Sabine Hossenfelder 
Want to restore the planet’s ecosystems and see your impact in monthly videos? The first 200 people to join Planet Wild with my code will get the first month for free at https://www.planetwild.com/sabinehossenfelder/2/pines
If you want to get to know them better first, check out their latest video: Restoring an ancient forest by doing the opposite of tree planting https://www.planetwild.com/sabinehossenfelder/12_2
Some climate scientists have reacted to my previous video about climate sensitivity. In this video, I elaborate on my thoughts regarding the IPCC’s projections and why it worries me how they are dealing with the uncertainty of the climate model outputs.
đ¤ Check out our new quiz app â http://quizwithit.com/
đ Support us on Donatebox â https://donorbox.org/swtg
đ Transcripts and written news on Substack â https://sciencewtg.substack.com/
đ Transcript with links to references on Patreon â https://www.patreon.com/Sabine
đŠ Free weekly science newsletter â https://sabinehossenfelder.com/newsletter/
đ Audio only podcast â https://open.spotify.com/show/0MkNfXlKnMPEUMEeKQYmYC
đ Join this channel to get access to perks â
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1yNl2E66ZzKApQdRuTQ4tw/join
đŧī¸ On instagram â https://www.instagram.com/sciencewtg/
#climate #science
source
About The Author
How hot is the center of the core in Earth? Does it matter? How does something like molten Iron stay hot for 3 billion years? Does the rotation of the core matter?
The gas that reaches the surface thru the oceans and the ground, do they affect the climate. If a dozen volcanoes erupted with massive discharges of Sulphur Dioxide into the atmosphere along with enough ash to block out the sun for an extended period of time what would happen?
Why in the world, especially in todays world, where the scientists have been so discredited, would you even consider going political with this??? Idiot move! Stick to the science!
Modern day climate science lecture goes like this, "The world is burning, we need to stop it, our models show how it happened and how to fix it. Students, don't be bother with distractions such as data accuracy and integrity, model's conclusions and predictions. You don't need to question that, just trust us. Now, go out there to disrupt traffic, destroy precious arts, interrupt cultural and sport events and whatever way you think it's necessary to save humanity by wrecking chaos to the present society, class dismissed!"
Climate change is simply a hoax.
Throwing out data because you feel it's "too big" is, certainly, a bad thing to do. But that's the only reason people seem to be giving for the bad news. Was there a problem with the methodology? Or maybe the tools used were incorrectly calibrated? "Well, it's just different then what we've gotten historically, so it must be wrong." Oh. Oh no. Also: Nobody likes hopeless news. And that sensitivity of over 5 is very hopeless news. Better to pretend that there's something that can be done. Even up to the worst possible outcome, we're going to keep pretending that's it's not so bad and everything will work out "as long we pull ourselves together and knuckle down to get it done".
Note how few billion buckaroos are targeting Venus to repopulate.
Here is what drives me crazy about Climate change that scientist are ignoring. -"We are still in the last Ice Age , have not yet exited from the last Glacial Maximum, all the northern & southern high latitudes & Altitudes are yet still Frozen. Planet Earth is Too Cold, whether by us or by Volcanoes(*) & Methane Hydrate, It's all the Same, we need to warm up, what's taking it so damn long." -(*)there seems to be a $hit-Ton of Volcanoes Blowing off right now, some of them quite Large
such a myth to enable more taxation
When there's money to be made it's easy to make the research fit your agenda
Remember throughout history it's not the smartest or the strongest that survive it's the ones that adapt
Confirmation bias is the primary reason that your followers make comments. Critical thinking is reflexively rejected.
People worry about most scientists not just the climate scientists, for example people worry most about scientists who still want nuclear reactors and processed food.
I believe in you SabineâĻ.. You are honest
Believe or not CO2 has no influence on the temperature expecte those how want to heat- Pumps,. but to save pertrolium o.k. smell the difference ?!
The temperature increased by 0.05 Âą 0.7 (p=0.98) the hottest day ever !
The quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere has steadily dropped down from 440 ppm to 425 ppm, yet average global temperatures have been reported to be rising. Does this drop in atmospheric CO2 give a good indication that low levels of CO2 do not cause any significant rise in global temperatures. At 440 ppm equates only to CO2 making up only 0.04% of our atmosphere. And at 0.04% so science classes this level as a trace element only, i.e. insignificant.
I certainly agree it matters greatly, but I'm not entirely sold on the arguments for those hot models being correct in the first place, i.e. that the short-term models being more accurate making them good predictors for such long-term changes. That being said it's certainly not impossible, we've seen some extremely worrying trends lately with potentially a lot of unexpected warming having been masked by aerosols and the dramatic shift from a negative to positive energy imbalance in the Northern Hemisphere about a decade ago. This could get out of hand fast.
Dear Sabine & Allies – Finally, a problem we agree on, 100%! So, here's a copy of a Comment I just posted to "Climate Adam" (in his lame critique of your very fine CC video):
> "Thanks (Adam) for provoking more thinking & discussion. Yet, considering the facts and the more realistic approach of actuarial science (see the paper "The Emperors New Climate Change Scenarios" and the book "Five Times Faster") – and the fact that "we" simply are not gathering enough global geophysical data fast enough to avoid being fooled about how fast all the forcing-factors are interacting to accelerate the rate of warming & glacial-meltdown – it seems to me that the salient point, re: The Tipping Point issue is simply that Earth's climate change can accelerate/deccelerate much more rapidly than technicians & modelers can predict. Thus, actuarial statisticians are really much more cautious, having to warn major stockholders, hedge fund mgr.s, insurance corp. CFOs, and reinsurers about the most likely worst-case scenarios threatening them with possibly terminal financial losses (etc.)."
So Bravo!!! Sabine, this new video on extreme CC and extreme scientistic bias (SB/BS) is Way mo betta! We agree with the actuarial experts on the appropriate response to the threat and to the SB/BS. Yet, we can upgrade your brilliant response by mentioning how the DKES (Dunning-Kruger effect/syndrome) and subliminal cowardice enable & aggravate salience bias and confirmation bias (etc.). Thanks again & best of luck etc. ~ M
Look In 59 Edward Teller told the American Petroleum Institute and the Columbia Graduate School of Business : in part (from Guardian)
Carbon dioxide has a strange property. It transmits visible light but it absorbs the infrared radiation which is emitted from the earth. Its presence in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect [….] It has been calculated that a temperature rise corresponding to a 10 per cent increase in carbon dioxide will be sufficient to melt the icecap and submerge New York. All the coastal cities would be covered, and since a considerable percentage of the human race lives in coastal regions, I think that this chemical contamination is more serious than most people tend to believe.At present the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 2 per cent over normal. By 1970, it will be perhaps 4 per cent, by 1980, 8 per cent, by 1990, 16 per cent [about 360 parts per million, by Tellerâs accounting], if we keep on with our exponential rise in the use of purely conventional fuels. By that time, there will be a serious additional impediment for the radiation leaving the earth. Our planet will get a little warmer. It is hard to say whether it will be 2 degrees Fahrenheit or only one or 5.
The details of climate science aren't as important as the gross observations about the rate of warming. You've clearly got to stop putting so much carbon into the atmosphere.
The problems of dealing with climate are largely political and economic. The average of the best theories should match the data collected up to now for practical purposes,
at least that should be a big part of what determines what the best theories are.
I sure nature will cope fine without us. Hopefully, the next inhabitants will appreciate it more.
Always something interesting. (:
I don't give a shit about climate change