
The frightened source goes on to explain it is the sun which is responsible for climate change and this has been completely ignored by the IPCC
Potholer 54: Well now we definitely know it's not Tim Ball, Because Tim ball doesn't sound e anything like that" [Plays clip of tim Ball being interviewed not in disguise]
TimBall: "Well they virtually ignore the sun as a factor of climate change..."
Potholer 54: "Well that's funny. Excuse me a second. Tim? Hello Tim. Is that you? I can see you. [Switches from silhouette of frightened source to Tim Ball] Yes it is you Tim..."
Comedy gold.
Anyone promoting climate Catastrophism needs to be locked up in an asylum.
One of the other model questions is whether the narrative on disastrous storms, droughts, and ecological disruption has held true on models as compared to reality with these temperatures. It would be great to see a video on that also!
This is what I thought he was going to discuss. I was taught in school that if the temperature kept rising the ice caps would be gone by last year... but here I'm bring told that the temperature DID keep rising but the ice caps haven't melted. So to me, the prediction was more wrong than right because the disastrous consequence that was predicted was wrong. If average temps can rise by a million degrees with no catastrophe then I'm not really concerned, but if they will rise by .1 degree and cause extinction and ice caps to disappear then I'm very very concerned. I know that's a highly exaggerated example, but I'm just trying to point out that the consequences of the climate changing is what we're really concerned with as a species and most of those predictions have been just absurdly wrong.
@@crispy9175 check out 4:50 re sea ice models though. Looks like they all have awhile to.go before there is no sea ice. With a couple of them never reaching that state.
as many ecologists have said...
Climate Change has no effect on the numbers and intensity of Storms, draughts, floods, tornadoes,... etc.
We havent seen any significant increase of those things and their intensities are comparable to those years ago.
@@RaskaTheFurry I think the big thing is, big storms are happening all the time, and if you see the weather and you think climate change, you will assume the storms sensationalized in the media for views is a result of climate change, rather than realizing they've happened every year forever.
The NASA datasets are also adjusted to reflect the expected results so them using that as a comparison is kind of an pointless exercise as they're just using fucky datasets to prove that fucky models produce fucky results.
Is the thermodynamics of how the UV radiation is absorbed by CO2 understood? The same question applies for when the CO2 particle emits a photon at the end of the cycle? And finally, why isn't water vapor included in these discussions because it also absorbs in the UV spectrum, is just under 10 times more prevalent than CO2 in the atmosphere, and it's variation varies wildly?
The variation in atmospheric water vapor works with the poles warming faster than the equator. Colder air is dryer air.....
@@johnking9942 Thanks for replying but what does that have to do with the absorption of the UV radiation by the water vapor.
@@donclay3511 Not so much with absorption of UV. I agree with your question regarding the absence of water vapor from discussions of climate change. Seems to me to be a much more dynamic system than free CO2 in the atmosphere. I also understand that the radiative forcing of the GHE isn't completely understood. But I see a good argument for increased moisture in the air acting as a modulator on the energy that reaches the earths surface. Just check the output of solar panels on a humid day.
@@johnking9942 Thanks again for replying. I just want to understand the whole topic. I can't find answers to these questions and others.
@@donclay3511A long time ago I read a paper published by the university of Berlin that outlined the effect of energy on the entrainment of gasses in water. The paper was about metal degassing for vacuum chambers. It described the relationship between thermal energy and entrained CO2 in water. Levels of entrained gasses go down as water warms and go up as water cools. On Free CO2 and methane the size of the molecule has a supposed relationship with the frequency of light and that categorizes them as green house gasses. The same frequencies don't effect the noble gasses the same way. I cant find answers to these question either. I wonder if the real question should be "Has the world run out of affordable fossil fuel?" If we have that would change life on earth for sure. Everything seems to be made from it.
I have two problems with climate science and the shift away from fossil fuels, and you've made a comment that epitomises the issue. It's not just the fossil fuel companies that benefit from the continued use of these fuel types; low-income consumers are the real beneficiaries of fossil fuels, as we can see with huge price rises at the petrol pumps and household fuel bills.
Yes, there are other factors that affect the price of gas or petroleum but, the relatively rapid switch away from these, is causing severe fuel poverty.
I'd also like to know how much research has been done into the effect of solar activity, and it's sffect on the polar regions? Surely, increased activity would see more plasma drawn through at the poles, and would affect the temperature?
The "Fee and Dividend" system, suggested by climate scientists like James Hansen, would make the poorer 70% of the population better off (by taxing the amount of carbon extracted by fossil fuel producers (the Fee) and distributing the money equally to all citizens (the Dividend). It is a failure of governments, not scientists, that such measures have yet to be introduced.
There has been plenty of research into solar activity. That has if anything declined over the last fifty years, whilst temperatures have increased: recent global warming has not been caused by increased solar activity. The NASA graphic temperature vs solar activity provides a graph of solar activity and global temperature.
@@Tengooda Thanks for the info. I'll look at both of those things.
Shifting the energy supply to China from Arabic countries means the CCP become the world's leading supplier of energy. At the same time the CCP are the world's leader in carbon based power station construction. It isn't fossil fuel companies, it's China.
You can't tell me they see the world's energy supply and don't think they would like to have all of that?
It has nothing to do with the individual models. Look up "wisdom of the crowd effect". Think about it and how it impacts the outcome/conclusions of the models and helps with cognitive biases for whatever side you are on.
Can you make a video showing the temperature data for Reykjavik and Godthab since 1900? Will they bear out the fact that the Arctic has warmed faster than elsewhere. How much have they warmed since 1900?
They will not.
its warmed fast due to solar effects, its the poles its where all the charge particles come in, also ozone lost as well has increased the temps not co2....
@@bencoad8492 no, that is inaccurate, at beat, and a lie, at worst. The main drivers are the loss of ice works as a feedback loop, because ice reflects quite effectively, while dark ground doesn't, and the melting of permafrost releasing methane (a greenhouse gas much, much more potent than CO² is) into the atmosphere there. The ozone pretty much healed itself once we stopped using CFCs as propellants. In fact, the hole over the north pole has healed better than the one over the south pole, which sorta destroys your hypothesis.
@@thomasstephan7719 citation effing needed.
@@MaryAnnNytowl What is effing?
speaking for myself, my pet peeve when I debate this issue (I have debated plenty of people on both sides) is that I ask for evidence and they give me a theoretical prediction. it's not so much that theoretical predictions are bad, or that they aren't based on evidence, but that they themselves are not evidence. proper debate (something that, unfortunately, doesn't happen much in the real world) is about giving people the evidence to put together their own conclusions, not to simply share your own (or, someone else you trust) and say "accept it".
this problem is material even if you assume that climate change is real for a number of reasons
1) moving further and further away from the hard data leads to a kind of "photo copy effect" where little errors add up each time you have a derivative...of a derivative...of a derivative, so on and so far.
2) people kind of feel like they're not allowed to debate this issue at all, and that makes them distrustful when open debate would better convince them of the intended view (the tone of your video come across fairly friendly, so that helps)
3) it's easy for many people to believe "the phenomenon I'm fighting for is correct, therefore, so is everything I say", that can easily lead to sloppy science, poorly thought out solutions, intellectual dishonesty or unnecessarily draconian measures. for example, in California, there was a bill proposed to link everyone's heating/AC systems to a centralized network where the government could control the temperature inside your own household for the sake of "saving energy". thankfully, it didn't get passed, but frankly, that should sound pretty scary to anyone who isn't a communist.
Can you tell me the name of that bill in #3? Because to be frank something like that I can generally find by looking it up just by concepts like that. However I can't find even the slightest reference to it which makes me question its existence pretty strongly, especially with how much false information is spread about Cali in particular.
Listen to yourself and your point #1. Do this. Get a heat lamp. Get an infrared heat gun that measures temperature. Shoot it at the heat lamp. Then release some CO2 in the air in-between the heat and the gun and watch the temperature reading fall. That is because molecules of CO2 absorb infrared heat. That is it. That is the law of physics that causes global warming. You can't dispute that greenhouse gases absorb heat. And you can't dispute that light from the sun hits the planet and is turned into heat (think hot driveway) and radiates back into space as infrared heat (our satellites measure it). Put these two facts together and changing the atmosphere warms the planet. complaining about some fictitious bill you can't name doesn't change the laws of physics.
@@aperson5062 He disputed none of what you just said. You're arguing against a position that hasn't been taken here.
The red scare is still alive and well, I see.
@@logitech4873 excuse me what?
If they actually do make good predictions then why do we never see the 'good' ones. Why is there no debate? I would welcome debate. It is the alarmists tho that will not debate. They only want to lecture
You should probably actually watch the video. It shows a good prediction.
One point Simon did not really highlight is that models are based on assumptions (or scenarios) for future emissions. If the assumptions are wrong, the forecast will be wrong. There was a study that showed (may have been the one he referenced) about 50% of the studies were very accurate. But, when the models were rerun using actual emissions (to replaced the assumptions used years before) then 80% of the models were very accurate.
That's still 20% error, in other words unusable.
@@philperry6564 Instability would imply the models diverged to an unrealistic answer. I have never seen a single report indicating a legitimate model is unstable. 20% of models that have been used are not fully accurate where as 80% a completely accurate at predicting the future when given the actual emission scenario. If you could predict the stock market with that degree of accuracy you would be well on the way to passing Musk as the world richest person.
@@brandy1262so have they thrown out the models that were wrong or do they continue to use them to promote the theory ?
The "models" are just aids to promote the global warming scare. I think that has become pretty clear now.
There is no data giving "actual emissions" The numbers are based on projections and measurements of CO2 samples. The source of the CO2 being measeured is itself conjectural. We are dealing with assumption heaped on assumption here.
5:48 Yeah, but were the real world CO2 emissions during the period equal to or more than the levels used for model A? Or were they equal to model B or C or less than all?
Everything but Co2 was equal to or barley less than prediction C Co2 was at or above prediction A thus none apply directly but prediction B seems like a reasonable first order approximation unless you want to re run numbers which seems like a reasonable step to me assuming we have access to and can re run the original code.
i thought Hansen said the ice caps would be gone by 2000 and then 2014. he also said manhattan would be underwater although I forget the timescale. basically, it was lucky he got one prediction right
He said it would happen if CO2 emissions somehow grew exponentially. I don't think they did, correct me if I'm wrong (and yourself if you are).
@@btf_flotsam478 - you're wrong, they did grow
He didn't say that. He said that assuming an exponential growth on emmisions.
If you predict it will get colder, warmer or stay the same you will be correct. 🫤
@@onlymyopiniontech That's exactly what Hansen did. His 'predictions' coverred the gamut, making it almost guaranteed that one of them would be - sorta - right.
In the event, one out of three (using excessively wide error bars), was _sorta_ right.
That's not science, that's advocacy.
Hanson made 3 completely different predictions and BAD people use the one he was most wrong about. Us GOOD people do the exact same thing, but we use the one he was most right about. THEY are bad, but WE are good when we do the same thing. Brilliant.
Brings to mind Hansen's so called "prediction" that Manhattan's West Side Highway would be underwater, which was actually a speculation on changes that might happen in NYC in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount.
@@rps1689 CO2 has been rising steadily, but Hansen's predictions are not remotely close to coming true.
@@boogathon Be specific, what predictions?
Hanson made three predictions for three different CO2 emissions scenarios. The scenario that actually happened he correctly predicted the temp rise for. The bad people choose the prediction for emissions that didn't happen but don't explain that, so it looks like Hanson was wrong. That deliberate misrepresentation is what makes them BAD.
Hi, what is the source of the graph at the 01:48 mark? thank you