some of you may have spotted Sabine's latest vid, which responds to criticism of her previous. here's my response to her response to my response! thank you for continuing the conversation, but again you avoided mentioning the actual reason that climate scientists don't trust these models' predictions of future climate change. It's because they're bad at simulating past climate change! i.e. they can't accurately recreate the changes we've observed since the last industrial revolution or the temperature of the last ice age. they weren't rejected because scientists don't like them, or because scientists are protecting some narrative. they were weighted less than other models because they're bad at the job in hand. now maybe you think this isn't a good test of the models, or think we should take every model equally seriously, regardless of how well they can simulate past climate change, but that's a very different conversation.
Does what she say in her video at around 3:35 true at all then? (something like: that the models were good enough to be included in the IPCC, until they noticed to the high sensitivity value) According to this comment of yours the models were in fact either not good enough to ever be included or were removed for the reason of not being good at predicting past climate change. This sounds rather different to what she said obviously. Was there other models that were removed after being previously approved to be put in the IPCC that did not have a high sensitivity value?
Adam given that none of the models successfully account for enough of the actual processes to successfully simulate the changes to glaciers that we know for sure actually have happened you're making a nonsensical argument. If you want people to believe that Climate Science is actual science then you have to stop acting in a way that to a properly educated outside observer looks indistinguishable from favoritism. That's her key point. You are not managing to refute that. None of the climate models successfully model glacial change, period. We know that. We know that none of them successfully model the apparent change in albedo over time. Again, this is uncontroversial. Given that the major difference between the "favored" and "disfavored" models is in large part how they calculate and simulate the effects of albedo on climate (and the granularity, or voxel scale to be technical about it, at which they calculate this) and that albedo appears to be deeply related to the melting of sea ice and glaciers, it stands to reason that saying a model which allows directly tweaking those parameters has incredible value no matter how well it simulates a particular favorite benchmark. In particular it likely allows people to think critically about what else we may be missing in the models we need to successfully defend our posterity from extremely rapid sea level rise. Ignore the fact that it spits up politically inconvenient numbers-until we get a better handle on the actual processes of glacial and albedo change we don't actually have any idea what is a "too bad to be real" CO2 concentration sensitivity result for our current atmosphere with the current solar output.
Sorry, I can´t follow your logic, why is it "a different conversation", and why do you argue with the last ice age, like s.c. "climate change deniers" do? But I appreciate that this answer is factual at least, and not as disrespectful as in your vid, to someone, who doesn´t diserve that.
I watched Sabine's video, and my take away was not the many (mis)interpretations you are trying to warn against or contextualize. What I heard Sabine saying was **not** "the IPCC estimate for climate sensitivity is probably wrong, this scarier number is probably right". I heard her say "the IPCC has been trying to put error bars around the risk of climate change, and we would expect those risk bars to get narrower over time as models get better; but there are reasons to think that there are uncertainties that are systematically causing bias in those risk estimates; instead of the risk bars getting narrower, we might have to consider their getting significantly wider." One reason the "hot models" might produce bad "predictions" (retrodictions?) in simulating the paleoclimate is they don't have trustworthy data to input about clouds. If you put in some numbers it produces outcomes too warm, with other numbers you get outcomes too cold. But if clouds are an important driver of physical change in the past and present, then there is greater uncertainty than previously considered, and the error bars for the future should be drawn wider as we try to take that into account. I didn't pick up on Sabine jumping on a bandwagon with Jim Hansen, I know his recent work has received considerable criticism. What I noticed is that she was responding to an opinion piece by Tim Palmer, who has co-written papers with Sabine on foundational matters in physics, but who also works on climate models. I haven't read Palmer's comments on this issue, but I would be interested in hearing your analysis of it. I agree with most of the points you make, and agree that they are worth making to counter possible misunderstandings of Sabine's video if taken without adequate context. But I think her main message still stands. There are reasons to think that error bars may need to be drawn wider than the IPCC has been presenting.
Its not about how hot its going to get. Its all about the atmosphere and oceans accumulating extra energy (measured as a change in temperature), and how this extra energy will affect weather patterns, ocean currents, and hence our climates. Some places may actually get colder.
@@Kiltoonie Sorry but I think your part of the world will on average get colder, if the predictions are within the ball park. I understand that the climate on much of the west coast of the British Isles is moderated by the warming influence of the Atlantic Ocean currents, which are predicted to be disrupted. I say "on average", because its all about the extremes they talk about. Yeah you might get warmer periods in summer, but these may be outweighed by colder periods in winter. I'm not familiar with farming in Scotland, but I know quite well farms in Ireland experience quite mild conditions entirely due to the influence of the Atlantic Ocean.
@@Kiltoonie To be fair the wet cold you have feels colder than dry cold. We are usually below 0C for almost half the year, and the dry -15C doesn't get through the clothing like 0C does. Scotland is one of the places I'll gotta visit some year, love from Finland!
As a data modeler in health science, I can't express enough my appreciation for this video. If you are not trained in statistics (and even if you might be), statistical assumptions and random error are often ignored even in a professional setting much less on social media about science. Sabine is my favorite you-tuber. She is amazing. But it is essential to get other perspectives to gauge for yourself. Thanks to both Sabine and Adam for their great insights.
It's clear that Sabine shouldn't engage in topics like climate change. She covers other topics well and there's no problem with them, but when it comes to climate, she's... not really objective. It's funny that she titled her video "I wasn't worried about climate change, now I am" when it's specifically her repeating doomsday climate prophecies a year or two ago that made me stop watching her.
@@coonhound_pharoah Quite funny you say that, because about 8 days ago I made a video which starts by putting "anti-vaxxers" and "climate change deniers" in to the same bag as flat-earthers and then call them all brain damaged, because they don't agree with my idols. Oh, wait. That wasn't me, that was Sabine Hossenfelder.
One big point Sabine makes in her video is that any climate models run on the Earth of the past uses today's clouds (because there is no other choice, that's all the satellite data we've got). It is a big assumption to make that the clouds in the dinosaurs sky, when Earth was a tropical world, would have the same reflectivity as today's clouds.. Could you address that point and explain why that's not a concern?
"It is a big assumption to make that the clouds ... would have the same reflectivity as today's clouds" Here's my take on it. I'm not a specialist. Clouds were still a suspension of water droplets and the atmospheric pressure pretty much the same, so the assumption seems correct.
@physnoct The atmospheric pressure, maybe, but not the temperature. The equation that describes the behavior of gases in the Earth's atmosphere depends on both pressure and temperature. Furthermore, the problematic effect cited in Sabine's video was that of the behavior of super-cooled water (water that remains liquid even if it's slightly below freezing). I was hoping to see it addressed in this video, as it is a central point in Sabine's video. Are climatologists worried about that? Why or why not?
@@physnoct yes, but when the entire prediction depends on a strong assumption like this you can not present it as fact until this/all assumptions are proven to a credible extend. And in this case this assumption is not. Which really undermines the argument.
she's not an experimental physicist,.......... those physicists have never taken her very seriously. She has never even produced a single seriously respected paper even on theoretical physics
I think that because she is a physicist, Sabine is particularly struck by the uncertainty about how supercooled water droplets interact with electromagnetic radiation. Her premise may be that a climate model that does a better job with short range forecasting may have a better handle on this question, hence such a model’s climate predictions should be taken seriously.
And what we really need is to know 5, 10 and 20 years from now mostly. If we listen to farmers, it’s already happening. So if a prediction using a climate sensitivity of 5 is more accurate for this range of time, they shouldn’t use 2.5 for short term predictions. Also, without saying it, he seems to let us interpret that averaging the different proposed models will gives a more accurate ECS, which would be a logical mistake.
"Her premise may be that a climate model that does a better job with short range forecasting may have a better handle on this question, hence such a model’s climate predictions should be taken seriously." And every science climatologist that has spoken about this (including here) has stated that is wrong and is not what such models were even built for. They are for long term effects. Not to make short term climate predictions for local areas. Every science expert on this area has already been saying forever that this will impact different areas completely differently, but yes *overall* Earth will see warming beyond what is natural. You can not take a coincidence and say see it matches in this case so it should be used all the time to do such. There are and will continue to be fluctuations in the short term. So how in the world could you surmise that it can predict short term forecasting? That would be like claiming, oh my area in 2022 had the highest summer on record for over 100 years, so see this is all true. That would be a bogus statement, as this year so far it is rather mild summer. It is NOT a certain local area or short term instance, but an overall mean around the entire Earth.
@@Campanola "If we listen to farmers, it’s already happening." Farmers where? You realize this varies depending upon where you are at right? Some areas have been seeing more wet weather vs others more drought, and some are warmer vs others are colder. And NO you should not be using 5, 2.5, 3.1 or any other for short term predictions. Did you not listen to this video where he tells you that is not how it should be used for? And he did not say averaging different models will give a more accurate ECS, because that is NOT what they are doing. ALL the models they are taking with a grain of salt is what he said. It is only one tool that is used and is not even the main tool is what he said. You mis-interpreted what he said and are trying to apply to the models. Which is not the case. He said what the IPCC is doing is combining all the research papers and trying to come to some middle ground or averaging those ... not the models. And FYI, currently 3.1 is the one that currently appears to be most accurate, but that can change in a short period. Because it will continue to change with the more current 'today' data that is input over time and because Earth's weather patterns are constantly fluctuating and will continue to do so.
@@kevinfisher1345 farmers where? Everywhere. The effect of global warming is changing the climate. It’s also the rate at which it’s changing. It’s changing faster than the capacity to adapt to it. It’s not about warming, it’s about disturbances at a fast rate. Agriculture needs some climate stability. So the speed of change is very important. A high sensitivity to CO2 meens a stronger force to destabilize. By the way, you can’t say « that’s not what he said » when I say myself « without saying it ». You can’t say did you watch the video like it was the truth when my point is I disagree with it. But anyway, the fact is they pretend that they have a big process to integrate all of the models, but coincidentally they come with a result that it’s the average. So if it’s not working, it’s not working so something is wrong and something have to be reevaluated. That’s the whole point of Sabine’s video. By the way, I’m sure they know what coincidence is. If they say it’s predicating better short term, that’s because they have excluded coincidences already.
@@Campanola "Everywhere." WRONG!!! Reason to follow... "The effect of global warming is changing the climate." Correct!!! However, in this context it is greatly misleading. It is impacting the climate of Earth overall yes. But some areas it is not seeing a rise in temp overall or none at all. Climatologists has said from the very beginning, that this will be the case. And so far that has been shown to be true. For instance some areas has seen a series of La Niña events. So guess those are not a part of your everywhere? Some places will get hotter, some colder. Some will be more arid vs others more wet. In those areas that are more wet they are NOT seeing this at all. So your everywhere is wrong. Yes overall and most areas will be, just not everywhere. What follows I have no problems with (with one minor exception see below) ... until your failed attempt to explain away what he said vs what you appear to think he implied without actually saying it. The fact is these are just simulation models, and they knew and still know they are not accurate. It is as explained in the video just one tool and not the main tool used. I am no expert but I doubt the models can be fixed. We do not know everything, we know a ton, but not everything. Without knowing everything they can not be fixed. And if that was Sabine main point, then shame on her because she should know better being a physicist and knowing we do not know it all. There are many things with our atmosphere that we still do not know about, just as we dont for all of physics either. You think Sabine might now, but she was wrong with so many things here, I am not so sure she knows. What you left out is this is the *long term trend* and change over the course of a century or more which is what defines “global warming,” not the change from year to year or even decade to decade. For example 1998-2012 did not see as much a change. And yet you keep trying to insist that we can apply such climate change models to a short period forecast. Smh! It does not even make common sense. Did Sabine even bother to look at what that hot model did for forecasting during that decade? I bet not because it would have been wrong ... but oh just because currently it seems to be ok coincidentally we should be applying it all the time. *sighs*
Okay so you mention the three ways to derive Climate Sensitivity, using Paleoclimate Data, Historical Data, and physical Measurements, and how the hot models give poor results about previous Ice age. You also mention that it is more or less accurate to say the difference between hot models and the rest are the cloud physics. If this is the main difference, it makes sense to me, to measure the accuracy of the new model's cloud physics in a way we have empirical evidence about clouds, a weather model. In the paper discussing the weather model they state that the previous version of the climate model made a baseline weather prediction, and the new "hot model" was used, the hot model gave the better weather forecast. This to me looks like excellent science, isolating a variable, testing it against a control (the previous model) and observing an improved result. I wish this would have been discussed more in your video. I also want to point out something you said years ago in your first video about climate sensitivity, scientists have been working on this issue for a long time, hundreds of papers published and they "often disagree" with each other. They have been working to narrow the range, and it hasn't worked. So I have a big question that I haven't seen discussed and I've been looking all week since Sabine's video was published, What is the possibility (or range) that the climate sensitivity changes with time? Perhaps the hot models do not agree with paleo climate data, but the earth looked VERY different in the Cambrian than it does today. It also makes anecdotal sense to me that the earth is more sensitive to shocks today due to human destruction of natural ecosystems. Fisheries around the globe are on the brink of collapse, what role to they play in stabilizing the climate? How about rainforests, like the Boreal rainforests of Canada that had unprecedented conflagration last year, or the Amazon rainforests under near constant attack for decades. Either way, I think this video was well done, but precisely the problem Dr. Hossenfelder was trying to raise, as new information is published, if it challenges the status quo, we as humans will try to discount and under-weigh it. As described by Malcom Gladwell, it takes "overwhelming evidence to the contrary" to really change a person's opinion, and climate scientists are wonderfully human. Another response to this video, from Climate Brink put it like this: the discussion of Climate Sensitivity is like whether there are 6 or 10 rifles in the firing squad, either way it's bad. I think this is a valubale point to make, the situaiton is dire either way, and we are not doing enough to stop it. That's the throughline of all climate science, and everyone agrees on that point.
The destruction of the physical environment around us by countries that don’t follow international regulations is a far greater threat to life on earth than temperatures warming by 0.1 C in 50 years. I wish people could see through this distraction. Immediate and irreversible damage to the environment is way more important than what today’s models project for temperatures in 50 years.
Historical data and physical measurements would be the same thing since we are in the realm of panel data. I know about 1 model and this 1 model is not on your list. I don't know the others. I know about the energy balance model. That energy/heat is simultaneously absorbed and released by the atmosphere. At some point there is an equilibrium temperature. While the temperature moves towards the new equilibrium we experience global warming. I know this model because I know some economists who have looked at this particular one.
I think the question is not whether "we should trust" a particular kind or class of model, the question is if we can safely dismiss the results of these models. To my knowledge, we cannot predict the consequences of climate change, we can only estimate the possible magnitude of consequences and maybe assign a likelihood to the scales. We are doing risk management here. It's a bad idea to restrict such management to the most likely outcome, because then you only have answers for that particular case. If I understand Sabine's video right, the predictions of hot models have previously been dismissed, because they have been considered weak (not matching historic data). That apparently changed. So until now, we trusted that hot models are inaccurate. We now don't need to trust that they are accurate, we need to consider the possibility and then likelihood that they might be. But since we are not actually doing risk management in regard to climate change but rather optimize short term benefits in various scopes, that should actually not change anything, unless the predictions of hot models realize themselves. And once that happens, we can just smile and switch from optimizations to the blame game and ask scientists how they could ignore the only models that actually worked. That's because business operates with the benefit of hindsight, something that constructive science cannot.
James Hansen & Co are asking us to consider clouds. Now. After 2023 broke all 'ranges' Hansen expects a response like "yes, let's track, analyse and consider it". But what they get is "the models are bad enough as they are". This makes me nervous.
James Hansen is a fraud. This is known since the 80s. Now he is active for the nuclear lobby with the Greta-Movement. Btw. Did you know the 2°-Goal originates from the nuclear lobby as well? THIS should make you "nervous".
The climate models are according to J. Clauser (Physics nobel price 2022) not bad but pseudoscientific nonsense. The climate is much too complex for a serious modelling.... - The clouds have a major impact but are understood in the best case qualitative not at all quantitative. - The water evaporation is not understood at all..There is no linear correlation with temperatures...On the other hand about 1/2 of the heat transfer from earth surface to the higher atmosphere takes place by water evaporation. - The albedo is a guess only. The albedo varies due to the weather, daytime and season. It would be very challenging to model it. All in all models that does not reflect the complexity of our planet earth provide random results or perhaps the results expected by the green NGO behind the IPCC.
Furthermore, the IPCC wants us to still consider seriously that the 1.5 C target for temperature rise is still achievable. They already lost credibility in my eyes for that. I think the consensus now is that we are already past 1.5 C and heading to 2 C. So if the IPCC is wrong on that due to political influence, it is likely also wrong on climate sensitivity. mention of the IPCC does not reassure me at all.
@russmarkham2197 it seems to me that the ipcc as well as most governments are just waiting because they expect a technological breakthrough of giant solar floating vacuum cleaners sucking ghgs out of our atmosphere, or some such Hollywood "save the day just in time" solution.
I was at an astronomy conference probably 15 years ago and we had a session with a panel of climate scientists. Astronomers worry about clear skies and that ties to climate and mitigation measures. Plus, we're scientists and we like to talk. The majority of the climate scientists on the panel were of the opinion that we were past the "zero emission will fix things" phase and said that we had to start using carbon removal and aerosols (more dangerous - and not cool with astronomers) as mitigation measures. If we did not do that, we would blow past the 1.5 C target. We did not work on those mitigation measures and so here we are. And we continue to argue about whether we should call the firefighters while the kitchen stove is quietly consuming itself.
@@Off_the_clock_astrophysicist Fully agree with you. From what I read, we have already blown past the 1.5 C target and will get to 2 C in about 5 years or so. I think we need to research climate repair options. One method might be to seed the oceans to encourage phytoplankton growth. There seems to be some debate on whether aerosols are effective in the long run. Might be dangerous also.
You're misunderstanding the role and limitations of the IPCC. They are not a political body and only give scenarios which may result from certain policy settings.
@@carlbennett2417 I think you greatly underestimate the political pressure that can be put on any scientific body, however well they try to stick to an unbiased position. Why does the IPCC stick to the fiction that 1.5 C is still attainable?? That alone shows that they are in fantasy land. Still, at least the IPCC are correctly warning the world that climate change is real and poses great risks to the world economy. I guess we can be thankful for that.
I watched your video right after Sabine's and I thank you for posting a climate scientist's point of view. I think that Sabine actually did a good job of pointing out that the hot models were still outlier models, and she explicitly stated that she didn't know "who was right." I think that her main point was practical, as in "wake up, people!" If there's any feasible chance, even something on the order of 1 in 1000 perhaps, that the current ECS consensus is a little low, our timeline to get serious about the problem could shift a lot. Climate science has to figure out what's most likely, but policy needs to react to what's possible, at least for something that has such potentially devastating possibilities. Imagine if the NEO projects said that there was a 1 in 1000 chance that a Manhattan-sized asteroid would slam into search in twenty years. Those are slim odds, and depending on the orbit with respect to the earth and sun, we might not be able to improve our estimate until it was too late. We'd have to choose to build policy around one of two ideas. Either "yes, it's possible, but the science says it's very unlikely" or "the science says it's unlikely, but the risk is too high." I think we'd try to figure out how to launch a rocket that could give it a push, don't you? My sense after watching Sabine's video was that she was communicating a) what if this goes bad sooner that we think? b) we can't really know that won't happen, even though climate science says that's very unlikely, and c) what's at stake is something most people haven't thought through very well - let me paint a picture for you. Of course, she has a way with words, and with her standing in physics, I'm not saying she was trying to mislead people. I'm just saying that I never heard her say the hot models were correct. I heard her ask people to consider what would happen if they were. By the way, kudos for pointing out that weather patterns are not climate patterns. This needs to be written across the sky (which could reflect some heat back into space). I get so tired of hearing, "oh man, it's ten below zero - where's global warming now?" /eyeroll
Wow, you're an optimist. Just had a 1 in 1000-year (probably much more likely) flood in Montana that took out a bridge. They built the new bridge lower.
It's a misrepresentation to say that the climate models "simulate the laws of physics" (3:42). A significant portion of these models aren't simulations, but rather parameterizations. A parameterization is not a direct simulation of physical laws, but rather heuristic formulas designed to estimate the effect of some natural phenomenon that is numerically impossible to simulate. The numbers in the heuristic formulas are adjusted to get models to match reality, but this adjustment is somewhat arbitrary. A wide range of choices of numbers can produce the same "answer". The best example of this is cloud feedback. There's no way to simulate clouds in these models, their resolution and computational capability is woefully inadequate. So instead they parameterize the clouds. CMIP6 models have a range of roughly -0.2 to 1.1 W/m in cloud feedback. The models that predict low cloud feedback also predict lower Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), while those with high cloud feedback predict higher ECS. A recent paper showed that both types of models produce similar global historical results, but the lower ECS models better simulate hemispheric variation in the climate than high ECS, and perhaps the higher models should not be trusted, and Sabine was wrong to panic (or at least to panic "more" based on that one detail).
The fact is that even models using a very simple relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures from the 1960s and 1970s have been pretty much spot on. More CO2 equals more warming. Skeptics used to argue that there wouldn't be warming not they argue that the observed warming isn't exactly the exact 0.001th of degree that the models said it would be. The goal posts shift and narrow to inhibit action and keep those oil dollars rolling in.
Models need to be based on physics and not statistical curve fits of probabilistic outcomes based on prior perceived independent variables. It is all heat transfer, fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, etc…. Boundary conditions are the problem.
@@CraigLedgerwood-o3k LOL, those simple, elegant, and accurate projections *were* based on physics (the relationship between Co2 and global temperatures) as well as the knowledge that atmospheric CO2 was likely to increase at the same rate. Skeptics said it wouldn't warm, that warming had stopped etc. The skeptics were wrong, the scientific projections were correct. The newer models are even better.
@@CraigLedgerwood-o3k To predict when and how a pot of water boils your calculation doesn't need to involve fluid dynamics of every bubble. The general relationship is enough.
I watched Sabina's video when it came out, I was concerned and intended to go and watch it again as I didn't understand all of it. I also subscribe to your channel so was very pleased when you responded. I thought your response was measured, respectful and very informative. Thanks for your video, I can't say I'll sleep better but I am at least better informed 🙂
A theroretical scientist is fine, but I prefer common sense. And that quality is getting extemely scarce these days. THere is ahrdly any CO2 in air and that is because plants immediately absorb the CO2 and break it down to C and O2. When we burn more fuel there will be more CO2 and hence there will be increase plant growth. Nothing to worry. There is no climate problem. There is a problem with a sick elite who want to build a world government and they try to scare people.
I think you should treat those numbers seriously. It's logical to error on the side of caution. There is also many other factors in this equations that your models probably do not consider, and one is 70 percent of the quantity of animals on this planet are gone in the last 50 years. What happens when they are mostly gone. We are already decades over do, and error on side of caution is too late. Act now or never. But basically what I see from the numbers and simple logic. There is nothing nobody can do. Humans are set in their ways and nothing is going to change that until mother nature does it for us. We are over populated, over consuming. and even if there is no climate change, there will be no natural resources left.
What was this? You stop the video to make it look like Sabine didn't explain ECS and you explain ECS to make you look good and her look bad, when 5 sec after you stopped the video Sabine explains ECS. You make climate scientists and scientists in generall really look bad, because it seems you doctor with the data (== the video) to make your point work.
@@genreynolds6685 It's true. When I was young back in the 1950s and '60s we used to go ice skating on a man-made lake on the top of a small Mountain where I live. Those days are gone forever. The lake no longer freezes over enough for the machine to go over it to clear off the snow Etc. This proves global warming beyond the shadow of any any doubt. However it does not prove that human consumption of fossil fuel is the reason for it.
What stuns me (as it should your other viewers here!) is that you spend this video ~going against?~ Sabine, while IGNORING the science in the paper she’s concerned about. I’d say that’s a rather telling oversight Adam
@@orionbetelgeuse1937 That doesn't make sense considering that the criticism he responded to is that the climate sensitivity may be *higher* than we think. If anything, that would make her more alarmist than him.
I am an old man, and not able to evaluate science as complicated as climate models,with all the variations in ocean currents, cloud cover, heating releasing more water vapor and methane in the atmosphere and so on. But what I can see, is that the general development seems to follow worst-case scenarios of the past. I am aware of not confusing the day to day weather with the long term climate changes, but I still cannot help worrying about all the heat records we have experienced lately. It is like every month sets a new never-seen temperature record.
Well, old man. You have, because of yr age nothing to worry about. And the alarmists are not a little wrong, especially about Co2, but grossly wrong. If you dig a little deeper into the actual science you will find out that most physics scientist think the climate sensitivity/temperature is between 0.2 and 0.5 for a doubling of Co2. And climate can only be assessed after roughly 60 years. In 10 years time the alarmists will have a hard time looking back at their position. And remember, the end of the world is always 5 years from now! Just watch 70 years of wrong predictions and then add some. So, rest assured. Dont fall into the panic trap. The uncertainties about the climate have wide error bars. You cannot properly equate an interactive, dynamic, largely chaotic system w no zero point or steady state..
Yes, people are notorious for saying "it's just the wind" when you can tell it's something much more dangerous. People are wired to deny long term trends.
i think that the two previous responders should stick to the issue and not dive into the cesspool of pejorative rhetoric. In response to the point "every month sets a new never-seen temperature record" is that the mass media does not understand the difference between weather and climate. Just because the temperature in one area is high does not mean that the global temperature is higher.
I think, in response to her emphasis on Nuclear, its worth remembering that she's German. Germany, until recently had a sizeable Nuclear Power Generation Capacity until they decided to shut down all the reactors out of fear in response to Fukushima. Made worse by then turning back to Natural Gas and Coal. So something of a step backwards on the German path to Net Zero.
Sabine's video just sheds light on a small part of a bigger issue. If I'm not mistaken climate scientists have spoken out before about how conservative the IPCC's climate predictions are and why it is problematic to base policy on these predictions. I don't believe the hot models are getting ignored by the climate scientists. However, they are being ignored by the politicians making policy based on IPCC predictions, because those models have been excluded from the results. And I have to say I agree with Sabine when she says that models based on a higher climate sensitivity shouldn't be so easily dismissed. Sure, they don't match with paleoclimate data, but we really don't know if the climate that long ago was anything like the climate today. It seems that some of the hot models more accurately describe the current climate in the short term in some scenarios and that shows they are still relevant.
Regardless of the model you choose to trust do you really want to play with Pascal's wager. If the hot model is wrong and we still act as if it's right the outcome is still better than the other way around.
You act as if there were no costs to overreacting to climate change. Don't forget that the harder you hit people in the wallet the more likely they are to oppose ALL green initiatives. Plus, a decrease in economic output also causes more deaths.
Bollocks. Pascal's wager at least had the merit of not affecting anyone besides himself. But forcing poor countries to forgo inexpensive coal and natural gas as energy sources (by not funding them through foreign aid) makes them suffer, and suffer unneedlessly if the wager of rich countries is wrong.
@@jelink22 I appreciate your talk for the interests of the poor countries. But again, it's the people in the rich countries that don't pay fair prices for the goods, they get from there. Countries like India produce the most, that's consumed in the west, so it's our behavior that forces them to use coal and other ff.
16:43 I think Sabine has a German view on that. Germany completely got out of Nuclear and the people that glue them self's to the streets are destroying the discussion about climate change. Yes they got a lot of attention but at the same time the shifted the discourse from "what to do against climate change" to "Why the f. are people gluing them self on the street ?".
Congratulations! ALL the people you asked about this question agree on the premise. Why didn't you ask somebody like William Happer? Oh, because he doesn't agree at all with the premise. If the premise is wrong, all subsequent arguing is just silly - they'll all be wrong. Unlike broken clocks, they won't even be right accidentally.
Presumably you mention William Happer because he denies climate change is anthropogenic . You might want to watch Sabine's video on why climate scientists think it is.
Very surprized somebody mentions Happer in this kind of video, you are totaly right, we have long left the realm of science to venture into the realm of belief, which is incredibly dangerous.
Sabine clearly started that the 'hot models' are lower weighted because comparisons between earth epochs with strong climate change wouldn't give reasons for such high climate sensitivity.
Re: carbon removal, my response to rosy technofuturists is frequently: Would you prefer to let your kids and pets track a year's worth of mud onto your carpets and furniture, and THEN set about steam cleaning everything? Or would you prefer to train them to be clean in the first place? Carbon removal also reminds me of the Fifth Element scene where Gary Oldman effusively praises the value of destruction leading to reconstruction. It's capitalist/bureaucratic sophistry, creating a problem in order to justify selling people the solution (or your own continued existence and relevance). I think people can't relate to atmospheric CO2, so they give up trying to understand it or its solutions. Also, there's also nigh universal cognitive dissonance among developed country audiences, because one of the simplest preventative solutions is also the least desirable -- cutting back 30%+ of our own regular everyday consumption. Everything we purchase, from fast fashion to electronic devices and batteries. All of these consume energy to produce, which generates CO2 among other waste products. The process of creating or extracting the raw material inputs also requires energy and can have far more harmful waste products than CO2. The entire process of trying to replace our current energy consumption with renewables is driving a new era of strategic resource competition and conflict that can potentially affect the geopolitical landscape for the next hundred years.
The system has an immense number of variables, so variation in one, is far from simply linear. Similarly, the feedback mechanisms from a given level of warming, are difficult to simulate , because we don't easily model " bound methane " release from permafrost releases, for example.
pretty sure the models and dependencies are frequently improved. The fastest supercomputers there are are running this. And new experiments sharpen the parameters continuosly. In the end the might just be some surprises to ease the effort of countermeasures a little. Nevertheless, governments should not rely on the numbers until ist is safe that we have gotten the curve.
I remember seeing a program on how the warming ocean current, at several metres depth, compared to surface, is underbiting the floating shoreline ice that ultimately anchors glacier ice upslope. That causes fracture and berging off, in a much different way to front edge melting with a uniform sea temperature, even if that's modelled right for mean warming. That's the kind of model detail for rate of albedo change that we can't hope to anticipate, and there will be others of that kind. It isn't so much lack of computing power, we have what we need in that. It's a lack of familiarity with the actual mechanisms that will unfold, are unfolding.
I think there's missing context/an assumption inherent in discussing equilibrium climate sensitivity in this way. How do we know that climate equilibrium has a linear relationship with the square root of CO2 concentration? Or putting it the other way and concretely: why do we think going from 200ppm to 400ppm CO2 will have the same effect on climate equilibrium as going from 400ppm to 800ppm?
When you skip right over the carbon tax on her list it makes me ask the question how much of your work is funded by the fossil fuels industry maybe the answer is none, but still i would have to ask.
Thanks for explaining the complexity of Climate modelling, as a Climate researcher. Sabine, a theoretical physicist, turned science communicator, does often present issues appealing to the broader public without being personally grounded in the topic at hand. Nonetheless, the ongoing & repeated flooding of Eastern Australia this summer wasn't taken up by climate models forecasting fierce El Nino bushfires. The effects of the 2022 Hunga Tonga underwater volcano injecting 146 Mio tons of water vapour 82 kms into the stratosphere, that's 10% more than normal, were disregarded by models. The latter forecasted a slight cooling due to increased volcanic aerosol particles in the Southern Hemisphere. Well, 'water droplets', eg Climate sensitivity was not factored in & it's been flooding instead of burning!
You got the point. in order for a model to produce reliable info, it would take entering all major effects into it. Like for instance, the present volcano erruptions in Iceland, even though not so relevant on a global scale, still DO matter for a model to be asccurate and reliable. All this reminded me of the film Sully, where after the REAL LIFE situation where the pilot had just seconds to decide where to land, the simulations later done showed that he could have made it to an airport instead of Hudson river, and funniest of all, they were ran countless times, while he had just one shot.
Not bad! However, I saw nothing about what is really being discussed is the water vapor feedback where water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. Sabine's comment about supercooled water vapor got partially at this point. Water as a greenhouse gas can exist both as a vapor where it behaves as a greenhouse gas or as a liquid or solid in a cloud where it changes the albedo of the planet (reflectivity in the optical frequency). A tiny change in cloud cover greatly impacts the heat input to the planet. Just a 1 % change will create roughly 2 W/M2 change in the amount of heat the earth needs to dump and we are looking at CO2 in the same energy range. To add more complexity to go from water vapor to clouds the vapor has to become supercooled and then nucleation on a microscopic nucleus is required. Having worked with supersaturation issues in liquids and oceans, and knowing that cloud formation is often aided by air pollution (source of nuclei) we are eliminating in my lifetime (the acid rain issue has disappeared as people like me solved the problem) our measured short time data may be very misleading. Lots of moving parts including massive evaporation of water by agriculture. I agree on a carbon tax as this problem is too complex for the bureaucracy to handle.
Carbon dioxide removal is so weird to me. Here in Canada we have people against the carbon tax while being pro-carbon capture. Even though the pass through cost of carbon capture is ~70$/t which is more than industry is currently taxed.
I also would not mind of every emitted ton of CO₂ would have to be captured somewhere else. In that unrealistic scenario a carbon tax would be not warranted.
Are you being intentionally obtuse? A carbon tax doesn't translate into any action. Tax credits get passed around and deferred etc, and tax revenue has administration overhead and zero transparency. And then there is government spending. No accountability and miles removed from the dollars collected and mangled by bills and other political footballs. Paying for something that actually does something is worth something. Trying to use taxes as incentives is a ruling class shell game.
The horrible reality is that the CO2 levels are actually approaching levels too low for plant life to survive. Reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 64% will kill the planet, not save it. When the amount of CO2 triples plants will grow at their optimum level. If we do nothing CO2 levels will triple in over 1,000 years. Currently the Earth's CO2 atmospheric concentration is 0.04%. Carbon dioxide removal is a scam. Check my facts!
In your video, your message might come across as minimizing the concerns of viewers who are worried about climate change. While highlighting a positive outlook can be valuable, focusing primarily on 90% of the video reassuring people against overreacting could unintentionally downplay the urgency of the situation. Given the significant challenges we face, like the lack of strong action at COP28, it's important to strike a balance between optimism and the reality of the situation. Perhaps considering more nuanced communication that acknowledges concern while still offering solutions and hope could be more effective in motivating viewers to take action.
The weather predictions can't are not right for a month in advance. This happened in Australia this summer when predicted a hotter drier summer and farmers reacted by selling their stock (sheep) Well the actual weather has been cooler and we have a couple periods where we had rain 60ml and one day over 40. Poor farmers lost out. Sabine is usually is really good, but over reacted on a report by Jim Hansen. Why don't IPPC put their data up for scrutiny. Sabine has over reacted because the models are flawed. Other climate scientists have disputed his prediction. They say like you said the gradient of the increase in temperate is too steep. Dr John Christy who has been looking at Jim's model and his model and really disputes the claim that we heading for disaster. The NASA scientists that been studying this even said straight up that a parameter in their model was over exaggerating their result. They were honest. Modelling is good, but it's a guide only not the end game. Real observations like John's show the way and in time the putting in enough real observations into training models and rerunning will probably get better in time. This going to be in the next hundred years. It's only been from 1980's onwards that satellite data has been used captured and get real estimation of the atmosphere in terms of things like radiance, Co2, particulates, pollutants etc have entered into model. Influence of a parameter on the outcomes, or one parameter having an effect on another parameters, and there are so many variables. Another important thing to ask, has man influenced the climate yes or no? I haven't seen anything that answers this null hypothesis. It's a simple question that a model has not convinced me of. Not one climate change person really gives any methodology into their models. Break it down so that The Model is understood by the mass of people. Gone are days of snake oil salesman we want to know and have a simple breakdown so the lay person can understand. The more people that are exposed the more likely for my hypothesis will be solved and truth will be revealed.
My take away from Sabines video was that, while unlikely, the possibility of a climate sensitivity of 5c is high enough above zero that we can't afford NOT to take action. If you had a 5% chance of dying crossing the street without looking both ways, would you cross it with your eyes shut?
It is easy to remember to look both ways when you cross the street. Will be much more difficult, and will cause a lot of deaths, particularly in third world countries, if we actually reach Net Zero and eliminate synthetic fertilizer. Your analogy is silly.
I actually agree that nuclear should be the main point to stop climate change and not the renewables. For starters, for any mid-lattiude countries, you need approx. 6x the installed power of renewables to get the same capacity factor as for nuclear (1 GW of nuclear = 6 GW of solar in Slovenia for example). The biggest argument for nuclear is that france, which is predominantly Nuclear, has 8x lower emissions than Germany which relies heavily on Wind and Solar. Hydro doesn't count because most countries do not have vast hydropotential availible. So yes - we should focus on nuclear and stop toying around with renewables!
Hello Adam, You say that despite scorching temperatures in 2023, it was still within the expected range. Correct me if I am wrong, but when it comes to ocean temperatures, it was really off the charts, and given that the ocean absorbs over 90% of the heat... What is your take on that? Many thanks :-)
You bring up a good point, and here is a good solution. Everyone is looking at "surface temperature anomalies". Real climate scientists look at the integrated "temperature" of the ocean across 0-600 meters depth or 0-2000 meters. El Nino and La Nina were, after all, defined as surface anomaly patterns almost a century ago. The entire planet (even the ocean) is convective which brings up "semi-stable" patterns because..... The ENSO, NAO, etc., bring up these "oscillating" (the O part in the abbreviations) systems that happily cause anomalies. 90+ per cent of the global energy imbalance is soaked up by water. The mean depth of the ocean is 3.5 km (or 12000 ft). We can not deduct the global energy balance by measuring the ocean-atmosphere boundary layer temperature alone - but they sure are linked. If you want to want to check it out for yourself - find a graph showing the trend of "cold La Nina years" in the Pacific Ocean. Cold La Nina years are now hotter than "extreme" hot El Nino years just 30 years ago.
@10mey The video is basically about how accurate the models are. If the models predict that the temperature will be a historic high, and that ends up happening, then that is not necessarily a flaw. Just because the temperature was off the charts compared to previous years, does not mean that the temperature is out of the "expected range". It just means that the models had a reasonably accurate prediction for how screwed we all are :)
I sub to Sabine too, and my favorite thing about this video is my reaction to when she mentioned carbon removal was "I wonder what Adam would say about that" and my wish was granted 😂
It’s rare to see the level of… idiosyncrasies that one can witness in an academic seminar, but this is close. True love, unrelenting arguments, and the ever-present feeling that people are perfectly capable of using words are violent weapons, but it’s unclear if they did. It's the best.
I would sub to her but when she has got things wrong in the past she has often ignored critiques from experts and even seems to delete comments about them. Another Huberman?
I agree that we need to start working on carbon removal. That does not mean removal of some of the CO2 being created in fossil fuels burning (à la smokestack scrubbers). That isn't removing CO2, just reducing the amount being added. Even if we stopped emitting all CO2 today, the extreme weather we are experiencing will continue. We need to be faster about getting to net-zero, but we need to start developing removal technologies that are many orders of magnitude cheaper and more efficient than anything we've come up with so far. This may take decades. I agree that this will give an excuse for some to say that it gives us more time, so we can take longer to get to net-zero. Well, then respond to those arguments rather than saying it is fine to delay the development needed to undo the already-high levels we already have.
Thanks for the clarification. It seems to me the critical question is "What effects can we see from anticipated climate change?" This is not strictly in the scope of climate models, but it's the only thing that will really matter to the future of humanity. Sabine's answer is: complete destruction of our economy, widespread famine, and social collapse. I'm not aware of any scientific basis for these claims. Your answer is: we're already facing severe consequences. Again, I'm not aware of any scientific basis for this claim - what exactly are the consequences, and how are they "severe"? The predictions of consequences reflected in the IPCC reports seem rather mild to me: possibly more severe weather incidents, some sea level rise, some risk to vulnerable ecosystems. These questions are certainly interesting to scientists, and would fuel a generation or two's worth of debate. The debate wouldn't have much salience if it weren't tied to political movements that demand fundamental restructuring of all nations' economies. It would be nice if science communicators were focused more on what is known, what is generally forecast, and how big the uncertainties are.
not gonna lie, your description of the video felt very disingenuous, you basically glossed over her point, the reliability of any model considering the lack of data to actually create the model in the first place, yes we use all the data that we can get, but that data may not be enough to say that a certain model is or isn't accurate, all models are some bias in them, you disregarding some is like disregarding general relativity because we empirically know that quantum mechanics better describes how particles work, they are still both useful, and you should use both to some degree, likewise, even if these hot models seem to work better with small timeframes it means the other models are missing something
Given the long term behavior observed along millions of years, it's probably fair to say that we are in a cycle which point to heating (instead of cooling), basically meaning that the climate is going to heat anyway, regardless our vain efforts trying to reduce emissions or even intending to capture CO2. So, my question is: Shouldn't we spend money planning and building infrastructure adapted to warmer temperatures instead of spending money into actions which are doomed to be completely ineffective both on short run and long run?
The points isn't just that it's gonna get a few degrees warmer, the point is that it's gonna happen in your lifetime as opposed to 1000+ years and there are people alive today for which a 2 degrees difference where they live might be a difference between barely getting by and total crop failure.
You don't explain why Sabines argument that the better weather forecast of the "hot model" indicates that its cloud modelling is more accurate is not valid. Why and how can it be better in weather forecast than in climate forecast? You just said "that climate and weather forecasts are different. Well ... yes. But that is not enough to debunk the power of her argument. In absence of an argument, I would find it possible that there is a unknown aspect that lets the "better cloud model" fail for historical data. So it would be nice to find out what that aspect is. In summary, I need a better logical discussion of Sabines argument.
I read Dr. James Hansen’s paper. I watched a video with Leon Simons (Hansen co-author) on Nate Hagens TH-cam channel. I tend to believe Hansen at this point as we should be conservative in our approach to the planet and everything makes sense in Hansen’s paper thus far. I take issue with the title of the video that Dr. Sabine made as she in the past has put out Climate Change videos and sounded concerned/worried. I heard Dr. Simon Clark on his 2023 recap video flippantly blow off James Hansen’s paper which isn’t cool nor respectful. I don’t think our climate models got aerosol cooling of sulfur shipping emissions correct. Thanks for weighing in on this in a more balanced way Dr. Adam Levy.
I think the science is still unsettled, and I don’t think Adam was saying much more than that. No climate scientist could lack respect for Hansen; they have hundreds of papers to consider, and those aren't leading to a neat conclusion. I strongly agree with you that if the risk is “hundreds of millions of people dead,” we want to be *incredibly* conservative, and I was surprised neither Sabine nor Adam insisted on that more-no one, at least no one rational, plays Russian roulette dismissing it as “it’s just 16%…”. But it’s hard to make that point without numbers like “10% likely” or "20% likely," and we can’t really have a reliable estimate for how plausible that model is either, at least not at the moment.
@@bertilhatt The basic science has been "settled" for many decades*. In fact, the basics have been settled since before I was born (and I'm retired). *) Depending on what particular development you want to use as a landmark, since the late 1800s, or the 1930s, or the 1950s -- but each "landmark" development was essentially an elaboration or refinement of the previous understanding, as our modeling became more sophisticated.
Hansen is the same charlatan that got a congressional aide to turn off the A/C in the congressional committee room on a hot Washington day when he gave his original pitch on climate change.
Adam please please please do some research on nuclear waste repurposing into further energy generation. And i wish you would also do some more of your own research instead of following what you hear others say especially when the others you are listening to are funded by certain groups with agendas in renewables. Renewables are terrible for the environment and should be stopped now until better technology is available. The carbon footprint of renewables solar wind and batteries are substantially worse than nuclear and the latest nuclear technology is available but for some reason it is being silenced. Climate change has been happening since the beginning of time. There is no catastrophic emergency in the near future but we can clean our air... using nuclear and hydro. Please do a video on nuclear waste repurposing.
I have a query regarding ocean salinity (not related to the vid but I was just curious). It's commonly said that global warming will lead to an increase in ocean salinity. But if pure water is melting from ice, shouldn't the ocean's salinity be deacreasing?
That's balanced out by evaporation-in general, not in that specific instance. I can’t imagine that there’s an intuitive way to decide if it will get more or less salty.
@@bertilhatt I don't see evaporation consuming all of Hansen's projected several meters of sea level rise from melting ice caps and glaciers. Salinity will likely be reduced. Increased storm water runoff might bring more salts to the ocean, but my guess is not enough to compensate. I'm not sure how salts in that scenario would behave in vertical water columns and with dramatically altered ocean currents. All of this begs the interesting question, can we look at the fossil record, deep sea bed cores, etc, to find out what happened to ocean salinity the last time we had a melting like the one we may be headed toward?
@@bertilhatt Intuitively, I thought that an increase in sea level would just dilute the ocean and salinity would decrease. I don't understand how evaporation would balance it as most of the water would just end up back in the ocean.
@@32brooksemy fav conversation…. what are you doing. We were irresponsible and left the coolers in the car and the ice was melting and getting the seats wet. So my wife was driving around with the ac on high trying to make car cool enough to stop the melting. 🤭😂😂 Yes She was mad I didn’t want to go along but I I thought it had to be a joke… she ran out of gas I had to go get her and tow car . It was very expensive .. anyway I’m closing the plugs and I’m gonna put the water on a dry spot on the lawn where we need it.
I like Sabina...she, unlike many people, is capable of changing her mind. Way to many live by the axiom, "Don't cofuse me with facts...I've already made up my mind". A few more summers getting warmer by tenths of a degree will convince many that things are getting worse. Some will NEVER be convinced. At some point, it won't matter. Glad to be an older person.
@@bobbart4198 I have kids, and grandkids. I've been very honest sbout what just might happen in the next few decades. I used to feel guilty about what might happen, I don't anymore...I didn't cause it, no one person did. But, the bill is coming for the rape of planet, and I'll be dead. Our desendants will pay dearly for the greed we thought was was basic growth - it wasn't.
Sorry, but it was Sabine who wasn't "confused" by all the facts. Adams gives a ton of links explaining why most climate scientists disagree with the new Hansen paper.
28% is 18+ out of 8.1 billion 😢, it is mean as 91% birth rate population will be 15 billion by 2050😢, The current population of India in 2024 is 1,441,719,852, a 0.92% increase from 2023. The population of India in 2023 was 1,428,627,663, a 0.81% increase from 2022. The population of India in 2022 was 1,417,173,173, a 0.68% increase from 2021. Eco+ nomy, nomy is human activities, so less eco more nomy indicates upcoming collapse and horrible things 😢 67% ecology destroyed, 98.97% biodiversity totally destroyed, 99.95% animal species gone extinct, 78.79% fungus species gone extinct, fungus are medicine for trees, so trees are no more immune from micro life infections, human creatures already acquired 85% land of soil on earth, 21% drinking water river got dried 😢, 2022 birth rate was 88%, 2023 91%, ecology is immune system of earth, biodiversity is nurvurs system of earth 😢, as trees are not immune from micro life infections, all green animals wil face horrible disease soon, 2025 fst cat 6 hurricane landfall 😢 2035 cat7 as temperature will be 62°c 2055 cat 8 temperature will be 65°c and 39% drinking water river will dry totally 😢 2075 fst cat 9 hurricanes will landfall 55%drinking water river will dry with 89% ecology destruction 😢 2475 Highest temperature will be 97°c 😢 Please give rest to planet 😢 I hope my knowledge and love can protect earth, knowledge is Power and love is solution,all boys can apply for my boyfriendship, minimum 10 years relationship required to be my husband, knowledge is knowing with ledger and love is creatures like to do most naturally.
Always remember, these models run on programs written by people. People make mistakes and have agendas, either their own or someone else's who has the abillity to influence them.The predicted outcomes from these models will always reflect what is programmed into them.
Good video overall! I don't get the dismissal of the nuclear potential. How do you seem to be optimistic about renowables and pesimistic about nuclear (potential), or more important effectiveness in decarbonisation. France achieved decarbonization of electricity sector in 10-15years and did it about 40years ago (That is lots of carbon not emitted cumulatively!). In comparison Germany achieved very little IMHO in past 20years, even though build rate of wind&solar is tremendous. Germany makes electricity with 405gCO2/kWh, France 53gCO2/kWh(12months average). That is failure IMHO and not good example to follow. Nuclear build times and budgets must improve off course- meaning go back to what was possible for example in Japan in early 2000ths still.
Believe me, building and commissioning a nuclear reactor and keeping it supplied with fuel, maintaining and operating it and then disposing of the waste, and cleaning up accidental spills is not a carbon neutral process, and in the end, decommisioning the plant is also conventionally costly, too.
"I don't get the dismissal of the nuclear potential." It's not being dismissed. It is being placed in the energy mix where it is required. Like all the energy option towards emissions mitigation, it also has application along with pros and cons to be considered. It is not the the be all and end all solution.
@@tikaanipippin I could now write the same about solar and wind farms- which actually take more materials/MWh and still not produce the most important thing- reliable power. Exaggerating spent fuel issue as "problem", when it is very manageable is not very productive(many solutions, smarter or acceptable, and most important- no urgency to decide now). Climate models are complex, and hard to understand, but judging the results of ongoing experiment in the form of results from France and Germany should be much easier for people with doctorates and those without degree. No complex math is needed to compare 50gCO2/kWh and 400gCO2/kWh and that it has been achieved long time ago, mainly for national security and economy reasons (oil crisis of 1970s).
@@BrentonSmythesfieldsaye If we accept that dealing with decarbonisation is urgent matter, then building new nuclear power and doing it fast/efficient (like in 1970s, still in 2000ts in Japan with modern plants) should be the key. And prematurely closing NPPs that could run another 20+ years should be considered crime against the climate- which germany committed for the benefit of mostly putin. Is there other way to judge Energiewende? Should for example Poland (not to windy, not to sunny) follow France or Finish example or example of Germany?
@@msxcytb Why do you appear to be so invested in the topic of nuclear energy, which you have no influence over. There are vocational energy industry speicalists and experts that will sort what needs to happen, when and where. Read through the content of global energy industry assessment and reporting organisations and you will find they are not in synch with your line of thinking. They see things differently, that nuclear energy will mainly serve a supplemental or partnering role in most situations (edit) where it is required, with a few outlier scenarios where it will provide at least in share, primary supply. If you don't like that for whatever reason, big deal, think what ever you like, it doesn't matter because you, just like any average every day citizen, have no say in it.
Wait wait wait, how is Sabine's video on this nothing to worry about? Her video is even titled that this is something she's very worried about. With inaccurate measurements, and climate scientists being weirdly unscientific compared to other fields, defending differences in their numbers with "it's all bad" well, yeah, climate change is bad, but we still need to properly measure it in order to properly plan against it.
That’s the nature of a collective active problem, to be intractable even as you see the collapse coming. All can’t work together because each knows that solitary action will make him worse off, and so refuses to take action because he knows that no one else will. There is no supra-national authority that can impose a collective solution on all and punish defectors. It’s only after collapse happens that you can see how inevitable it was. So enjoy life while you can.
Sabine is a proper scientist and insanely intelligent. When she is wrong she will issue a retraction. She has no axe to grind and appears as concerned as most other people.
Entirely right, and an addtion to her clear video was totally unnecessary. She´s a leading mathematician and the estimation of these climate models is a math problem at the first place.
You skipped the whole part where she says we do not have data on clouds in the past as there is no proxy data on this. It is why the hot models could be correct as whatever was predicted about these has been somewhat wrong? Better safe than sorry I say, I guess it's just another scenario we really should be considering as our future (as we do not seem to take climate change serious at all if you ask me, it's still drill baby drill).
How much did sea level rise between 14000 bc and 6500 bc? What was the average rate of sea level rise during that period? What was the average rate of sea level rise over the last 150 years? 100? 50?
@user-vb8dn1oy7p The correct answer was about .55 inches per year from 14000 bc to 6500 bc; versus .06 inches per year since 1880. Hmmmmm, can you see the difference? Total rise across those periods was about 350 feet versus 9 inches; and it was 200 meters higher during the thermal peak in the Cretaceous. No humans existed to cause that one. We are discussing spending trillions of dollars to attack a statistical blip.
@user-vb8dn1oy7p wars benefit those with the strongest military. If 5 billion die, there are still 5 billion more humans; just another blip. Emotions screw up humans' ability to think about problems logically. More CO2 and water allow us to grow more food. Those on the coast will walk uphill when their feet get wet. It just means things are different, not worse.
I studied the uncertainties in climate change modelling around 2007 as part of a masters (read about 1m high stack of papers). At the time one of the largest uncertainties in modelling was where the extra water vapor ended up the atmosphere (more heat more evaporation) high level clouds == heating, low level clouds == cooling. At the time none of the models could do no more than use a a range of estimated parameters to include the cloud effects. The issue at the time was models were finite element based which were capable of resolving the extra water vapor which can be modelled locally in each element however cloud formation is not a local. It's been a long time since I have had open access to scientific papers but I have often wondered whether the cloud problem had been resolved
No, the models' inability to do clouds has never been resolved. Much more complicated than just high and low level also. Much depends on latitude - clouds in tropics and mid latiudes cause cooling by increasing albedo, and loweing insolence on oceans. But more clouds in polar and high high latitudes help retain warmth. But lost warming in tropics is much greater than retained warmth at poles where Sun has low angle of incidence, and albedo is already high from snow/ice) so net effect of more clouds is cooling. Afaik most models assume more clouds more warming. Iirc, a small decrease (1 or 2 %) in average tropical mid latitude cloud cover can lead to 12 times more warming than from anthropogenic CO2. The whole climate change industry is predicated on bollocks. But too many university departments, research funds and peoples' rent and mortgages depend on keeping it going so the scam will continue for decades.
The big change in atmospheric retention of heat is due to the enormous increase in water vapour over the planet as a result of the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai eruption in January 2022. This was one of the biggest volcanic eruptions in recorded history. Detonating underwater with the force of 100 Hiroshima bombs, the blast sent millions of tons of water vapor high into the atmosphere. Have you noticed the unprecedented flooding around the earth, and the red sunrises and sunsets?
Not just a guess, but my own conclusions putting together some facts and figures about what effects weather and climate that I've learnt over time, plus just observing the news reports about unprecedented flooding around the planet..@@James-i3x7b
I get tired of people telling me to worry about climate change when they don't even seem to be able to turn down their own heating and wear warm clothes indoors. The measures to mitigate climate change are disproportionately hitting poor families, while the middle class scientists and politicians fly around the world as if nothing has changed. When I see those who are hyping the climate issue actually living in a consistant manner with their words, I will take them seriously. I get tired of the mantra that renewables are cheaper. Current strike prices for offshore wind are similar to non renewables. This without the consideration that we will need to build in massive over capacity to account for differences in wind and cloud. This means having none renewables as backup or masses of extra panels or turbines which will be redundant much of the time,😮 and yet will still expect to receive payments. I never see these things discussed in the main media. When discusssion doesn't happen, when everyone seems to be saying the same thing, people become suspicious. When there are scientists who have a view that is different but are never debated on mainstream media, people suspect a conspiracy. Truly, if the predictions are correct, we should all dial down our lifestyles so that we cut our use of the planetary resources. Yet every politician seems to be pushing for economic growth and greater expectations. I know of only one couple who tried to live their life consistently with their environmental beliefs. Their life was incredibly tough and not helped by the fact that they were swimming against a tide of consumerism. Their marriage failed and now they need two properties rathe than one in which to live and bring up their family. I am tired of the hypocrisy. If people who watch these videos believe what is said, then live consistently with those ideas. Interestingly the people who do actually get the closest to this are the poor. They cannot afford to go on holiday, to buy much stuff, to have their own car or to heat their homes. Yet from my experience, all they want is to live the kind of lives that they see lived by people like this oxford graduate.
I disagree with your assessment that Sabine is wrong about "we are doomed if the sensetivity is high". The higher the sensetivity the less time we have to make important changes. Since we have not even started to move into the right direction (the production of fossil fuels is still rising and no amount of nuclear or renewables has any effect on that), a high sensitivity dramatically narrows the window we have. I totally agree with Sabine: if sensetivity is high we are truely f**ked. A) Because "we" suddenly includes even elder generations that might somehow think: "not my problem, by 2100 I am dead anyways". B) If the climate changes fast the economical and ecological consequences hit so much harder. C) We might reach critical tipping points even before we realize they are there. D) We have not enough time to develop any technology we might need (fusion, AI, novel renewable fuels, electrical airplanes and ships) and infrastructure (EVs and stations to reload, more trains, green housing, green food and stuff production etc), E) We need urgent social, political and economical changes. Stop wars, distribute resources fairly, focus on happiness rather on wealth and power, reduce competition - improve co-operation etc) and we are really far, far away from achieving that. The less time we have, the worse it is. Plants and crops, animals, individual humans, communities, societies and companies can not addapt in time. The IPCC has continually underestimated how fast the climate changes. That does not serve us well. We are litterally running out of time.
"We need urgent social, political and economical changes. Stop wars, distribute resources fairly, focus on happiness rather on wealth and power, reduce competition - improve co-operation etc) and we are really far, far away from achieving that." What? That'd just lead to massive more amount of pollution.
Can you please look at the IPCC AR1and just below the section "How do we know the natural greenhouse effect is real?" there is an image/graph "Figure 2: Analysis of air trapped in Antarctic ice cores"...... Am I reading that wrong or is the methane level insanely high and a correction of PPMV to PPBV still does not fix things? If it is wrong how does that immediately jump out to me first read yet not get corrected in the last version of print after review by so many??
Getting in touch with his feminine side? Maybe it's special magic nail polish that helps dissolve SuperGlue which he uses to glue his hand to art work with....after the media have got bored and left, of course.
Ummm, the second you made the argument that models that work cannot, by definition, be scaled in both voxel space and time step size you lost your argument. The foundational mathematics behind this was validated in the 1930s. A properly complete model can be scaled all the way down to the Planck length and Planck time.
I think the argument was that weather models don't have to deal with long-term events, such as the thawing of tundra or the overall change in albedo. Thus, a model that's great at predicting next week's weather might still suck at predicting climate. And vice versa.
@@karolinahagegard The model he claimed is inaccurate is a climate model that can also predict weather, not a weather model that predicts climate. Besides, a weather model which does not factor in albedo is straight-up inaccurate after about six hours.
When i was 10. Back in 1969 scientists predicted an ice age by the year 2000. I was terrified for years. So i have a difficult time trusting scientists as a scientist myself
In the 1970’s, a handful of scientists (not a consensus) indicated that human caused air pollution was increasing and aerosols (particulate matter) in our atmosphere would cause cooling due to an albedo effect. As a result of observations and a switch to cleaner fuel burning, this no longer seen as a problem. An examination of peer-reviewed scientific literature conducted by a group of researchers in 2008, covering the mid-1960s through the 1970s, revealed that papers warning of global warming outnumbered those projecting cooling by a factor of six. So climate change in the form of global warming was a widespread topic of concern during this era, and there was no consensus that the Earth would cool in the immediate future. Search for this, "Peterson, T. C., Connolley, W. M., & Fleck, J. (2008). The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 89(9), 1325-1337".
Agreed. Afforrestation aside, biochar and carbon farming seem like the most immediately realizable ways to remove CO2. Ocean alkalinity enhancement is promising too and has the added benefit of, well, enhancing the alkalinity of the ocean and counteracting the acidification that has been happening.
If you successfully removed all the "excess" co2 from the atmosphere how much would it effect crop production, seeing as all plants need co2 to grow? What is the optimal amount of co2 needed for crop production and are we above it?
From what I can see; the methane tipping point has been reached and we could be seeing 5-10C rises, within a few decades, regardless of what we do. I'd love to know your thoughts on this, AMOC collapse and other tipping points?
@@terrific804 why would the poles in any way be related to climate when the mechanism creating the magnetosphere is based on internal movements of the Earth's core and mantle?
@@sertakiit’s just convective action of molten iron. Not the crust, not enough charge movement to generate a field worth considering. The magnetosphere IS related to our climate though. The climate doesn’t affect our magnetosphere, but our magnetosphere does affect our climate. If you don’t believe me, look up the paper “A Global Environmental Crisis 42,000 years ago” published by science magazine authored by Alan Cooper et. al. Of course it’s not the only driver, but the notion that the magnetosphere doesn’t affect the climate because air isn’t ferrous is EXACTLY like saying we only use 1/3 of their brain. It’s a pop science interpretation of a nuanced statement that ends up being completely untrue, not just kind of wrong.
Methane tipping point?? Methane rapidly oxidizes in the atmosphere. It makes up 1.7 parts per million of the atmosphere. This is not enough mass to affect the climate at all.
Sadly, as I see it the feces is going to have to hit the rotary oscillating device before mankind gets serious about the effects of climate change. But then it will be too late. I am just glad to be old and won't have to witness the worst of it. But, my daughters (and yours) will. I think we can all agree that climate change is real and that many (or all) of Sabine's predictions are likely to come true.
Hi Adam, do you know that the warming effect of each atom of CO2 decreases with increased concentration in the atmosphere? The response is logarithmic with the largest effect occurring at low concentrations of below 200ppm. For each doubling of the concentration of CO2 above this (400, 800, 1600, 3200…) the corresponding accumulative warm effect increase becomes ever increasingly smaller. Effectively at 400ppm we are at near saturation of the warming effect impact of CO2. As such these hot models must be changing more than CO2 concentrations to account for significant temperature increases or they are not adhering to the physical impact of increased CO2 concentrations.
This logarithmic effect seems to be undisputed. The counter argument I keep hearing to justify runaway warming is that although the warming contributions are ever smaller, the total warming does steadily increase but the great majority is trapped at lower levels and is only able to escape to space at the outer limits of the atmosphere. So by this theory, the net warming increases ever more slowly, but without limit. If anyone knows more about experiments done to test this theory please weigh in. My concern is that we are reduced to arguing this out in the court of public opinion rather than doing controlled experiments which should be the gold standard. It's like two chess players engaging in an endless debate about who is the better player when a series of games would provide an objective and far quicker measure of who actually is better!
Good day Adam: could you please make a video about the RCP-scenarios for future CO2-emissions? RCP8.5 projects a doubling of our current use of fossil fuels and a doubling of CO2-emissions RCP6.0 projects CO2-emissions increasing until 2060 before declining. In my humble opinion the projections are complete bollocks, will never happen. What do you think?
Doubling CO2 emissions means that plantgrowth will increase so that the CO2 percentage will increase a very little to a new equilibrium. No reason to panic and jump to EV's.
I would trust models that show accurate predictive capabilities, by predicting data bot past and present without tuning parameters to fit each batch of data .
mate, you're talking about the capacity to read the future, no models don't adjust overtime and plays with their parameters, even the sound statistically theory behind are limited by the reality of limited data (of good quality) and capacity to gather data, or plain calculation power to handle these
The climate goes too slowly, that's the problem. If only a few hundred thousand years could happen in a year!... Then, by the end of that year, we would have all the data necessary to make a robust and accurate climate model. 😊
Personally, I would like to time travel to the past, and collect as many "models" of future predictions and then see how many actually were in any way accurate. I seem to remember a few decades ago, people saying we would already all be dead by now.
@@bernhardschmalhofer855 The warming effect of 2xCO2 depends on the context! On a reflective ice ball it will be very different than a dark blue ocean. This is an important critique to many paleoclimate studies that ignore other parameters such as the earth total albedo when considering the net contributions of GHG's!
As I said on her pod cast. The idea the modelers, how many, all of them left super cooled water out of clouds is startling. I remarked could they have left fish out too?
I get all of Adam's points, but I still think it misinterprets Sabine's larger message, which is that there are low-probability/high-consequence risks that can't be ignored. Maybe that's clearer in the context of her earlier videos where she came across as more sanguine about the problem but now has recognized that those long-tail risks are more severe. I think this has some value for the nerdiest of physics nerds who enjoy her videos on very esoteric topics but haven't really engaged on climate change, which is such an interdisciplinary topic that is pretty remote from things like dark matter and quantum gravity. And I do agree with Sabine about the "glue protests." We need more people working their elected officials relentlessly to put a price on carbon, not carrying out foolish publicity stunts.
02:00 🌍 Climate sensitivity, specifically equilibrium climate sensitivity, is a key metric in climate science. It gauges how much the world would warm if the atmospheric carbon dioxide doubled and everything reached equilibrium. 03:27 📊 As of 2019, climate models estimated sensitivity between 2 and 4.5 degrees Celsius. These models simulate complex interactions of physics governing climate processes. 04:34 🤔 Climate scientists use multiple approaches to estimate sensitivity. Some models with higher sensitivity values have raised concerns and prompted scrutiny. 07:37 🔄 A study in 2020 compiled paleoclimate data, indicating a sensitivity range of 2.6 to 3.9 degrees Celsius. This approach considers historical climate changes, natural variations, and physical processes. 09:11 🧪 Variations in climate models often stem from uncertainties in simulating complex processes, especially related to clouds. The study scrutinized by Sabina Hossenfelder supports higher sensitivity values. 11:05 🌐 Multiple studies contribute to understanding climate sensitivity. It's not about dismissing high sensitivity but considering the entirety of evidence to derive the most plausible estimate. 13:34 🌡 Higher sensitivity values, if accurate, could accelerate global temperature rise. Recent temperature increases align with projections, and the discussion isn't about dismissal but evaluating the evidence comprehensively. 16:48 💡 Combating climate change requires a comprehensive approach, including carbon pricing, renewable energy expansion, and possibly nuclear energy. Carbon dioxide removal is seen as a necessary but challenging solution. 18:15 😨 Climate change impacts are already severe, regardless of sensitivity estimates. The urgency lies in reducing greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate future impacts, emphasizing the need for swift action.
@@ClimateAdam “Climate Sensitivity” is an incomplete metric then, and that very fact reinforces Sabine’s concerns. I should add that the New Zealand scientist, Sir Ian Axford, a scientist with considerable computational skills, became quite distressed about the acceleration impact of CH4 to Global Warming and subsequent Climate Change from the thawing Russian Steppes, towards the end of his life.
@@williambunting803 Wow! I had no idea that Climate Sensitivity does not include the CO₂ equivalent warming capacity of methane (20 year calculation please) and other climate forcing gasses like NOx! Tell Sabine it's even worse than she thought!
@@ClimateAdam I find almost irresponsible to concentrate only on co2 concentrations where there are so mnay other parameters that drive our climate. It is like we have a fixation on this. I agree with @williambunting803. Climate sensitivity needs way more to mean something.
@@ClimateAdam Wait, I thought they all used top of atmosphere radiative forcing? That this is given in doubling of CO2 is besides the point as that is just the units used to describe it? Like we could methane up by 20% if we wanted. It's all the same physics. Thus is just like if we used feet instead of meters.
I appreciate the video. I'm confused that it sounds like your saying averaging the model results is like averaging the evidence, and it's the most likely outcome. That sounds wrong to me. Did I miss understand that?
Compare the measurement data from satellites and balloons with the projections in the IPCC reports. John Christy has done this. The actual temperatures were below all models.
Sabine Hossenfelder has already shown herself to be someone nobody should take seriously. Her videos on autism and trans people were atrocious. By comparison, this video seems halfway decent. I honestly think she's doing a lot of harm by communicating about science outside her area of expertise without proper support from scientists who know the field better. Given her reaction to criticism about this, I don't know if it's hubris or malice at this point.
Honestly even within her own area of expertise she doesn't communicate well. She goes for the controversial hot take instead of representing the scientific consensus and often ends up passing an opinion as a fact
some of you may have spotted Sabine's latest vid, which responds to criticism of her previous. here's my response to her response to my response!
thank you for continuing the conversation, but again you avoided mentioning the actual reason that climate scientists don't trust these models' predictions of future climate change. It's because they're bad at simulating past climate change! i.e. they can't accurately recreate the changes we've observed since the last industrial revolution or the temperature of the last ice age.
they weren't rejected because scientists don't like them, or because scientists are protecting some narrative. they were weighted less than other models because they're bad at the job in hand. now maybe you think this isn't a good test of the models, or think we should take every model equally seriously, regardless of how well they can simulate past climate change, but that's a very different conversation.
Does what she say in her video at around 3:35 true at all then? (something like: that the models were good enough to be included in the IPCC, until they noticed to the high sensitivity value)
According to this comment of yours the models were in fact either not good enough to ever be included or were removed for the reason of not being good at predicting past climate change. This sounds rather different to what she said obviously. Was there other models that were removed after being previously approved to be put in the IPCC that did not have a high sensitivity value?
Adam given that none of the models successfully account for enough of the actual processes to successfully simulate the changes to glaciers that we know for sure actually have happened you're making a nonsensical argument. If you want people to believe that Climate Science is actual science then you have to stop acting in a way that to a properly educated outside observer looks indistinguishable from favoritism. That's her key point. You are not managing to refute that.
None of the climate models successfully model glacial change, period. We know that. We know that none of them successfully model the apparent change in albedo over time. Again, this is uncontroversial. Given that the major difference between the "favored" and "disfavored" models is in large part how they calculate and simulate the effects of albedo on climate (and the granularity, or voxel scale to be technical about it, at which they calculate this) and that albedo appears to be deeply related to the melting of sea ice and glaciers, it stands to reason that saying a model which allows directly tweaking those parameters has incredible value no matter how well it simulates a particular favorite benchmark. In particular it likely allows people to think critically about what else we may be missing in the models we need to successfully defend our posterity from extremely rapid sea level rise.
Ignore the fact that it spits up politically inconvenient numbers-until we get a better handle on the actual processes of glacial and albedo change we don't actually have any idea what is a "too bad to be real" CO2 concentration sensitivity result for our current atmosphere with the current solar output.
Thank you for deleting my reply. I really appreciate it. You lost your argument. You just proved it to me.
Sorry, I can´t follow your logic, why is it "a different conversation", and why do you argue with the last ice age, like s.c. "climate change deniers" do? But I appreciate that this answer is factual at least, and not as disrespectful as in your vid, to someone, who doesn´t diserve that.
@@DrewNorthupEntirely correct! I mean your deleted comment.
I watched Sabine's video, and my take away was not the many (mis)interpretations you are trying to warn against or contextualize. What I heard Sabine saying was **not** "the IPCC estimate for climate sensitivity is probably wrong, this scarier number is probably right". I heard her say "the IPCC has been trying to put error bars around the risk of climate change, and we would expect those risk bars to get narrower over time as models get better; but there are reasons to think that there are uncertainties that are systematically causing bias in those risk estimates; instead of the risk bars getting narrower, we might have to consider their getting significantly wider."
One reason the "hot models" might produce bad "predictions" (retrodictions?) in simulating the paleoclimate is they don't have trustworthy data to input about clouds. If you put in some numbers it produces outcomes too warm, with other numbers you get outcomes too cold. But if clouds are an important driver of physical change in the past and present, then there is greater uncertainty than previously considered, and the error bars for the future should be drawn wider as we try to take that into account.
I didn't pick up on Sabine jumping on a bandwagon with Jim Hansen, I know his recent work has received considerable criticism. What I noticed is that she was responding to an opinion piece by Tim Palmer, who has co-written papers with Sabine on foundational matters in physics, but who also works on climate models. I haven't read Palmer's comments on this issue, but I would be interested in hearing your analysis of it.
I agree with most of the points you make, and agree that they are worth making to counter possible misunderstandings of Sabine's video if taken without adequate context. But I think her main message still stands. There are reasons to think that error bars may need to be drawn wider than the IPCC has been presenting.
what i interpreted out of Sabine's video is we are screwed. I agree with her always 100 percent
if her actual position previously was "I'm not worried about climate change", then her opinion can be disregarded anyway.
@@yeetyeet7070why? (Genuine question)
@@norbertnagy5514People aren't allowed to change their minds, you see.
@@norbertnagy5514 The holy scientific inquisition is displeased with her.
I googled "hot models" and was pleasantly surprised to not find many links to climate sciences.
However, warm up a little i did.
I'll go with the hot models, no doubt about that
Funny what you did just there, was.
Some really nice looking "lap-tops" though.
Finally you've been given the excuse you've always been waiting for ? 😄
It was all Sabine's fault, officer.
Its not about how hot its going to get. Its all about the atmosphere and oceans accumulating extra energy (measured as a change in temperature), and how this extra energy will affect weather patterns, ocean currents, and hence our climates. Some places may actually get colder.
If Scotland became warmer, this would be a good thing. It is bloody freezing, and as a result, we are all spending a fortune heating our homes.
@@Kiltoonie Sorry but I think your part of the world will on average get colder, if the predictions are within the ball park. I understand that the climate on much of the west coast of the British Isles is moderated by the warming influence of the Atlantic Ocean currents, which are predicted to be disrupted. I say "on average", because its all about the extremes they talk about. Yeah you might get warmer periods in summer, but these may be outweighed by colder periods in winter. I'm not familiar with farming in Scotland, but I know quite well farms in Ireland experience quite mild conditions entirely due to the influence of the Atlantic Ocean.
@@Kiltoonie Don't you guys only hover around 0C during winter? Maybe dip around -5C or -10C from time to time?
@@paavoilves5416 It varies, but it is actually a lot milder than you might think. Usually wet, dark, and miserable, but rarely that cold.
@@Kiltoonie To be fair the wet cold you have feels colder than dry cold. We are usually below 0C for almost half the year, and the dry -15C doesn't get through the clothing like 0C does. Scotland is one of the places I'll gotta visit some year, love from Finland!
As a data modeler in health science, I can't express enough my appreciation for this video. If you are not trained in statistics (and even if you might be), statistical assumptions and random error are often ignored even in a professional setting much less on social media about science. Sabine is my favorite you-tuber. She is amazing. But it is essential to get other perspectives to gauge for yourself. Thanks to both Sabine and Adam for their great insights.
It's clear that Sabine shouldn't engage in topics like climate change. She covers other topics well and there's no problem with them, but when it comes to climate, she's... not really objective.
It's funny that she titled her video "I wasn't worried about climate change, now I am" when it's specifically her repeating doomsday climate prophecies a year or two ago that made me stop watching her.
@@LecherousLizard It must be tough being unable to emotionally handle disagreement.
@@coonhound_pharoah Quite funny you say that, because about 8 days ago I made a video which starts by putting "anti-vaxxers" and "climate change deniers" in to the same bag as flat-earthers and then call them all brain damaged, because they don't agree with my idols.
Oh, wait. That wasn't me, that was Sabine Hossenfelder.
@LecherousLizard That never happened. Your emotional problems make you blow things out of proportion.
@@LecherousLizard 😂😂😂
One big point Sabine makes in her video is that any climate models run on the Earth of the past uses today's clouds (because there is no other choice, that's all the satellite data we've got). It is a big assumption to make that the clouds in the dinosaurs sky, when Earth was a tropical world, would have the same reflectivity as today's clouds.. Could you address that point and explain why that's not a concern?
"It is a big assumption to make that the clouds ... would have the same reflectivity as today's clouds"
Here's my take on it. I'm not a specialist. Clouds were still a suspension of water droplets and the atmospheric pressure pretty much the same, so the assumption seems correct.
@physnoct The atmospheric pressure, maybe, but not the temperature. The equation that describes the behavior of gases in the Earth's atmosphere depends on both pressure and temperature. Furthermore, the problematic effect cited in Sabine's video was that of the behavior of super-cooled water (water that remains liquid even if it's slightly below freezing). I was hoping to see it addressed in this video, as it is a central point in Sabine's video. Are climatologists worried about that? Why or why not?
@@physnoctI am not an expert, so I assume that unless there is proof that this is the case we can not make the assumption.
@@thorH. It's the other way around. First the assumption is made, then verified. If you have the proof beforehand, it's not an assumption but a fact.
@@physnoct yes, but when the entire prediction depends on a strong assumption like this you can not present it as fact until this/all assumptions are proven to a credible extend. And in this case this assumption is not. Which really undermines the argument.
she's not an experimental physicist,.......... those physicists have never taken her very seriously. She has never even produced a single seriously respected paper even on theoretical physics
I think that because she is a physicist, Sabine is particularly struck by the uncertainty about how supercooled water droplets interact with electromagnetic radiation. Her premise may be that a climate model that does a better job with short range forecasting may have a better handle on this question, hence such a model’s climate predictions should be taken seriously.
And what we really need is to know 5, 10 and 20 years from now mostly. If we listen to farmers, it’s already happening. So if a prediction using a climate sensitivity of 5 is more accurate for this range of time, they shouldn’t use 2.5 for short term predictions. Also, without saying it, he seems to let us interpret that averaging the different proposed models will gives a more accurate ECS, which would be a logical mistake.
"Her premise may be that a climate model that does a better job with short range forecasting may have a better handle on this question, hence such a model’s climate predictions should be taken seriously." And every science climatologist that has spoken about this (including here) has stated that is wrong and is not what such models were even built for. They are for long term effects. Not to make short term climate predictions for local areas. Every science expert on this area has already been saying forever that this will impact different areas completely differently, but yes *overall* Earth will see warming beyond what is natural. You can not take a coincidence and say see it matches in this case so it should be used all the time to do such. There are and will continue to be fluctuations in the short term. So how in the world could you surmise that it can predict short term forecasting?
That would be like claiming, oh my area in 2022 had the highest summer on record for over 100 years, so see this is all true. That would be a bogus statement, as this year so far it is rather mild summer. It is NOT a certain local area or short term instance, but an overall mean around the entire Earth.
@@Campanola "If we listen to farmers, it’s already happening." Farmers where? You realize this varies depending upon where you are at right? Some areas have been seeing more wet weather vs others more drought, and some are warmer vs others are colder.
And NO you should not be using 5, 2.5, 3.1 or any other for short term predictions. Did you not listen to this video where he tells you that is not how it should be used for?
And he did not say averaging different models will give a more accurate ECS, because that is NOT what they are doing. ALL the models they are taking with a grain of salt is what he said. It is only one tool that is used and is not even the main tool is what he said. You mis-interpreted what he said and are trying to apply to the models. Which is not the case. He said what the IPCC is doing is combining all the research papers and trying to come to some middle ground or averaging those ... not the models. And FYI, currently 3.1 is the one that currently appears to be most accurate, but that can change in a short period. Because it will continue to change with the more current 'today' data that is input over time and because Earth's weather patterns are constantly fluctuating and will continue to do so.
@@kevinfisher1345 farmers where? Everywhere. The effect of global warming is changing the climate. It’s also the rate at which it’s changing. It’s changing faster than the capacity to adapt to it. It’s not about warming, it’s about disturbances at a fast rate. Agriculture needs some climate stability. So the speed of change is very important. A high sensitivity to CO2 meens a stronger force to destabilize. By the way, you can’t say « that’s not what he said » when I say myself « without saying it ». You can’t say did you watch the video like it was the truth when my point is I disagree with it. But anyway, the fact is they pretend that they have a big process to integrate all of the models, but coincidentally they come with a result that it’s the average. So if it’s not working, it’s not working so something is wrong and something have to be reevaluated. That’s the whole point of Sabine’s video. By the way, I’m sure they know what coincidence is. If they say it’s predicating better short term, that’s because they have excluded coincidences already.
@@Campanola "Everywhere." WRONG!!! Reason to follow...
"The effect of global warming is changing the climate." Correct!!! However, in this context it is greatly misleading. It is impacting the climate of Earth overall yes. But some areas it is not seeing a rise in temp overall or none at all. Climatologists has said from the very beginning, that this will be the case. And so far that has been shown to be true. For instance some areas has seen a series of La Niña events. So guess those are not a part of your everywhere? Some places will get hotter, some colder. Some will be more arid vs others more wet. In those areas that are more wet they are NOT seeing this at all. So your everywhere is wrong. Yes overall and most areas will be, just not everywhere.
What follows I have no problems with (with one minor exception see below) ... until your failed attempt to explain away what he said vs what you appear to think he implied without actually saying it.
The fact is these are just simulation models, and they knew and still know they are not accurate. It is as explained in the video just one tool and not the main tool used.
I am no expert but I doubt the models can be fixed. We do not know everything, we know a ton, but not everything. Without knowing everything they can not be fixed. And if that was Sabine main point, then shame on her because she should know better being a physicist and knowing we do not know it all. There are many things with our atmosphere that we still do not know about, just as we dont for all of physics either. You think Sabine might now, but she was wrong with so many things here, I am not so sure she knows.
What you left out is this is the *long term trend* and change over the course of a century or more which is what defines “global warming,” not the change from year to year or even decade to decade. For example 1998-2012 did not see as much a change. And yet you keep trying to insist that we can apply such climate change models to a short period forecast. Smh! It does not even make common sense. Did Sabine even bother to look at what that hot model did for forecasting during that decade? I bet not because it would have been wrong ... but oh just because currently it seems to be ok coincidentally we should be applying it all the time. *sighs*
Okay so you mention the three ways to derive Climate Sensitivity, using Paleoclimate Data, Historical Data, and physical Measurements, and how the hot models give poor results about previous Ice age. You also mention that it is more or less accurate to say the difference between hot models and the rest are the cloud physics. If this is the main difference, it makes sense to me, to measure the accuracy of the new model's cloud physics in a way we have empirical evidence about clouds, a weather model. In the paper discussing the weather model they state that the previous version of the climate model made a baseline weather prediction, and the new "hot model" was used, the hot model gave the better weather forecast. This to me looks like excellent science, isolating a variable, testing it against a control (the previous model) and observing an improved result. I wish this would have been discussed more in your video.
I also want to point out something you said years ago in your first video about climate sensitivity, scientists have been working on this issue for a long time, hundreds of papers published and they "often disagree" with each other. They have been working to narrow the range, and it hasn't worked. So I have a big question that I haven't seen discussed and I've been looking all week since Sabine's video was published,
What is the possibility (or range) that the climate sensitivity changes with time?
Perhaps the hot models do not agree with paleo climate data, but the earth looked VERY different in the Cambrian than it does today. It also makes anecdotal sense to me that the earth is more sensitive to shocks today due to human destruction of natural ecosystems. Fisheries around the globe are on the brink of collapse, what role to they play in stabilizing the climate? How about rainforests, like the Boreal rainforests of Canada that had unprecedented conflagration last year, or the Amazon rainforests under near constant attack for decades.
Either way, I think this video was well done, but precisely the problem Dr. Hossenfelder was trying to raise, as new information is published, if it challenges the status quo, we as humans will try to discount and under-weigh it. As described by Malcom Gladwell, it takes "overwhelming evidence to the contrary" to really change a person's opinion, and climate scientists are wonderfully human.
Another response to this video, from Climate Brink put it like this: the discussion of Climate Sensitivity is like whether there are 6 or 10 rifles in the firing squad, either way it's bad. I think this is a valubale point to make, the situaiton is dire either way, and we are not doing enough to stop it. That's the throughline of all climate science, and everyone agrees on that point.
Great response, commenting to help it show higher in the list.
The destruction of the physical environment around us by countries that don’t follow international regulations is a far greater threat to life on earth than temperatures warming by 0.1 C in 50 years.
I wish people could see through this distraction. Immediate and irreversible damage to the environment is way more important than what today’s models project for temperatures in 50 years.
Wonderful pointsp❤
Historical data and physical measurements would be the same thing since we are in the realm of panel data.
I know about 1 model and this 1 model is not on your list. I don't know the others. I know about the energy balance model. That energy/heat is simultaneously absorbed and released by the atmosphere. At some point there is an equilibrium temperature. While the temperature moves towards the new equilibrium we experience global warming.
I know this model because I know some economists who have looked at this particular one.
Thank you, alexis
I think the question is not whether "we should trust" a particular kind or class of model, the question is if we can safely dismiss the results of these models.
To my knowledge, we cannot predict the consequences of climate change, we can only estimate the possible magnitude of consequences and maybe assign a likelihood to the scales. We are doing risk management here. It's a bad idea to restrict such management to the most likely outcome, because then you only have answers for that particular case.
If I understand Sabine's video right, the predictions of hot models have previously been dismissed, because they have been considered weak (not matching historic data). That apparently changed.
So until now, we trusted that hot models are inaccurate. We now don't need to trust that they are accurate, we need to consider the possibility and then likelihood that they might be.
But since we are not actually doing risk management in regard to climate change but rather optimize short term benefits in various scopes, that should actually not change anything, unless the predictions of hot models realize themselves. And once that happens, we can just smile and switch from optimizations to the blame game and ask scientists how they could ignore the only models that actually worked. That's because business operates with the benefit of hindsight, something that constructive science cannot.
Very nice nut-shell summarization.
James Hansen & Co are asking us to consider clouds. Now. After 2023 broke all 'ranges' Hansen expects a response like "yes, let's track, analyse and consider it". But what they get is "the models are bad enough as they are". This makes me nervous.
James Hansen is a fraud. This is known since the 80s. Now he is active for the nuclear lobby with the Greta-Movement. Btw. Did you know the 2°-Goal originates from the nuclear lobby as well? THIS should make you "nervous".
The climate models are according to J. Clauser (Physics nobel price 2022) not bad but pseudoscientific nonsense.
The climate is much too complex for a serious modelling....
- The clouds have a major impact but are understood in the best case qualitative not at all quantitative.
- The water evaporation is not understood at all..There is no linear correlation with temperatures...On the other hand about 1/2 of the heat transfer from earth surface to the higher atmosphere takes place by water evaporation.
- The albedo is a guess only. The albedo varies due to the weather, daytime and season. It would be very challenging to model it.
All in all models that does not reflect the complexity of our planet earth provide random results or perhaps the results expected by the green NGO behind the IPCC.
Furthermore, the IPCC wants us to still consider seriously that the 1.5 C target for temperature rise is still achievable. They already lost credibility in my eyes for that. I think the consensus now is that we are already past 1.5 C and heading to 2 C. So if the IPCC is wrong on that due to political influence, it is likely also wrong on climate sensitivity. mention of the IPCC does not reassure me at all.
@russmarkham2197 it seems to me that the ipcc as well as most governments are just waiting because they expect a technological breakthrough of giant solar floating vacuum cleaners sucking ghgs out of our atmosphere, or some such Hollywood "save the day just in time" solution.
I was at an astronomy conference probably 15 years ago and we had a session with a panel of climate scientists. Astronomers worry about clear skies and that ties to climate and mitigation measures. Plus, we're scientists and we like to talk. The majority of the climate scientists on the panel were of the opinion that we were past the "zero emission will fix things" phase and said that we had to start using carbon removal and aerosols (more dangerous - and not cool with astronomers) as mitigation measures. If we did not do that, we would blow past the 1.5 C target. We did not work on those mitigation measures and so here we are. And we continue to argue about whether we should call the firefighters while the kitchen stove is quietly consuming itself.
@@Off_the_clock_astrophysicist Fully agree with you. From what I read, we have already blown past the 1.5 C target and will get to 2 C in about 5 years or so. I think we need to research climate repair options. One method might be to seed the oceans to encourage phytoplankton growth. There seems to be some debate on whether aerosols are effective in the long run. Might be dangerous also.
You're misunderstanding the role and limitations of the IPCC. They are not a political body and only give scenarios which may result from certain policy settings.
@@carlbennett2417 I think you greatly underestimate the political pressure that can be put on any scientific body, however well they try to stick to an unbiased position. Why does the IPCC stick to the fiction that 1.5 C is still attainable?? That alone shows that they are in fantasy land. Still, at least the IPCC are correctly warning the world that climate change is real and poses great risks to the world economy. I guess we can be thankful for that.
I watched your video right after Sabine's and I thank you for posting a climate scientist's point of view. I think that Sabine actually did a good job of pointing out that the hot models were still outlier models, and she explicitly stated that she didn't know "who was right." I think that her main point was practical, as in "wake up, people!"
If there's any feasible chance, even something on the order of 1 in 1000 perhaps, that the current ECS consensus is a little low, our timeline to get serious about the problem could shift a lot. Climate science has to figure out what's most likely, but policy needs to react to what's possible, at least for something that has such potentially devastating possibilities.
Imagine if the NEO projects said that there was a 1 in 1000 chance that a Manhattan-sized asteroid would slam into search in twenty years. Those are slim odds, and depending on the orbit with respect to the earth and sun, we might not be able to improve our estimate until it was too late. We'd have to choose to build policy around one of two ideas. Either "yes, it's possible, but the science says it's very unlikely" or "the science says it's unlikely, but the risk is too high." I think we'd try to figure out how to launch a rocket that could give it a push, don't you?
My sense after watching Sabine's video was that she was communicating a) what if this goes bad sooner that we think? b) we can't really know that won't happen, even though climate science says that's very unlikely, and c) what's at stake is something most people haven't thought through very well - let me paint a picture for you.
Of course, she has a way with words, and with her standing in physics, I'm not saying she was trying to mislead people. I'm just saying that I never heard her say the hot models were correct. I heard her ask people to consider what would happen if they were.
By the way, kudos for pointing out that weather patterns are not climate patterns. This needs to be written across the sky (which could reflect some heat back into space). I get so tired of hearing, "oh man, it's ten below zero - where's global warming now?" /eyeroll
Wow, you're an optimist. Just had a 1 in 1000-year (probably much more likely) flood in Montana that took out a bridge. They built the new bridge lower.
So what are you doing, personally, to reduce your carbon dioxide emissions? (“Recycling” doesn’t count.)
It's a misrepresentation to say that the climate models "simulate the laws of physics" (3:42). A significant portion of these models aren't simulations, but rather parameterizations. A parameterization is not a direct simulation of physical laws, but rather heuristic formulas designed to estimate the effect of some natural phenomenon that is numerically impossible to simulate. The numbers in the heuristic formulas are adjusted to get models to match reality, but this adjustment is somewhat arbitrary. A wide range of choices of numbers can produce the same "answer".
The best example of this is cloud feedback. There's no way to simulate clouds in these models, their resolution and computational capability is woefully inadequate. So instead they parameterize the clouds. CMIP6 models have a range of roughly -0.2 to 1.1 W/m in cloud feedback. The models that predict low cloud feedback also predict lower Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), while those with high cloud feedback predict higher ECS. A recent paper showed that both types of models produce similar global historical results, but the lower ECS models better simulate hemispheric variation in the climate than high ECS, and perhaps the higher models should not be trusted, and Sabine was wrong to panic (or at least to panic "more" based on that one detail).
The fact is that even models using a very simple relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures from the 1960s and 1970s have been pretty much spot on. More CO2 equals more warming. Skeptics used to argue that there wouldn't be warming not they argue that the observed warming isn't exactly the exact 0.001th of degree that the models said it would be. The goal posts shift and narrow to inhibit action and keep those oil dollars rolling in.
Models need to be based on physics and not statistical curve fits of probabilistic outcomes based on prior perceived independent variables. It is all heat transfer, fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, etc…. Boundary conditions are the problem.
@@CraigLedgerwood-o3k LOL, those simple, elegant, and accurate projections *were* based on physics (the relationship between Co2 and global temperatures) as well as the knowledge that atmospheric CO2 was likely to increase at the same rate. Skeptics said it wouldn't warm, that warming had stopped etc. The skeptics were wrong, the scientific projections were correct. The newer models are even better.
@@CraigLedgerwood-o3k To predict when and how a pot of water boils your calculation doesn't need to involve fluid dynamics of every bubble. The general relationship is enough.
Not so. All data shows that temperature precedes increases in CO2, not the other way around.@@QT5656
I watched Sabina's video when it came out, I was concerned and intended to go and watch it again as I didn't understand all of it. I also subscribe to your channel so was very pleased when you responded. I thought your response was measured, respectful and very informative. Thanks for your video, I can't say I'll sleep better but I am at least better informed 🙂
A theroretical scientist is fine, but I prefer common sense. And that quality is getting extemely scarce these days. THere is ahrdly any CO2 in air and that is because plants immediately absorb the CO2 and break it down to C and O2. When we burn more fuel there will be more CO2 and hence there will be increase plant growth. Nothing to worry. There is no climate problem. There is a problem with a sick elite who want to build a world government and they try to scare people.
I think you should treat those numbers seriously. It's logical to error on the side of caution. There is also many other factors in this equations that your models probably do not consider, and one is 70 percent of the quantity of animals on this planet are gone in the last 50 years. What happens when they are mostly gone. We are already decades over do, and error on side of caution is too late. Act now or never. But basically what I see from the numbers and simple logic. There is nothing nobody can do. Humans are set in their ways and nothing is going to change that until mother nature does it for us. We are over populated, over consuming. and even if there is no climate change, there will be no natural resources left.
Subscribed. These types of debates are always tough when you aren’t in the field. I appreciate you bringing the knowledge to us
Thank you and welcome!
What was this? You stop the video to make it look like Sabine didn't explain ECS and you explain ECS to make you look good and her look bad, when 5 sec after you stopped the video Sabine explains ECS. You make climate scientists and scientists in generall really look bad, because it seems you doctor with the data (== the video) to make your point work.
classic mansplaining vibes.. why do you need to smirk while talking science? maybe act like an adult or sth might be a good start
Here in Canada many ice rinks can no longer be maintained in winter because it's just too warm.
Funny that a Canadian would complain the winters aren’t cold enough.
@@genreynolds6685 It's true. When I was young back in the 1950s and '60s we used to go ice skating on a man-made lake on the top of a small Mountain where I live. Those days are gone forever. The lake no longer freezes over enough for the machine to go over it to clear off the snow Etc. This proves global warming beyond the shadow of any any doubt. However it does not prove that human consumption of fossil fuel is the reason for it.
What stuns me (as it should your other viewers here!) is that you spend this video ~going against?~ Sabine, while IGNORING the science in the paper she’s concerned about.
I’d say that’s a rather telling oversight Adam
entirely correct!
naa he's worried that sabine is not an extreme climate alarmist (as him)
@@orionbetelgeuse1937 That doesn't make sense considering that the criticism he responded to is that the climate sensitivity may be *higher* than we think. If anything, that would make her more alarmist than him.
Regarding the "nuclear, nuclear, nuclear" part, I think, Sabine is pointing towards the German position on that matter.
A 18 minute video about Adam criticizing hot models. Great way to end my birthday
I am an old man, and not able to evaluate science as complicated as climate models,with all the variations in ocean currents, cloud cover, heating releasing more water vapor and methane in the atmosphere and so on. But what I can see, is that the general development seems to follow worst-case scenarios of the past. I am aware of not confusing the day to day weather with the long term climate changes, but I still cannot help worrying about all the heat records we have experienced lately. It is like every month sets a new never-seen temperature record.
maybe if your only title is "old man" you should not clutter comments on a subject you don't understand: it's not climate change it's about statistic.
Well, old man. You have, because of yr age nothing to worry about. And the alarmists are not a little wrong, especially about Co2, but grossly wrong. If you dig a little deeper into the actual science you will find out that most physics scientist think the climate sensitivity/temperature is between 0.2 and 0.5 for a doubling of Co2. And climate can only be assessed after roughly 60 years. In 10 years time the alarmists will have a hard time looking back at their position.
And remember, the end of the world is always 5 years from now! Just watch 70 years of wrong predictions and then add some. So, rest assured. Dont fall into the panic trap. The uncertainties about the climate have wide error bars. You cannot properly equate an interactive, dynamic, largely chaotic system w no zero point or steady state..
Yes, people are notorious for saying "it's just the wind" when you can tell it's something much more dangerous. People are wired to deny long term trends.
i think that the two previous responders should stick to the issue and not dive into the cesspool of pejorative rhetoric. In response to the point "every month sets a new never-seen temperature record" is that the mass media does not understand the difference between weather and climate. Just because the temperature in one area is high does not mean that the global temperature is higher.
I think, in response to her emphasis on Nuclear, its worth remembering that she's German. Germany, until recently had a sizeable Nuclear Power Generation Capacity until they decided to shut down all the reactors out of fear in response to Fukushima. Made worse by then turning back to Natural Gas and Coal. So something of a step backwards on the German path to Net Zero.
Sabine's video just sheds light on a small part of a bigger issue. If I'm not mistaken climate scientists have spoken out before about how conservative the IPCC's climate predictions are and why it is problematic to base policy on these predictions. I don't believe the hot models are getting ignored by the climate scientists. However, they are being ignored by the politicians making policy based on IPCC predictions, because those models have been excluded from the results. And I have to say I agree with Sabine when she says that models based on a higher climate sensitivity shouldn't be so easily dismissed. Sure, they don't match with paleoclimate data, but we really don't know if the climate that long ago was anything like the climate today. It seems that some of the hot models more accurately describe the current climate in the short term in some scenarios and that shows they are still relevant.
Regardless of the model you choose to trust do you really want to play with Pascal's wager. If the hot model is wrong and we still act as if it's right the outcome is still better than the other way around.
absolutely right
You act as if there were no costs to overreacting to climate change. Don't forget that the harder you hit people in the wallet the more likely they are to oppose ALL green initiatives. Plus, a decrease in economic output also causes more deaths.
@@hugoguerreiro1078You´re wrong, the danger we have to face is much to large for your such an utility calculation.
Bollocks. Pascal's wager at least had the merit of not affecting anyone besides himself. But forcing poor countries to forgo inexpensive coal and natural gas as energy sources (by not funding them through foreign aid) makes them suffer, and suffer unneedlessly if the wager of rich countries is wrong.
@@jelink22 I appreciate your talk for the interests of the poor countries. But again, it's the people in the rich countries that don't pay fair prices for the goods, they get from there. Countries like India produce the most, that's consumed in the west, so it's our behavior that forces them to use coal and other ff.
16:43 I think Sabine has a German view on that. Germany completely got out of Nuclear and the people that glue them self's to the streets are destroying the discussion about climate change. Yes they got a lot of attention but at the same time the shifted the discourse from "what to do against climate change" to "Why the f. are people gluing them self on the street ?".
Congratulations! ALL the people you asked about this question agree on the premise. Why didn't you ask somebody like William Happer? Oh, because he doesn't agree at all with the premise. If the premise is wrong, all subsequent arguing is just silly - they'll all be wrong. Unlike broken clocks, they won't even be right accidentally.
Presumably you mention William Happer because he denies climate change is anthropogenic .
You might want to watch Sabine's video on why climate scientists think it is.
Very surprized somebody mentions Happer in this kind of video, you are totaly right, we have long left the realm of science to venture into the realm of belief, which is incredibly dangerous.
@@GhtPTR I try to bring up actual scientists in unexpected places to speak to people who would otherwise never hear of them.
@@Jollyprezbecause he's not a climate scientist
@@SimonTheScienceGuy You're correct - he's a REAL scientist. Oh, by the way, that includes ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS.
Sabine clearly started that the 'hot models' are lower weighted because comparisons between earth epochs with strong climate change wouldn't give reasons for such high climate sensitivity.
Re: carbon removal, my response to rosy technofuturists is frequently: Would you prefer to let your kids and pets track a year's worth of mud onto your carpets and furniture, and THEN set about steam cleaning everything? Or would you prefer to train them to be clean in the first place?
Carbon removal also reminds me of the Fifth Element scene where Gary Oldman effusively praises the value of destruction leading to reconstruction. It's capitalist/bureaucratic sophistry, creating a problem in order to justify selling people the solution (or your own continued existence and relevance).
I think people can't relate to atmospheric CO2, so they give up trying to understand it or its solutions. Also, there's also nigh universal cognitive dissonance among developed country audiences, because one of the simplest preventative solutions is also the least desirable -- cutting back 30%+ of our own regular everyday consumption. Everything we purchase, from fast fashion to electronic devices and batteries. All of these consume energy to produce, which generates CO2 among other waste products. The process of creating or extracting the raw material inputs also requires energy and can have far more harmful waste products than CO2. The entire process of trying to replace our current energy consumption with renewables is driving a new era of strategic resource competition and conflict that can potentially affect the geopolitical landscape for the next hundred years.
The system has an immense number of variables, so variation in one, is far from simply linear.
Similarly, the feedback mechanisms from a given level of warming, are difficult to simulate , because we don't easily model " bound methane " release from permafrost releases, for example.
Yes, this is why I think that those models can only predict trends, not specific values. They are in their nature similar to economics models.
That is more true than anyone wants to examine. @@LaTabladeFlandes
Or the many other feed backs (positive and negative) that exist.
pretty sure the models and dependencies are frequently improved. The fastest supercomputers there are are running this. And new experiments sharpen the parameters continuosly. In the end the might just be some surprises to ease the effort of countermeasures a little. Nevertheless, governments should not rely on the numbers until ist is safe that we have gotten the curve.
I remember seeing a program on how the warming ocean current, at several metres depth, compared to surface, is underbiting the floating shoreline ice that ultimately anchors glacier ice upslope.
That causes fracture and berging off, in a much different way to front edge melting with a uniform sea temperature, even if that's modelled right for mean warming.
That's the kind of model detail for rate of albedo change that we can't hope to anticipate, and there will be others of that kind. It isn't so much lack of computing power, we have what we need in that. It's a lack of familiarity with the actual mechanisms that will unfold, are unfolding.
I think there's missing context/an assumption inherent in discussing equilibrium climate sensitivity in this way. How do we know that climate equilibrium has a linear relationship with the square root of CO2 concentration? Or putting it the other way and concretely: why do we think going from 200ppm to 400ppm CO2 will have the same effect on climate equilibrium as going from 400ppm to 800ppm?
When you skip right over the carbon tax on her list it makes me ask the question how much of your work is funded by the fossil fuels industry maybe the answer is none, but still i would have to ask.
Thanks for explaining the complexity of Climate modelling, as a Climate researcher. Sabine, a theoretical physicist, turned science communicator, does often present issues appealing to the broader public without being personally grounded in the topic at hand.
Nonetheless, the ongoing & repeated flooding of Eastern Australia this summer wasn't taken up by climate models forecasting fierce El Nino bushfires. The effects of the 2022 Hunga Tonga underwater volcano injecting 146 Mio tons of water vapour 82 kms into the stratosphere, that's 10% more than normal, were disregarded by models. The latter forecasted a slight cooling due to increased volcanic aerosol particles in the Southern Hemisphere.
Well, 'water droplets', eg Climate sensitivity was not factored in & it's been flooding instead of burning!
You got the point. in order for a model to produce reliable info, it would take entering all major effects into it. Like for instance, the present volcano erruptions in Iceland, even though not so relevant on a global scale, still DO matter for a model to be asccurate and reliable. All this reminded me of the film Sully, where after the REAL LIFE situation where the pilot had just seconds to decide where to land, the simulations later done showed that he could have made it to an airport instead of Hudson river, and funniest of all, they were ran countless times, while he had just one shot.
14:19 Yes, but renewables would have to "skyrocket" to match the amount of energy produced by nuclear in the first place.
Not bad! However, I saw nothing about what is really being discussed is the water vapor feedback where water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. Sabine's comment about supercooled water vapor got partially at this point. Water as a greenhouse gas can exist both as a vapor where it behaves as a greenhouse gas or as a liquid or solid in a cloud where it changes the albedo of the planet (reflectivity in the optical frequency). A tiny change in cloud cover greatly impacts the heat input to the planet. Just a 1 % change will create roughly 2 W/M2 change in the amount of heat the earth needs to dump and we are looking at CO2 in the same energy range. To add more complexity to go from water vapor to clouds the vapor has to become supercooled and then nucleation on a microscopic nucleus is required.
Having worked with supersaturation issues in liquids and oceans, and knowing that cloud formation is often aided by air pollution (source of nuclei) we are eliminating in my lifetime (the acid rain issue has disappeared as people like me solved the problem) our measured short time data may be very misleading. Lots of moving parts including massive evaporation of water by agriculture.
I agree on a carbon tax as this problem is too complex for the bureaucracy to handle.
Carbon dioxide removal is so weird to me. Here in Canada we have people against the carbon tax while being pro-carbon capture. Even though the pass through cost of carbon capture is ~70$/t which is more than industry is currently taxed.
I also would not mind of every emitted ton of CO₂ would have to be captured somewhere else. In that unrealistic scenario a carbon tax would be not warranted.
Are you being intentionally obtuse? A carbon tax doesn't translate into any action. Tax credits get passed around and deferred etc, and tax revenue has administration overhead and zero transparency. And then there is government spending. No accountability and miles removed from the dollars collected and mangled by bills and other political footballs.
Paying for something that actually does something is worth something.
Trying to use taxes as incentives is a ruling class shell game.
The horrible reality is that the CO2 levels are actually approaching levels too low for plant life to survive. Reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 64% will kill the planet, not save it. When the amount of CO2 triples plants will grow at their optimum level. If we do nothing CO2 levels will triple in over 1,000 years. Currently the Earth's CO2 atmospheric concentration is 0.04%. Carbon dioxide removal is a scam. Check my facts!
And tell me what the climate tax has done to cool the weather. Ill wait.
In your video, your message might come across as minimizing the concerns of viewers who are worried about climate change. While highlighting a positive outlook can be valuable, focusing primarily on 90% of the video reassuring people against overreacting could unintentionally downplay the urgency of the situation. Given the significant challenges we face, like the lack of strong action at COP28, it's important to strike a balance between optimism and the reality of the situation. Perhaps considering more nuanced communication that acknowledges concern while still offering solutions and hope could be more effective in motivating viewers to take action.
thank you, absolutely right.
The weather predictions can't are not right for a month in advance. This happened in Australia this summer when predicted a hotter drier summer and farmers reacted by selling their stock (sheep) Well the actual weather has been cooler and we have a couple periods where we had rain 60ml and one day over 40. Poor farmers lost out.
Sabine is usually is really good, but over reacted on a report by Jim Hansen. Why don't IPPC put their data up for scrutiny. Sabine has over reacted because the models are flawed. Other climate scientists have disputed his prediction. They say like you said the gradient of the increase in temperate is too steep. Dr John Christy who has been looking at Jim's model and his model and really disputes the claim that we heading for disaster. The NASA scientists that been studying this even said straight up that a parameter in their model was over exaggerating their result. They were honest.
Modelling is good, but it's a guide only not the end game. Real observations like John's show the way and in time the putting in enough real observations into training models and rerunning will probably get better in time. This going to be in the next hundred years. It's only been from 1980's onwards that satellite data has been used captured and get real estimation of the atmosphere in terms of things like radiance, Co2, particulates, pollutants etc have entered into model. Influence of a parameter on the outcomes, or one parameter having an effect on another parameters, and there are so many variables. Another important thing to ask, has man influenced the climate yes or no? I haven't seen anything that answers this null hypothesis. It's a simple question that a model has not convinced me of. Not one climate change person really gives any methodology into their models. Break it down so that The Model is understood by the mass of people. Gone are days of snake oil salesman we want to know and have a simple breakdown so the lay person can understand. The more people that are exposed the more likely for my hypothesis will be solved and truth will be revealed.
Thanks for your discussion on Sabines post. Worthy and respectful.
My take away from Sabines video was that, while unlikely, the possibility of a climate sensitivity of 5c is high enough above zero that we can't afford NOT to take action. If you had a 5% chance of dying crossing the street without looking both ways, would you cross it with your eyes shut?
Entirely correct, and this "clarification" is totally unnecessary.
It is easy to remember to look both ways when you cross the street. Will be much more difficult, and will cause a lot of deaths, particularly in third world countries, if we actually reach Net Zero and eliminate synthetic fertilizer. Your analogy is silly.
I actually agree that nuclear should be the main point to stop climate change and not the renewables. For starters, for any mid-lattiude countries, you need approx. 6x the installed power of renewables to get the same capacity factor as for nuclear (1 GW of nuclear = 6 GW of solar in Slovenia for example). The biggest argument for nuclear is that france, which is predominantly Nuclear, has 8x lower emissions than Germany which relies heavily on Wind and Solar. Hydro doesn't count because most countries do not have vast hydropotential availible. So yes - we should focus on nuclear and stop toying around with renewables!
Hello Adam, You say that despite scorching temperatures in 2023, it was still within the expected range. Correct me if I am wrong, but when it comes to ocean temperatures, it was really off the charts, and given that the ocean absorbs over 90% of the heat... What is your take on that? Many thanks :-)
You bring up a good point, and here is a good solution. Everyone is looking at "surface temperature anomalies". Real climate scientists look at the integrated "temperature" of the ocean across 0-600 meters depth or 0-2000 meters. El Nino and La Nina were, after all, defined as surface anomaly patterns almost a century ago. The entire planet (even the ocean) is convective which brings up "semi-stable" patterns because..... The ENSO, NAO, etc., bring up these "oscillating" (the O part in the abbreviations) systems that happily cause anomalies.
90+ per cent of the global energy imbalance is soaked up by water. The mean depth of the ocean is 3.5 km (or 12000 ft).
We can not deduct the global energy balance by measuring the ocean-atmosphere boundary layer temperature alone - but they sure are linked. If you want to want to check it out for yourself - find a graph showing the trend of "cold La Nina years" in the Pacific Ocean. Cold La Nina years are now hotter than "extreme" hot El Nino years just 30 years ago.
Wasn't that the surface temperature, which doesn't correspond to the 90% of absorbed heat?
Wake up. This is not real.
Oh, TH-cam is a very real place; my doubts lie with you being real...@@AsheAve
@10mey The video is basically about how accurate the models are. If the models predict that the temperature will be a historic high, and that ends up happening, then that is not necessarily a flaw. Just because the temperature was off the charts compared to previous years, does not mean that the temperature is out of the "expected range". It just means that the models had a reasonably accurate prediction for how screwed we all are :)
I sub to Sabine too, and my favorite thing about this video is my reaction to when she mentioned carbon removal was "I wonder what Adam would say about that" and my wish was granted 😂
Ahah - here to make dreams come true!
It’s rare to see the level of… idiosyncrasies that one can witness in an academic seminar, but this is close.
True love, unrelenting arguments, and the ever-present feeling that people are perfectly capable of using words are violent weapons, but it’s unclear if they did.
It's the best.
I would sub to her but when she has got things wrong in the past she has often ignored critiques from experts and even seems to delete comments about them. Another Huberman?
Sabine is correct more often than any science communicator I know. @@therabbithat
I agree that we need to start working on carbon removal. That does not mean removal of some of the CO2 being created in fossil fuels burning (à la smokestack scrubbers). That isn't removing CO2, just reducing the amount being added.
Even if we stopped emitting all CO2 today, the extreme weather we are experiencing will continue. We need to be faster about getting to net-zero, but we need to start developing removal technologies that are many orders of magnitude cheaper and more efficient than anything we've come up with so far. This may take decades.
I agree that this will give an excuse for some to say that it gives us more time, so we can take longer to get to net-zero. Well, then respond to those arguments rather than saying it is fine to delay the development needed to undo the already-high levels we already have.
Thanks for the clarification. It seems to me the critical question is "What effects can we see from anticipated climate change?" This is not strictly in the scope of climate models, but it's the only thing that will really matter to the future of humanity.
Sabine's answer is: complete destruction of our economy, widespread famine, and social collapse. I'm not aware of any scientific basis for these claims.
Your answer is: we're already facing severe consequences. Again, I'm not aware of any scientific basis for this claim - what exactly are the consequences, and how are they "severe"? The predictions of consequences reflected in the IPCC reports seem rather mild to me: possibly more severe weather incidents, some sea level rise, some risk to vulnerable ecosystems.
These questions are certainly interesting to scientists, and would fuel a generation or two's worth of debate. The debate wouldn't have much salience if it weren't tied to political movements that demand fundamental restructuring of all nations' economies. It would be nice if science communicators were focused more on what is known, what is generally forecast, and how big the uncertainties are.
not gonna lie, your description of the video felt very disingenuous, you basically glossed over her point, the reliability of any model considering the lack of data to actually create the model in the first place, yes we use all the data that we can get, but that data may not be enough to say that a certain model is or isn't accurate, all models are some bias in them, you disregarding some is like disregarding general relativity because we empirically know that quantum mechanics better describes how particles work, they are still both useful, and you should use both to some degree, likewise, even if these hot models seem to work better with small timeframes it means the other models are missing something
Given the long term behavior observed along millions of years, it's probably fair to say that we are in a cycle which point to heating (instead of cooling), basically meaning that the climate is going to heat anyway, regardless our vain efforts trying to reduce emissions or even intending to capture CO2. So, my question is:
Shouldn't we spend money planning and building infrastructure adapted to warmer temperatures instead of spending money into actions which are doomed to be completely ineffective both on short run and long run?
The points isn't just that it's gonna get a few degrees warmer, the point is that it's gonna happen in your lifetime as opposed to 1000+ years and there are people alive today for which a 2 degrees difference where they live might be a difference between barely getting by and total crop failure.
You don't explain why Sabines argument that the better weather forecast of the "hot model" indicates that its cloud modelling is more accurate is not valid. Why and how can it be better in weather forecast than in climate forecast? You just said "that climate and weather forecasts are different. Well ... yes. But that is not enough to debunk the power of her argument. In absence of an argument, I would find it possible that there is a unknown aspect that lets the "better cloud model" fail for historical data. So it would be nice to find out what that aspect is.
In summary, I need a better logical discussion of Sabines argument.
I read Dr. James Hansen’s paper. I watched a video with Leon Simons (Hansen co-author) on Nate Hagens TH-cam channel. I tend to believe Hansen at this point as we should be conservative in our approach to the planet and everything makes sense in Hansen’s paper thus far. I take issue with the title of the video that Dr. Sabine made as she in the past has put out Climate Change videos and sounded concerned/worried. I heard Dr. Simon Clark on his 2023 recap video flippantly blow off James Hansen’s paper which isn’t cool nor respectful. I don’t think our climate models got aerosol cooling of sulfur shipping emissions correct. Thanks for weighing in on this in a more balanced way Dr. Adam Levy.
I think the science is still unsettled, and I don’t think Adam was saying much more than that. No climate scientist could lack respect for Hansen; they have hundreds of papers to consider, and those aren't leading to a neat conclusion.
I strongly agree with you that if the risk is “hundreds of millions of people dead,” we want to be *incredibly* conservative, and I was surprised neither Sabine nor Adam insisted on that more-no one, at least no one rational, plays Russian roulette dismissing it as “it’s just 16%…”. But it’s hard to make that point without numbers like “10% likely” or "20% likely," and we can’t really have a reliable estimate for how plausible that model is either, at least not at the moment.
@@bertilhatt The basic science has been "settled" for many decades*. In fact, the basics have been settled since before I was born (and I'm retired).
*) Depending on what particular development you want to use as a landmark, since the late 1800s, or the 1930s, or the 1950s -- but each "landmark" development was essentially an elaboration or refinement of the previous understanding, as our modeling became more sophisticated.
Hansen is the same charlatan that got a congressional aide to turn off the A/C in the congressional committee room on a hot Washington day when he gave his original pitch on climate change.
Adam please please please do some research on nuclear waste repurposing into further energy generation. And i wish you would also do some more of your own research instead of following what you hear others say especially when the others you are listening to are funded by certain groups with agendas in renewables. Renewables are terrible for the environment and should be stopped now until better technology is available. The carbon footprint of renewables solar wind and batteries are substantially worse than nuclear and the latest nuclear technology is available but for some reason it is being silenced. Climate change has been happening since the beginning of time. There is no catastrophic emergency in the near future but we can clean our air... using nuclear and hydro. Please do a video on nuclear waste repurposing.
How about a video on degrowth? Something that WONT doom us? Ya know, learn lessons from our mistakes and NOT do nuclear?
I have a query regarding ocean salinity (not related to the vid but I was just curious). It's commonly said that global warming will lead to an increase in ocean salinity. But if pure water is melting from ice, shouldn't the ocean's salinity be deacreasing?
That's balanced out by evaporation-in general, not in that specific instance. I can’t imagine that there’s an intuitive way to decide if it will get more or less salty.
Maybe you confuse salinity with acidity.
@@bertilhatt I don't see evaporation consuming all of Hansen's projected several meters of sea level rise from melting ice caps and glaciers. Salinity will likely be reduced. Increased storm water runoff might bring more salts to the ocean, but my guess is not enough to compensate. I'm not sure how salts in that scenario would behave in vertical water columns and with dramatically altered ocean currents. All of this begs the interesting question, can we look at the fossil record, deep sea bed cores, etc, to find out what happened to ocean salinity the last time we had a melting like the one we may be headed toward?
@@bertilhatt Intuitively, I thought that an increase in sea level would just dilute the ocean and salinity would decrease. I don't understand how evaporation would balance it as most of the water would just end up back in the ocean.
@@32brooksemy fav conversation…. what are you doing. We were irresponsible and left the coolers in the car and the ice was melting and getting the seats wet. So my wife was driving around with the ac on high trying to make car cool enough to stop the melting. 🤭😂😂
Yes She was mad I didn’t want to go along but I I thought it had to be a joke… she ran out of gas I had to go get her and tow car . It was very expensive .. anyway I’m closing the plugs and I’m gonna put the water on a dry spot on the lawn where we need it.
What about Paul Beckwith?
Seems they are biased towards hot models. What about the cold models?
I notice that you didn't say she was wrong about being very concerned.
I like Sabina...she, unlike many people, is capable of changing her mind.
Way to many live by the axiom, "Don't cofuse me with facts...I've already made up my mind".
A few more summers getting warmer by tenths of a degree will convince many that things are getting worse. Some will NEVER be convinced. At some point, it won't matter.
Glad to be an older person.
... Got any kids ? ... Grand kids, maybe ? ... I'm an older guy too, but MY concern is for the future, even though I wont be around to see it ...
@@bobbart4198 I have kids, and grandkids. I've been very honest sbout what just might happen in the next few decades.
I used to feel guilty about what might happen, I don't anymore...I didn't cause it, no one person did.
But, the bill is coming for the rape of planet, and I'll be dead.
Our desendants will pay dearly
for the greed we thought was was basic growth - it wasn't.
Sorry, but it was Sabine who wasn't "confused" by all the facts. Adams gives a ton of links explaining why most climate scientists disagree with the new Hansen paper.
28% is 18+ out of 8.1 billion 😢, it is mean as 91% birth rate population will be 15 billion by 2050😢, The current population of India in 2024 is 1,441,719,852, a 0.92% increase from 2023. The population of India in 2023 was 1,428,627,663, a 0.81% increase from 2022. The population of India in 2022 was 1,417,173,173, a 0.68% increase from 2021.
Eco+ nomy, nomy is human activities, so less eco more nomy indicates upcoming collapse and horrible things 😢
67% ecology destroyed, 98.97% biodiversity totally destroyed, 99.95% animal species gone extinct, 78.79% fungus species gone extinct, fungus are medicine for trees, so trees are no more immune from micro life infections, human creatures already acquired 85% land of soil on earth, 21% drinking water river got dried 😢, 2022 birth rate was 88%, 2023 91%, ecology is immune system of earth, biodiversity is nurvurs system of earth 😢, as trees are not immune from micro life infections, all green animals wil face horrible disease soon,
2025 fst cat 6 hurricane landfall 😢
2035 cat7 as temperature will be 62°c
2055 cat 8 temperature will be 65°c and 39% drinking water river will dry totally 😢
2075 fst cat 9 hurricanes will landfall 55%drinking water river will dry with 89% ecology destruction 😢
2475 Highest temperature will be 97°c 😢
Please give rest to planet 😢
I hope my knowledge and love can protect earth, knowledge is Power and love is solution,all boys can apply for my boyfriendship, minimum 10 years relationship required to be my husband, knowledge is knowing with ledger and love is creatures like to do most naturally.
Always remember, these models run on programs written by people. People make mistakes and have agendas, either their own or someone else's who has the abillity to influence them.The predicted outcomes from these models will always reflect what is programmed into them.
YES!
Good video overall! I don't get the dismissal of the nuclear potential. How do you seem to be optimistic about renowables and pesimistic about nuclear (potential), or more important effectiveness in decarbonisation. France achieved decarbonization of electricity sector in 10-15years and did it about 40years ago (That is lots of carbon not emitted cumulatively!). In comparison Germany achieved very little IMHO in past 20years, even though build rate of wind&solar is tremendous. Germany makes electricity with 405gCO2/kWh, France 53gCO2/kWh(12months average). That is failure IMHO and not good example to follow. Nuclear build times and budgets must improve off course- meaning go back to what was possible for example in Japan in early 2000ths still.
Believe me, building and commissioning a nuclear reactor and keeping it supplied with fuel, maintaining and operating it and then disposing of the waste, and cleaning up accidental spills is not a carbon neutral process, and in the end, decommisioning the plant is also conventionally costly, too.
"I don't get the dismissal of the nuclear potential."
It's not being dismissed. It is being placed in the energy mix where it is required. Like all the energy option towards emissions mitigation, it also has application along with pros and cons to be considered. It is not the the be all and end all solution.
@@tikaanipippin I could now write the same about solar and wind farms- which actually take more materials/MWh and still not produce the most important thing- reliable power. Exaggerating spent fuel issue as "problem", when it is very manageable is not very productive(many solutions, smarter or acceptable, and most important- no urgency to decide now). Climate models are complex, and hard to understand, but judging the results of ongoing experiment in the form of results from France and Germany should be much easier for people with doctorates and those without degree. No complex math is needed to compare 50gCO2/kWh and 400gCO2/kWh and that it has been achieved long time ago, mainly for national security and economy reasons (oil crisis of 1970s).
@@BrentonSmythesfieldsaye If we accept that dealing with decarbonisation is urgent matter, then building new nuclear power and doing it fast/efficient (like in 1970s, still in 2000ts in Japan with modern plants) should be the key. And prematurely closing NPPs that could run another 20+ years should be considered crime against the climate- which germany committed for the benefit of mostly putin. Is there other way to judge Energiewende? Should for example Poland (not to windy, not to sunny) follow France or Finish example or example of Germany?
@@msxcytb Why do you appear to be so invested in the topic of nuclear energy, which you have no influence over. There are vocational energy industry speicalists and experts that will sort what needs to happen, when and where.
Read through the content of global energy industry assessment and reporting organisations and you will find they are not in synch with your line of thinking. They see things differently, that nuclear energy will mainly serve a supplemental or partnering role in most situations (edit) where it is required, with a few outlier scenarios where it will provide at least in share, primary supply.
If you don't like that for whatever reason, big deal, think what ever you like, it doesn't matter because you, just like any average every day citizen, have no say in it.
Wait wait wait, how is Sabine's video on this nothing to worry about? Her video is even titled that this is something she's very worried about. With inaccurate measurements, and climate scientists being weirdly unscientific compared to other fields, defending differences in their numbers with "it's all bad" well, yeah, climate change is bad, but we still need to properly measure it in order to properly plan against it.
People's opinions WILL CHANGE... ... after it's too late.
That’s the nature of a collective active problem, to be intractable even as you see the collapse coming. All can’t work together because each knows that solitary action will make him worse off, and so refuses to take action because he knows that no one else will. There is no supra-national authority that can impose a collective solution on all and punish defectors. It’s only after collapse happens that you can see how inevitable it was.
So enjoy life while you can.
Ice Core evidence convinced me decades ago.
I started listening with interest - until, I saw the green nail polish. As we all know, proper scientists don't wear nail polish.
Sabine is a proper scientist and insanely intelligent. When she is wrong she will issue a retraction. She has no axe to grind and appears as concerned as most other people.
Entirely right, and an addtion to her clear video was totally unnecessary. She´s a leading mathematician and the estimation of these climate models is a math problem at the first place.
Irrespective of which model one prefers, they all have positive slopes.
100%
You skipped the whole part where she says we do not have data on clouds in the past as there is no proxy data on this. It is why the hot models could be correct as whatever was predicted about these has been somewhat wrong? Better safe than sorry I say, I guess it's just another scenario we really should be considering as our future (as we do not seem to take climate change serious at all if you ask me, it's still drill baby drill).
How much did sea level rise between 14000 bc and 6500 bc? What was the average rate of sea level rise during that period? What was the average rate of sea level rise over the last 150 years? 100? 50?
@user-vb8dn1oy7p The correct answer was about .55 inches per year from 14000 bc to 6500 bc; versus .06 inches per year since 1880. Hmmmmm, can you see the difference? Total rise across those periods was about 350 feet versus 9 inches; and it was 200 meters higher during the thermal peak in the Cretaceous. No humans existed to cause that one. We are discussing spending trillions of dollars to attack a statistical blip.
@user-vb8dn1oy7p No, just actual climate change. Something that we as humans cannot cause.
@user-vb8dn1oy7p wars benefit those with the strongest military. If 5 billion die, there are still 5 billion more humans; just another blip.
Emotions screw up humans' ability to think about problems logically. More CO2 and water allow us to grow more food. Those on the coast will walk uphill when their feet get wet. It just means things are different, not worse.
@user-vb8dn1oy7p 9.7 by 2050, peaking over 10.4
I studied the uncertainties in climate change modelling around 2007 as part of a masters (read about 1m high stack of papers). At the time one of the largest uncertainties in modelling was where the extra water vapor ended up the atmosphere (more heat more evaporation) high level clouds == heating, low level clouds == cooling. At the time none of the models could do no more than use a a range of estimated parameters to include the cloud effects.
The issue at the time was models were finite element based which were capable of resolving the extra water vapor which can be modelled locally in each element however cloud formation is not a local.
It's been a long time since I have had open access to scientific papers but I have often wondered whether the cloud problem had been resolved
No, the models' inability to do clouds has never been resolved. Much more complicated than just high and low level also. Much depends on latitude - clouds in tropics and mid latiudes cause cooling by increasing albedo, and loweing insolence on oceans. But more clouds in polar and high high latitudes help retain warmth. But lost warming in tropics is much greater than retained warmth at poles where Sun has low angle of incidence, and albedo is already high from snow/ice) so net effect of more clouds is cooling. Afaik most models assume more clouds more warming. Iirc, a small decrease (1 or 2 %) in average tropical mid latitude cloud cover can lead to 12 times more warming than from anthropogenic CO2. The whole climate change industry is predicated on bollocks. But too many university departments, research funds and peoples' rent and mortgages depend on keeping it going so the scam will continue for decades.
The big change in atmospheric retention of heat is due to the enormous increase in water vapour over the planet as a result of the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai eruption in January 2022. This was one of the biggest volcanic eruptions in recorded history. Detonating underwater with the force of 100 Hiroshima bombs, the blast sent millions of tons of water vapor high into the atmosphere. Have you noticed the unprecedented flooding around the earth, and the red sunrises and sunsets?
@@lapoguslapogus7161 Thanks for useful explanation.
@@rodneyplewright7685 any reference to scientific papers or is this just a personal theory um err guess?
Not just a guess, but my own conclusions putting together some facts and figures about what effects weather and climate that I've learnt over time, plus just observing the news reports about unprecedented flooding around the planet..@@James-i3x7b
I get tired of people telling me to worry about climate change when they don't even seem to be able to turn down their own heating and wear warm clothes indoors.
The measures to mitigate climate change are disproportionately hitting poor families, while the middle class scientists and politicians fly around the world as if nothing has changed.
When I see those who are hyping the climate issue actually living in a consistant manner with their words, I will take them seriously.
I get tired of the mantra that renewables are cheaper. Current strike prices for offshore wind are similar to non renewables. This without the consideration that we will need to build in massive over capacity to account for differences in wind and cloud. This means having none renewables as backup or masses of extra panels or turbines which will be redundant much of the time,😮 and yet will still expect to receive payments.
I never see these things discussed in the main media. When discusssion doesn't happen, when everyone seems to be saying the same thing, people become suspicious. When there are scientists who have a view that is different but are never debated on mainstream media, people suspect a conspiracy.
Truly, if the predictions are correct, we should all dial down our lifestyles so that we cut our use of the planetary resources. Yet every politician seems to be pushing for economic growth and greater expectations. I know of only one couple who tried to live their life consistently with their environmental beliefs. Their life was incredibly tough and not helped by the fact that they were swimming against a tide of consumerism. Their marriage failed and now they need two properties rathe than one in which to live and bring up their family.
I am tired of the hypocrisy. If people who watch these videos believe what is said, then live consistently with those ideas.
Interestingly the people who do actually get the closest to this are the poor. They cannot afford to go on holiday, to buy much stuff, to have their own car or to heat their homes. Yet from my experience, all they want is to live the kind of lives that they see lived by people like this oxford graduate.
I disagree with your assessment that Sabine is wrong about "we are doomed if the sensetivity is high". The higher the sensetivity the less time we have to make important changes. Since we have not even started to move into the right direction (the production of fossil fuels is still rising and no amount of nuclear or renewables has any effect on that), a high sensitivity dramatically narrows the window we have. I totally agree with Sabine: if sensetivity is high we are truely f**ked.
A) Because "we" suddenly includes even elder generations that might somehow think: "not my problem, by 2100 I am dead anyways".
B) If the climate changes fast the economical and ecological consequences hit so much harder.
C) We might reach critical tipping points even before we realize they are there.
D) We have not enough time to develop any technology we might need (fusion, AI, novel renewable fuels, electrical airplanes and ships) and infrastructure (EVs and stations to reload, more trains, green housing, green food and stuff production etc),
E) We need urgent social, political and economical changes. Stop wars, distribute resources fairly, focus on happiness rather on wealth and power, reduce competition - improve co-operation etc) and we are really far, far away from achieving that.
The less time we have, the worse it is. Plants and crops, animals, individual humans, communities, societies and companies can not addapt in time.
The IPCC has continually underestimated how fast the climate changes. That does not serve us well. We are litterally running out of time.
"We need urgent social, political and economical changes. Stop wars, distribute resources fairly, focus on happiness rather on wealth and power, reduce competition - improve co-operation etc) and we are really far, far away from achieving that." What? That'd just lead to massive more amount of pollution.
Can you please look at the IPCC AR1and just below the section "How do we know the natural greenhouse effect is real?" there is an image/graph "Figure 2: Analysis of air trapped in Antarctic ice cores"...... Am I reading that wrong or is the methane level insanely high and a correction of PPMV to PPBV still does not fix things? If it is wrong how does that immediately jump out to me first read yet not get corrected in the last version of print after review by so many??
even sabine wants those numbers to be wrong
Exactly!
Excellent video! But why on earth would someone use green nail polish? ;-)
Green fingers is appropriate for the topic lol.
Getting in touch with his feminine side? Maybe it's special magic nail polish that helps dissolve SuperGlue which he uses to glue his hand to art work with....after the media have got bored and left, of course.
Ummm, the second you made the argument that models that work cannot, by definition, be scaled in both voxel space and time step size you lost your argument. The foundational mathematics behind this was validated in the 1930s. A properly complete model can be scaled all the way down to the Planck length and Planck time.
I think the argument was that weather models don't have to deal with long-term events, such as the thawing of tundra or the overall change in albedo.
Thus, a model that's great at predicting next week's weather might still suck at predicting climate. And vice versa.
@@karolinahagegard The model he claimed is inaccurate is a climate model that can also predict weather, not a weather model that predicts climate. Besides, a weather model which does not factor in albedo is straight-up inaccurate after about six hours.
When i was 10. Back in 1969 scientists predicted an ice age by the year 2000. I was terrified for years. So i have a difficult time trusting scientists as a scientist myself
In the 1970’s, a handful of scientists (not a consensus) indicated that human caused air pollution was increasing and aerosols (particulate matter) in our atmosphere would cause cooling due to an albedo effect. As a result of observations and a switch to cleaner fuel burning, this no longer seen as a problem.
An examination of peer-reviewed scientific literature conducted by a group of researchers in 2008, covering the mid-1960s through the 1970s, revealed that papers warning of global warming outnumbered those projecting cooling by a factor of six. So climate change in the form of global warming was a widespread topic of concern during this era, and there was no consensus that the Earth would cool in the immediate future.
Search for this,
"Peterson, T. C., Connolley, W. M., & Fleck, J. (2008). The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 89(9), 1325-1337".
Anyone know what his Phd was in?
Carbon capture = grow bamboo and similar, pyrolize, then restore carbon levels in soils (green revolution farming = dirt + soil carbon going into atmosphere)
Agreed. Afforrestation aside, biochar and carbon farming seem like the most immediately realizable ways to remove CO2. Ocean alkalinity enhancement is promising too and has the added benefit of, well, enhancing the alkalinity of the ocean and counteracting the acidification that has been happening.
If you successfully removed all the "excess" co2 from the atmosphere how much would it effect crop production, seeing as all plants need co2 to grow? What is the optimal amount of co2 needed for crop production and are we above it?
She should've hired you as a consultant again
From what I can see; the methane tipping point has been reached and we could be seeing 5-10C rises, within a few decades, regardless of what we do. I'd love to know your thoughts on this, AMOC collapse and other tipping points?
Pole shift
@@terrific804 why would the poles in any way be related to climate when the mechanism creating the magnetosphere is based on internal movements of the Earth's core and mantle?
@@sertakiit’s just convective action of molten iron. Not the crust, not enough charge movement to generate a field worth considering. The magnetosphere IS related to our climate though. The climate doesn’t affect our magnetosphere, but our magnetosphere does affect our climate. If you don’t believe me, look up the paper “A Global Environmental Crisis 42,000 years ago” published by science magazine authored by Alan Cooper et. al.
Of course it’s not the only driver, but the notion that the magnetosphere doesn’t affect the climate because air isn’t ferrous is EXACTLY like saying we only use 1/3 of their brain. It’s a pop science interpretation of a nuanced statement that ends up being completely untrue, not just kind of wrong.
Methane tipping point?? Methane rapidly oxidizes in the atmosphere. It makes up 1.7 parts per million of the atmosphere. This is not enough mass to affect the climate at all.
Also - nitrous oxide makes up 300 parts per BILLION and does not have enough mass to affect the climate at all.
Sadly, as I see it the feces is going to have to hit the rotary oscillating device before mankind gets serious about the effects of climate change. But then it will be too late. I am just glad to be old and won't have to witness the worst of it. But, my daughters (and yours) will. I think we can all agree that climate change is real and that many (or all) of Sabine's predictions are likely to come true.
Hi Adam, do you know that the warming effect of each atom of CO2 decreases with increased concentration in the atmosphere? The response is logarithmic with the largest effect occurring at low concentrations of below 200ppm. For each doubling of the concentration of CO2 above this (400, 800, 1600, 3200…) the corresponding accumulative warm effect increase becomes ever increasingly smaller. Effectively at 400ppm we are at near saturation of the warming effect impact of CO2. As such these hot models must be changing more than CO2 concentrations to account for significant temperature increases or they are not adhering to the physical impact of increased CO2 concentrations.
Excellent point! 👍
Absorption and emission is something almost every has forgotten since school and almost no so called experts are talking about.
Actually, Adam knows that you're mistaken.
You've been listening to the wrong people.
This logarithmic effect seems to be undisputed. The counter argument I keep hearing to justify runaway warming is that although the warming contributions are ever smaller, the total warming does steadily increase but the great majority is trapped at lower levels and is only able to escape to space at the outer limits of the atmosphere. So by this theory, the net warming increases ever more slowly, but without limit. If anyone knows more about experiments done to test this theory please weigh in.
My concern is that we are reduced to arguing this out in the court of public opinion rather than doing controlled experiments which should be the gold standard. It's like two chess players engaging in an endless debate about who is the better player when a series of games would provide an objective and far quicker measure of who actually is better!
Good day Adam: could you please make a video about the RCP-scenarios for future CO2-emissions?
RCP8.5 projects a doubling of our current use of fossil fuels and a doubling of CO2-emissions
RCP6.0 projects CO2-emissions increasing until 2060 before declining.
In my humble opinion the projections are complete bollocks, will never happen.
What do you think?
Doubling CO2 emissions means that plantgrowth will increase so that the CO2 percentage will increase a very little to a new equilibrium. No reason to panic and jump to EV's.
@@JongJande: we are running out of easy accessible oil. Maybe not next year, but surely next decade.
People have been try to model stock markets for 100 years, and keep losing money.
But these climatologists actually think their models are corrects.
Many thanks for your video!
I would trust models that show accurate predictive capabilities, by predicting data bot past and present without tuning parameters to fit each batch of data .
"I would trust models that show accurate predictive capabilities"
You don't trust any existing models then
mate, you're talking about the capacity to read the future, no models don't adjust overtime and plays with their parameters, even the sound statistically theory behind are limited by the reality of limited data (of good quality) and capacity to gather data, or plain calculation power to handle these
The climate goes too slowly, that's the problem. If only a few hundred thousand years could happen in a year!...
Then, by the end of that year, we would have all the data necessary to make a robust and accurate climate model. 😊
Personally, I would like to time travel to the past, and collect as many "models" of future predictions and then see how many actually were in any way accurate. I seem to remember a few decades ago, people saying we would already all be dead by now.
Thank you, this really helped understanding everything.
According to Hansen et al. ECS of 2xCO2 is 8 degrees centigrade. Furthermore we are at 2XCO2 totaling other GHGs and albedo change.
Wait, albedo change is a consequence of warming and it is pretty unconventional to factor that into 2xCO₂.
@@bernhardschmalhofer855 The warming effect of 2xCO2 depends on the context! On a reflective ice ball it will be very different than a dark blue ocean. This is an important critique to many paleoclimate studies that ignore other parameters such as the earth total albedo when considering the net contributions of GHG's!
Whatever your models say, it's prudent to be cautious rather than risky if virtually everything is at stake.
As I said on her pod cast. The idea the modelers, how many, all of them left super cooled water out of clouds is startling. I remarked could they have left fish out too?
To paraphrase: It is not important, whether the piece of cake has 300 or 600 kcals. It is a big difference, whether I ate 1 or 10 of them ;)
I get all of Adam's points, but I still think it misinterprets Sabine's larger message, which is that there are low-probability/high-consequence risks that can't be ignored. Maybe that's clearer in the context of her earlier videos where she came across as more sanguine about the problem but now has recognized that those long-tail risks are more severe. I think this has some value for the nerdiest of physics nerds who enjoy her videos on very esoteric topics but haven't really engaged on climate change, which is such an interdisciplinary topic that is pretty remote from things like dark matter and quantum gravity.
And I do agree with Sabine about the "glue protests." We need more people working their elected officials relentlessly to put a price on carbon, not carrying out foolish publicity stunts.
02:00 🌍 Climate sensitivity, specifically equilibrium climate sensitivity, is a key metric in climate science. It gauges how much the world would warm if the atmospheric carbon dioxide doubled and everything reached equilibrium.
03:27 📊 As of 2019, climate models estimated sensitivity between 2 and 4.5 degrees Celsius. These models simulate complex interactions of physics governing climate processes.
04:34 🤔 Climate scientists use multiple approaches to estimate sensitivity. Some models with higher sensitivity values have raised concerns and prompted scrutiny.
07:37 🔄 A study in 2020 compiled paleoclimate data, indicating a sensitivity range of 2.6 to 3.9 degrees Celsius. This approach considers historical climate changes, natural variations, and physical processes.
09:11 🧪 Variations in climate models often stem from uncertainties in simulating complex processes, especially related to clouds. The study scrutinized by Sabina Hossenfelder supports higher sensitivity values.
11:05 🌐 Multiple studies contribute to understanding climate sensitivity. It's not about dismissing high sensitivity but considering the entirety of evidence to derive the most plausible estimate.
13:34 🌡 Higher sensitivity values, if accurate, could accelerate global temperature rise. Recent temperature increases align with projections, and the discussion isn't about dismissal but evaluating the evidence comprehensively.
16:48 💡 Combating climate change requires a comprehensive approach, including carbon pricing, renewable energy expansion, and possibly nuclear energy. Carbon dioxide removal is seen as a necessary but challenging solution.
18:15 😨 Climate change impacts are already severe, regardless of sensitivity estimates. The urgency lies in reducing greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate future impacts, emphasizing the need for swift action.
thank u, kind netizen
Do the models you are using as reference take in to account variable methane emissions from the Arctic and other areas?
Climate sensitivity is a theoretical metric regarding co2 concentrations specifically.
@@ClimateAdam “Climate Sensitivity” is an incomplete metric then, and that very fact reinforces Sabine’s concerns. I should add that the New Zealand scientist, Sir Ian Axford, a scientist with considerable computational skills, became quite distressed about the acceleration impact of CH4 to Global Warming and subsequent Climate Change from the thawing Russian Steppes, towards the end of his life.
@@williambunting803 Wow! I had no idea that Climate Sensitivity does not include the CO₂ equivalent warming capacity of methane (20 year calculation please) and other climate forcing gasses like NOx! Tell Sabine it's even worse than she thought!
@@ClimateAdam I find almost irresponsible to concentrate only on co2 concentrations where there are so mnay other parameters that drive our climate. It is like we have a fixation on this. I agree with @williambunting803. Climate sensitivity needs way more to mean something.
@@ClimateAdam Wait, I thought they all used top of atmosphere radiative forcing? That this is given in doubling of CO2 is besides the point as that is just the units used to describe it? Like we could methane up by 20% if we wanted. It's all the same physics.
Thus is just like if we used feet instead of meters.
I appreciate the video. I'm confused that it sounds like your saying averaging the model results is like averaging the evidence, and it's the most likely outcome. That sounds wrong to me. Did I miss understand that?
I'm studying paleoclimate and I was chomping at the bit waiting to hear your response on this video/paper! Thanks for making this!
I'm also a paleo-climatology nerd 🦥 🦕 🌴
Endless fun
What is the timescale for a paleoclimate estimation? What precision can we get to with that?
Compare the measurement data from satellites and balloons with the projections in the IPCC reports. John Christy has done this. The actual temperatures were below all models.
Nice video Adam. Thanks for taking the time to do this. In the "green growth vs degrowth" argument, I'm definitely in the latter camp.
But it´s a dream, real people don´t act that way.
Sabine Hossenfelder has already shown herself to be someone nobody should take seriously. Her videos on autism and trans people were atrocious. By comparison, this video seems halfway decent. I honestly think she's doing a lot of harm by communicating about science outside her area of expertise without proper support from scientists who know the field better. Given her reaction to criticism about this, I don't know if it's hubris or malice at this point.
Honestly even within her own area of expertise she doesn't communicate well. She goes for the controversial hot take instead of representing the scientific consensus and often ends up passing an opinion as a fact