Did scientists get climate change wrong?

Did scientists get climate change wrong?

Hi everybody. Today I’m visiting the
University of Oxford and I’m here to talk to Professor Tim Palmer about
climate models. Tim, on the weekend I read this article in the New York Times. It
was titled “How scientists got climate change so wrong” and it was mostly about
weather extremes and said that climate change has been much more abrupt than
climate scientists expected. And I was wondering if that’s really the whole
story. Because I kind of remember that people were talking about tipping points
and unstable equilibria already in the 80s. So, I was a little bit surprised
about this and I thought maybe I should I should ask you what do you think about
this. Well, the first thing to say is it’s kind of interesting that now for decades
having been attacked by the climate skeptic stroke denier community that the
models are somehow useless, now the attack is coming from the other side
saying the models are somehow too conservative and not telling us enough
about the extremes. Now I guess there’s a couple of points to make here. The first
thing is from a scientific point of view most of the focus of the model
predictions has been on global mean temperature and the reason for that is
sort of you know because that’s you know that’s that’s the basic thing that
increased carbon dioxide is doing to the to the atmosphere, it’s increasing the
surface temperature and by measuring the the global average of this what you’re
actually doing is is is measuring, or predicting a quantity where the
signal-to-noise is maximal, the signal being the effect of the carbon
dioxide forcing that we’re putting into the atmosphere and the noise being the
internal variability of climate, the fluctuations that really have nothing to
do with increasing levels of co2 but just arise from the
the natural chaotic variability of the atmosphere. So when we go on to global
scales this the chaotic variability is actually at a minimum and the impact of
the co2 forcing is at a maximum so from a from a science point of view that
actually is a very kind of robust indicator of how carbon dioxide is
changing the climate, it’s warming the global temperature. And actually I would
say that the models from the 20th century through to the present day have
been remarkably accurate in predicting the rise in global temperature. So,
from that point of view I don’t I don’t think the models have been you know
under estimating the effect of carbon dioxide on global warming. However, when
we come to talk about more regional extremes so things like particular heat
waves – could be over Europe or United States – or you know flooding events or
intense hurricanes or tropical cyclones or indeed as you say kind of tipping
point types of phenomena, then you’re dealing with a situation where the
internal variability of the atmosphere is much greater and the signal therefore
relatively speaking is smaller, so it becomes the more difficult statistical
exercise. But on the other hand this is exactly what people want to know. I mean
nobody physically is affected by global mean temperature but they are affected
by extremes of weather. And I think basically what this is the
article is is correctly pointing to is the need you know now we’ve established
beyond doubt I would say that humankind is warming the planet we need to think
in much more detail and much more your much more accuracy what this implies for
regional extremes of temporal extremes of weather and climate so there are two
issues here one is you know one is is developing this sort
of statistical techniques where we can be confident in saying that such and
such a weather event or climatic event had a had an anthropogenic if had an
anthropogenic component in other words part of it was due to the fact that we
are increasing co2 levels but it also puts for very much an onus on climate
models to be able to simulate these extremes well and actually that’s an
area where I think we can still improve things considerably so I think that the
article I think it got a it it sort of exaggerated some aspects of the issue
particularly in relation to global mean temperature but it correctly drew
attention to the fact that we do need to focus much more on our ability to
simulate and predict and assess how extremes of weather and climate are
being affected by climate change forcing so speaking about the quality of the
predictions you told me something about this figure 9.8 in the IPCC report and
this took me forever to understand but I will I will try to summarize what’s in
the figure and had you told me if that’s if that’s about correct so what you see
in the figure is the temperature anomaly for a period of years and so the
temperature anomaly is the it’s the global temperature basically up to a
reference value and this reference value on this figure is is in the yellow
region which is from the years 61 to 1990 and so all the thin squiggly lines
are the predictions from the different models and the red line is the average
from the models and the three black lines are the data from different
organizations and so what I what I didn’t understand for mr. Craig it’s not
the data from different organizations is how different organizations analyze the
data to the the common data sets to produce
estimates of global temperature yeah so so what what I didn’t understand forever
was what’s this little bar on the right side where it says mean temperature so
that’s the actual temperature the absolute temperature that these models
predict in this region from 61 to 1990 so basically tells you that the spread
in the in the absolute temperatures is much larger than the uncertainty you
know the little squiggles in these models in in the whole region where they
have data right so I think what this figure tells us is that the models all
agree that there is a certain trend you know looks pretty good you know in terms
of forecasting but it also tells me that you know the models have some difficulty
getting they are full of temperatures right yeah it just highlights the fact I
think I think perhaps it might be worth backing off a bit here and saying that
these models are attempt to represent the climate of the earth from pretty
much first principles you know from the basic laws of physics so from Newton’s
laws of motion as expressed in you know the what are called the navier-stokes
equations of fluid mechanics to equations which basically represent the
laws of thermodynamics in a in a sort of in terms of differential equations
coupled together with laws which express more quantum mechanical laws which
express how photons from the Sun are absorbed by different molecules and so
on in the atmosphere and re-radiated back to space within the infrared so
these are all very basic sort of equations they’re not you know it’s not
that we’re just kind of guessing empirically
how we think the the world works you know by just sort of drawing equations
out of a hat and putting them into a computer these are the basic laws of
physics now if you look at it from that point of view trying to get exactly the
right you know good to simulate exactly the right surface temperature of the
earth which you have to remember you know over the oceans the surface
temperature is is a very sort of complicated balance between you know
regions of weather whether the ocean is ocean water is sinking and other areas
where it’s rising to the surface and regions where the Sun warms the surface
other regions where you know you’re under cloud and there’s very little Sun
so getting the surface temperature not only requires for example getting the
dynamics of the ocean right it requires getting all that cloud cover right in
the right place so it’s a really really really complicated and difficult thing
to get right that’s the first thing to say and the little bar on the right hand
side is just pointing out that actually you know it’s a kind of manifestation of
that problem because the range of estimates of global mean temperature
from the models actually range over a few degrees which is which is much
larger than this trend in temperature that we’ve seen over the last you know
6070 years or so now I don’t think this particularly undermines there where it
doesn’t undermine the projections of global temperature it doesn’t it doesn’t
I don’t think it casts any doubt that the trends in in temperature that we’ve
seen over the the last 70 years are indeed directly associated with human
emission of carbon dioxide but what it indicates is that you know we still have
some way to go before we can say we have simulated the climate system to the
extent that you really can’t tell now if I you know
if I show you output from a climate model you can’t tell whether you’re
looking at a model or the real world we still have some way to go to do that and
that’s particularly becomes particularly important and more at the regional level for example you know we talked a little
bit earlier about tipping points and these are these are kind of what you
might call very nonlinear transitions sudden transitions in the in the climate
system getting these right actually does depend on getting the actual absolute
values of temperature right so for example if you take the melting of you
know I mean there’s a concern that the melting of Greenland ice and actually
the sort of disintegration of the Greenland ice core caused by you know
the lubrication of the surface the bedrock from from melting water I mean
that requires models to get that absolute that the temperature right
because water fresh water at these freezes at 0 degrees so if you have a
two degree bias or something I mean that you’re going to get that process wrong
another example is is possible tipping points for the bias here where you know
either due to heat or or combination of heat and and an availability of moisture
of rainfall you know a forest can suddenly become no longer
self-sustaining and will collapse but again that to be able to model that
requires getting these temperatures and rainfall amounts not right in a kind of
anomalous sense but getting right absolutely
and all that I think that what that bar on the right hand side I don’t think it
should make us doubt at all that the temperature is warming due to co2 but
what it what it’s indicative of is the fact that we you know particularly now
as climate really starts to become an important societal issue we’ve got to
step up a gear in getting our models bias-free yeah so this bar on the right
side this was one of the things that our dinner around
and about this figure the other thing is that I find it peculiar that you have
the prediction from these models but the predictions don’t have any uncertainty
attached to them which is what what I would expect would be the output of such
a model so my understanding is that the the figure that for the projection of
the increase in temperature until the year 2100 or something in the IPCC
report it has an uncertainty and that’s basically the spread in the projections
from the different models not actually the uncertainty from the models okay I
mean so the first thing to say is that the whole philosophy underlying the IPCC
report is that it’s it’s an assessment of the you know of the state of the art
of climate science as as determined by the peer-reviewed publications that
exist at the time the report is written now there are many climate Institute’s
around the world you know typically certainly virtually all of the bigger
countries of the world have their own weather or climate Institute’s and and
they they have their own climate models they might be they might be literally
their own model produced by scientists in-house or they might have taken the
code from from another institution and maybe done some modifications and you
know produced produced results for that model now many Institute’s do not have
sufficient computing resources to actually run the model itself in a kind
of ensemble mode where they might produce you know 50 projections where
you try to buy a number of different possible ways of representing
uncertainty in the particularly the so called sub grid parameterization so
that’s the most unser and part of climate models you have to
represent processes cloud processes perhaps the most important uh which are
occurring on scales where where the model can’t resolve the grids of spacing
between the grid points in the model is larger than that you know typical size
of the cloud I mean many climate models have grid spacings of many tens that you
know you may be up to 100 kilometers or as individual clouds they’re just you
know a few kilometres and big ones induce comatose in the horizontal
horizontal sorry in the horizontal yes it would be less in the vertical so many
climate Institute’s don’t have the computational resources to to try to
explore the uncertainty in the you know in the very in the in the sub grid
parameterizations so they would they would typically just
have one one run or one or two let’s say other other Institute’s may have may
have multiple ensemble integrations where they do I mean the Met Office the
UK Met Office is a good example where they produce very large ensembles of
climate change integrations where they try to exactly do what you say try to
perturb the uncertain parts of the of the models maybe using some kind of
stochastic process and then run these but for these IPCC assessments you know
to avoid being dominated by you know if one Institute had a hundred runs and the
others only had one you know you’d be dominated by the center which had a
hundred so I suppose you know a way of a way of dealing that with that is just to
make the assumption that the ensemble of all of these different models is itself
a reasonable representation of model uncertainty now you can argue whether
that’s true or not and I would argue certainly on the again coming down to
the regional scale that’s probably not a good assumption but I think for these
global mean temperatures it’s not a bad so what do you think are the main
reasons that the predictions from the different models diverge well there’ll
be a little bit of divergence from chaos if you like that you know if you just
started them from infinitesimally different initial start initial starting
conditions the butterfly effect will actually produce a certain amount of
spread but that’s probably not the that isn’t really the major contribution to
uncertainty it comes from the uncertainty in in how to represent
processes which you know are important for climate but where you don’t have the
computational resources to resolve them so you have to parameterize to use the
bit of the jug and parameterize these sub grid processes with very simple well
it’s relatively simple anyway formula which you know which and then so you
have a closure formula so there is a basic assumption somewhere where you
would say okay if I know the temperature in a grid box and I know the humidity in
the grid box and you know maybe some other variables the wind and so on I can
predict in a bulk sense what the cloud the amount of cloud in that grid box you
know whether it’ll be completely cloud free or completely cloud covered or you
know 50/50 or something like that half covered and half creek so so there’d be
a formula which would be based on these these resolved scale variables now you
know in reality there isn’t such a formula you know it’s not like nature
you can’t go up and you know read of a textbook on physics and discover what
that formula is because there is no formula like that so different groups
may come up with different formulae different closure schemes for you know for various reasons they
may have some datasets which other groups don’t have which may be supports
their formula or whatever it is I mean my own view is that the only way to deal
with this objectively is to express all of these sub closure schemes in a
stochastic way using kind of some ideas of random variables and just acknowledge
that that’s actually from from a basic physics point of view that is the best
way to represent uncertain processes but but in any case the origin of the
uncertainty is this sub grid the sub grid parameterizations and you know of
them of all of them the most important our cloud processes but there’s also
other things to do with you know how you represent topography the mountains of
the earth you know if you have a very sharp flow that’s blocking so if you
have a very sharp barrier that’s blocking some flow the the the width of
the barrier might actually be too small to represent with your grid if your grid
you’re with your finite grid so you have to try to represent that blocking effect
in a in a more approximate way I mean that’s just one example but and the
oceans you know the oceans have what are called a mesoscale Eddie’s which are
really important for determining how strong currents like the Gulf Stream or
the Kuroshio Current in the Pacific are but again you know modern-day climate
models the ocean the ocean part of these climate models is the resolution is I
mean we’re getting starting to get getting close to being able to resolve
these types of ocean eddies but we’re not really there yet so they have to be
parameterized and again that’s the source of uncertainty so I guess this
brings up the obvious question what can be done about it well you see the the
the issue you know the the interesting thing from my point of view is that
climate has to have gone in the last few years from
something that it’s always been potentially of societal concern but I
think a lot of a lot of scientists felt that although you know the the societal
concerns were important in a way that the the the tools that they had were if
you like primarily being used for scientific research to really understand you know the way in which for example
co2 in house co2 emissions would impact on different parts of the climate system
it was it was a yeah I mean you know it’s a scientific endeavor but what’s
literally happened you know in the last year or two is that it suddenly become
this incredibly pressing societal issue you know we’re seeing all around the
world these quite devastating weather events which are you know affecting
people’s lives and society has got to know what can they expect in the future
and how can they better prepare for the future what sorts of you know buildings
do we need to withstand these extremes where should we be living to withstand
these extremes you know can the can the human body actually literally exist in
parts of the world where temperatures and humidity –zz become once they reach
a certain level so it’s kind of gone from a you know a society important that
fundamentally scientific question – one that really is societally crucial and I
think therefore as a result of that we’ve got to think much more in a much
more pressing way about making these models fully realistic and accurate and
really trying to eliminate where possible these these parameters
which just are just to approximate and we know in a way the the the bottom line
is the resolution of the model in other words the spacing between the grid
points that’s what you know that’s having having these grid spacings of
many tens or hundreds of kilometres means that many of these important
processes key types of cloud processes ocean meso-scale eddies, the flow over orography, topography, whatever you want to call it, have to be parametrized. We
know if we can get the grid down to, say, about one kilometer globally then we can
eliminate certain – not all parameterizations – but probably the most
important ones. And I feel, given this new sort of urgency to try to be able to
answer questions which governments around the world and individuals around
the world are asking about and that and the New York Times article drew
attention to about extremes how you know how I mean we’re you know this week for
example in the UK there was considerable flooding in in an area near Doncaster
hundreds of people had to leave their houses I mean that’s the kind of key
question a government wants to know how much more frequent will that type of
situation occur in the future the you know poor people that suffered in
Mozambique under these tropical, enormously powerful tropical cyclones. Again we want
to know how much more frequent are these unbelievably intense tropical cyclones
going to be. So, we’ve got to develop models where these biases and so on you
know are eliminated. And we can do that in principle, but like all scientific big
projects it requires a certain amount of of investment. And it’s primarily
investment in supercomputing it’s to do with supercomputing. So you know I would certainly agree with that that this is information that we
need so I find it a little bit ironic that I keep hearing that the science is
basically done so I I have another quote which I found in The Guardian in an
article that appeared last week. It says “For ordinary citizens it is important to
recognize that scientists have done their job. It is up to us to force our leaders
to act upon what we know.” Ok, I mean that particular quote was I think referring
to the issue of trying to cut our emissions of carbon dioxide I would
agree I think more or less with that quote if
all that we were talking about was do we have enough evidence to make a decision
about cutting our carbon emissions because in a way you know it’s like
every decision you make in life you don’t necessarily have to know exactly
what’s going to happen to make that decision you have to you have to know
the threat that you’re facing and whether the decision is justified given
that threat now the one thing that you know climate models have been quite
unequivocal about is actually that as we if we if we continue to emit co2 as we
have as we are doing now and as we have done then by 2100 although we can say
that you know the most likely amount of global warming might be you know might
be systems maybe three or four degrees we know from these ensembles of
integrations that there is a tail which goes out to more than that could go out
to six or seven or or even more than that degrees now again since then I
don’t know that sounds a lot but for anyone who knows their climatology that
really is captain strophic so you know I mean I as a
scientist don’t want to be I don’t want to say that you know that means that we
must cut our emissions immediately because that’s a political statement but
I think the politicians in principle have that have enough information to
make that decision so that the fact there is this threat this risk not only
of you know very undesirable levels of climate change but actually you know
catastrophic that was the climate change the risk is quite clear and the only way
to reduce that risk is to reduce our emissions so from that point of view I
agree with the statement but to say that the science is is kind of all done and
dusted and the scientists are not needed anymore misses the you know the other
aspect of the problem which is that you know even if we cut our emissions to
zero tomorrow we’ve already put into the climate system a certain amount of
climate change that will continue. Now we’re not going to cut our emissions
tomorrow, we’re going to carry on for sure for many decades to come,
and so we are faced with a change in climate, and we are faced with decisions
on how to make society more resilient to that change in climate. And I think
nowhere is that more important than in the developing world who after all have
had absolutely nothing to do with this problem, I mean they have not caused it
in the most minute way, but in a way they’re suffering they’re likely to
suffer the most either from extreme levels of drought to
these really occasional but exceptionally damaging storms or to
levels of you know as I was saying to you earlier, to periods where temperatures and
humidity could get so high collectively that the human body can no longer lose
heat either by sweating or any other means so you know then that becomes an
existential threat so that’s sort of what we’ve got to be do better I think
in quantifying and and that that puts very much the onus of climate change at
the regional level not just the global mean temperature you know my
own view is that this is a little bit like you know the the the famous
Marshall Plan for bailing out Europe after the Second World War where the
u.s. pumped you know large amounts of money into stimulating the European
climate or the European economy not particularly for an altruistic reason
but because they feared the spread of communism and they wanted to stop that
now you could very much view that the the whole investment in climate
adaptation in the developing world could similarly be viewed at a very you know
self-interested level in the sense that we’re already seeing you know migration
you know in Europe from Africa and the Middle East in the United States from
Central America and South America and there are certainly aspects of climate
change in the reasons why people are migrating now this is potentially
nothing compared to what it could be like you know in in later in this
century and so I think a kind of modern-day Marshall Plan by the
developed world to try to make life just more bearable in the developing world
would would you know like like the Marshall Plan to stop communist and this
would be to try to keep people in place and say actually you know living where
you are is not so bad but if it becomes unbearable then then
the trickle of migration that we’re seeing now will become a torrent and so
that’s that’s where again I think the climate science is not done and dusted
because we don’t yet have a good and I would say reliable picture of how
these extremes of climate at the regional level are changing and whether
for example these tipping points as they’re called colloquially but these
kind of sudden rapid changes in climate which cannot be
reversed, I mean that’s the key point about tipping point you can’t reverse it,
once it’s flipped into this new state it’s irreversible. This by the way
has this this this is actually where this actually has a kind of a feedback
into this question of emissions reduction because there’s certainly a
body of political thought which says well cutting our carbon emissions today
is really really difficult for various political reasons but we don’t have to
worry because in 50 years time we’ll have developed the technology which will
enable us to suck the co2 out you know will will suck it out of the atmosphere
and dump it underground and so we know we don’t have to be too kind of
aggressive in our emissions cuts today because that will be a technology that
will be there in the future which will help us. Now the point about that is if
in that period before before the technology has been developed if it ever
can be developed which is a major question mark I would say if we have
undergone these tipping points for example in Greenland ice or some of the
biosphere or indeed at oceans some ocean dynamics might potentially have that
capability then you’ve gone to a stake that you can’t reverse. So sucking the co2
out of the air once the tipping points happened won’t do any good at all you’re
not going to recover back to where you were so again that’s an area actually
where I’m slightly contradicting myself because I was saying that we perhaps
need all we need we have as much knowledge as we need to put into place
emissions cuts but I think the question about whether we can delay emissions in
the hope that sort of the sucking it out of the air at some future stage will
occur that’s going to be totally ineffective if we actually have crossed
some of these tipping point things and that’s much that requires knowledge of
the climate system at that much more regional level and also at a much more
detailed level because invoice is never to involve quite
nonlinear processes which are which are hard to you know simulate accurately and
and that’s where you need good models I think that’s a good place to stop
thank you for your time thanks everybody for watching see you again next week

100 Replies to “Did scientists get climate change wrong?”

  1. The extreme are both hot and cold waves. I have asked old people in my country and the more extreme weather events does not pass the sniff test. But this is not scientific of course.

  2. well that was a nice interview, in some ways, every car journey to that low wage job, flipping burgers, increases the volume of cee oh 2, and professor Palmer said its not possible to account for that in the model, humans keep increasing the biosphere with burnt products, more trapped sunlight…stop the flow of oil in the capitalistic technoncracy and see how far you get, gased out

  3. Read before they censor it:
    Medieval global warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
    Roman global warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period
    Milankovitch cycles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

  4. I love professional, informative and high quality interviews Sabine. This is a very refreshing content and I would love to see more in the future.

  5. Poorer countries are going to get screwed no matter what happens. If we cut fossil fuel use, the benefits of their use will hurt poor countries the most.

  6. He is justifying scientists embracing political point of view, scaring people with worst hypothesis/threat and to force Gov. To spend a lot of money… that's the perfect way to sink the science trust loyability… science become politic. Appaling scenario.
    Points of no return are unproven. It's terrorism.

  7. What happened to the data in your graphs? Did you use a mallet to flatten the 1930s warming period? You just dressed up that hack Michael Mann's hocky stick hoax…

    Still modeling on a flat earth?…

    How are you going to explain the next 5 years of cold as we head into a solor minimum? You know you are lying on the internet and the internet never forgets…


  8. I don't think we have established that human activity is warming the planet. There is no evidence that CO2 causes any warming at all. The data has been tampered with, we know that. The graph you are using is bogus, derived from false data. The raw unadjusted data shows that the 1930's were warmer than it is now. We know from climate gate emails that scientists are deliberately trying to show warming and hiding data that doesn't reinforce a warming trend. The actions of the scientists and politicians involved indicate that they are hiding something. They call people that don't agree deniers as if they were doubting the Holocaust. They refuse to debate. Michael Mann refused to submit his data to the court and lost a law suit because of it. The constant use if the 97% consensus which has been thoroughly debunked, and the fact that consensus has nothing to do with science. Why constantly fall back on consensus if your evidence is sufficient? It is a poor scientist that looks for consensus when he has sufficient evidence. That is the only reason a scientist needs consensus, because his evidence is insufficient. If it's science, it's not consensus. If it's consensus, it's not science. I think that anyone that looks at all of the data realizing it has been adulterated would co Clyde that something is wrong and someone is lying. How can anyone call scientists like Freeman Dyson, William Happer, Richard Lindzen, Nir Shaviv, and thousands of others, science deniers? Personally I would call anyone that disagrees with those men science deniers. Understand that the scientists leading the charge for the alarmists have been caught lying. Michael Mann's graph was fraudulent. The guy actually lied about being a Nobel laureate until he was reprimanded by the Nobel committee. He actually put his name on an award presented to someone else, framed it, and hung it in his office. What kind of people are we listening to? Those are the actions of a sociopath, especially when he responded as if he were a victim and being persecuted by the Nobel committee. Do you trust someone like that to tell the truth? I don't care where this guy is from, he is wrong. And the final test, the actual weather. What is he talking about when he talks about destructive weather. Does be even look at the numbers. Deaths and injuries and even property damage are lower than years before, not higher. What the hell is he talking about? What a useless, idiotic video this is. I feel nothing but disgust when I see this crap.

  9. I often wonder whether the poor in the world are net benefiting by the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere? The Earth is after all getting greener and plants are faster growing because of CO2 fertilization. The poor of the world are much richer because of the new technology invented in the west which was made possible by capitalism and freedom of expression and free publication of information. If the poor countries adopted a constitution like that in Switzerland they would probably cease to be poor by the fastest realistic method, know to man. So if some say that the west has been economically net damaging the poor countries, I have to disagree. It often seems to be politically incorrect to say that the west has not continually done economical damage to poor nations since the European Enlightenment. And I wonder, has the more CO2 in the atmosphere also been a net benefit to the poor countries, Ceteris Paribus?

  10. I wonder what would they say if we would have another cooling trend like in 1950-80 and record high CO2 levels in a future? Their theory would crumble like a card house. Plus we only have 140 years of data for some part of the world and 50 years of data for whole world. 140-50 years of data for a Holocene period is like having 3 days of data for the entire year. Your predictions for the entire year would be weird AF.

  11. I'm a simpleton who simplifies things for himself as much and as often as possible. Therefore, the way my mind works it would direct me to forget arguing about any of this or agonizing over meanings or interpretations of models. The Only Questions I would ask would be Could the Weather be Better for our purposes/enjoyment/safety?

    If Yes,

    Do we want to Attempt to Improve it?

    If Yes,

    Let us explore our current abilities to do so and begin inventing new abilities and technologies.

    Let us work towards improving the climate without spending resources arguing back and forth for or against doing so, which would only distract and detract from our efforts and resources needed for achieving our goal.

    If we do Not want to attempt to improve the climate,

    Let us agree to continue on our path without delay or arguments about the changing climate.

  12. when Dr Palmer discusses tipping points, he's referencing entropy. Depending on a future technology to extract carbon overproduction and re-sequester it won't restore (or turn back the clock to) an earlier state. In other words, the entropic arrow of time means we cannot unscramble the egg.

  13. Look, if you believe that carbon dioxide is responsible for global warming, then can you explain how an increasing atmospheric CO2 content can 1) decrease atmospheric temperature, 2) maintain a constant atmospheric temperature, and 3) increase atmospheric temperature?

    time duration Temperature CO2 Content

    years % change % change

    1880 – 1911 – 0.10 +3.2

    1911 – 1936 + 0.10 +2.7

    1936 – 1944 + 0.12 +0.7

    1944 – 1976 – 0.10 +7.3

    1976 – 1977 + 0.10 +0.4

    1977 – 1992 zero +6.6

    1993 – 2002 + 0.15 +4.7

    2002 – 2012 zero +5.5

    2012 – 2016 + 0.13 +2.4

    2016 – 2018 – 0.06 +1.0

    Observations on CO2

    > increases during all time durations

    > increases are not linear

    > the % changes are an order of magnitude greater than changes of temperature

    Observations on Temperature

    > 2 time periods totaling 63 years (45% of the time) have a negative temperature change

    > 2 time periods totaling 25 years (18% of the time) have no temperature change

    > 5 time periods totaling 50 years (36% of the time) have a positive temperature change

    > the various change, or no change, periods are randomly distributed over the 138 years

    Global Annual Average Temperature from NASA:


    annual average CO2 content from USA’s EPA: www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/ghg-concentrations_fig-1.csv

    If you do not like the data, you can write to:

    NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

    2880 Broadway

    New York, NY 10025 USA

    Environmental Protection Agency

    1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

    Washington, DC 20460

  14. This Prof needs to look again at the physics of C02 and the greenhouse effect.




  15. You should’ve shown us the bar on the right hand side for longer so we could follow what you were talking about.
    Most viewers don’t have a photographic memory.

  16. It’s all bullshit. The world is always ending next year, and they are always wrong. They can’t even predict the weather past 2 weeks! Can’t predict chaos science people. Nobody can predict even the weather, purely due to chaos theory! For one thing the earth is going to be perfectly fine.
    They should be more worried about asteroids, magnetic reversal and stuff like that…..! 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤡🤡🤡🤡🌍🌍🌍🌍

  17. How he jargonizes fudge factors. "We don't have "parameterization" of key factors like ocean flows, eddies, subsurface waves, clouds, mountains etc…". That means we don't have measurements, observations, of key factors, and their variations, in the same resolution scaled to the human fossil co2 contribution. So they fudge them. You can't make predictions without measured observations to base them on. The scale needed is you take that graph as the top of a 3 foot pile, representing the total co2 content, with that graph being the top 2 inches representing the average fluctuation of all the natural variables. The amount of human fossil fuel burned over the entire 20th century averaged for 1 year is, on the scale of that graph, one thousandth of an inch. We have that measured to the penny because we pay it at the pump, and publish averages in the paper every day. You can get those numbers from the national petroleum institution. You can go to the library and confirm those numbers for yourself with a day or 2 research in the microfilm newspaper files for the entire 20th century. You would have to observe, measure, and "parameterize" all the natural factors that contribute to that natural fluctuation in the same resolution of that thousandth of an inch of human output to make a scientifically convincing argument that your predictive theory is valid. You don't even have basic observations even on the most gross scale of measurement let alone on the scale needed to be convincing.

  18. A.I. modeling may solve resolution parameters…and ask questions not asked….on a side note…we could use cell phone technology to monitor weather parameters down to a local and regional level…just my two cents…Thank you, Sabine, for the information and climate concerns…gut sein

  19. Hmmm…
    5:48 Notice how all this models "predicted" the dip in temps caused by Pinatubo, and indeed the aggregate closely followed the black lines until then. Also notice that the models then diverge from "reality" afterwards, running higher.
    So how can a model predict a volcanic eruption? Are they THAT amazingly prescient? Looks like they were tweaked to fit known points, but fail to predict reality shortly after the tweaking periods.

    How this guy claims that models have been pretty good is astounding, unless he ignores the period after 1990 (which is what really matters) and instead rests on the laurels of their results in the yellow "tweak" zone (1960-1990).

  20. His spinning globe is causing tornadoes other side of the world next month! 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤡🤡🤡🤡🌍🌍🌍🌍

  21. 5:50 How did this graph manage to erase the heatwaves in the mid'30s of the last century?
    It's easy to 'prove' a rise in temperature today by artificially cooling the past (polite speak for tampering with historic records to fit your narrative)

  22. Migration is more for economic reasons (the effects of neoliberalism, economic mismanagement, trade agreements, regime changes, economic interventions (American, World Bank, IMF, or other), banking, malfeasance, military interventions (American, Russia, or other), religion (Wahhabism), local politics, regional politics, narcoterrorism, investment macrophages, etc.) than for economic reasons based on climate change (where local weather events outweigh global climate).

  23. Thank you for the interview! I liked your questions and that you didn't interrupt him during his answers! While I haven't made up my mind about the accuracy of climate models, his answers were (unfortunately) rather weak and at times even slightly evasive. I would watch more interviews, where you talk to climate scientists and ask them to explain the models.

  24. Mr. Palmer provides recent floods in Doncaster as an example of extreme weather from global warming. Sounds scary. But is it abnormal?

    Similar floods have occurred before. There's references to the mid-nineteenth century with similar floods right there. See: https://doncasterhistory.wordpress.com/local-history-2/doncaster-floods-through-time/
    CO2 levels from human activity were very low back then. What caused the extreme weather back then? Please do some research for yourself. Disasters have always happened throughout history and will happen forever. Climate has not changed enough (and I doubt it ever will) to be responsible for a flood or a drought once in a while.

  25. 𝐏𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐬𝐤 𝐭𝐨 𝐓𝐢𝐦 𝐏𝐚𝐥𝐦𝐞𝐫, 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐂𝐎𝟐? : https://youtu.be/O676rjJkAIo?t=10

  26. At the end of the video, Mr. Palmer ties mass migration from Africa into Europe to climate change. That's not just wrong, that is vile. This kind of b*llsh*t dismisses the entire report. I was hoping for a balanced report, but it turns out to be yet another episode of propaganda. Yuck!

  27. Scientists did NOT. Climate modellers DID. CO2 is NOT the driver of temperature but it contribut to a very tiny amont that can not cause anny signifficant changes to temperatures or climate. And THAT is the basic law of physics and CO2.

  28. If hate yourself so much that you would sit through and watch one more climate change hoax video like this then I feel sorry for you .

  29. Voltaire once said '' Whoever can convince you of an absurdity can get you to commit and atrocity''. This climate change hoax is the absurdity, now I am just waiting for the atrocity.

  30. Another peculiar thing about the long term models has no variability! We know that the earths average has varied through time a couple of degrees or so, but in the models there is no variation at all. We know now the earths orbit and the suns variations, why are they not included. The trend to 2100 is only up and up?!?

  31. It isn't clear what co2 output there will be in the future, and as well cloud dynamics may not really be a factor in overall changes. So isn't it easier to say like it is like 30% cloudy most of the time and that is all you have to know.

  32. If global warming was such a real threat then you would expect not to see overt attempts at cherry picking the data from certain dates and excluding data from before the selected sets, and in some cases completely removing data sets that upset the model. Why mislead the public if the science is settled? That’s the actions of politicians, not scientists. Models are always wrong but sometimes useful. What is not useful is when data has been tampered with to fit the models. This is not a problem just isolated to climate change which really brings into question the current mindset of the most protected and unquestioned group on earth; scientists.

    I wonder how long Tim Palmer will keep his tenure after subtly wording his answers here. The trouble with science is the protectionist culture surrounding it. Scientist are too scared to do their job which is to unequivocally tell FACTS based on actual evidence. When we have timidity in the face of an overwhelming threat of being sacked from your job seems to me to be an ideological cult rather than a space of free investigation. That is corruption 101.

  33. But you can't measure the global average. There are not enough unbiased sources to give us a meaningful value even if something as meaningless as global mean temperature could be meaningful. The bottom line is that the models failed. The satellites show NO statistically significant atmospheric warming for two decades. That is not what the models predicted.

  34. YES! Scientists got the climate change COMPLETELY WRONG! … In what aspect? … well … in that they claim it is a man made climate change. This is scientifically plain wrong!
    Why? … well … because infrared-active trace gases like water vapor (H2O) and carbon oxid (CO2) cannot store absorbed infrared radiation by transfering it into kinetic energy in form of oscillations of the molecules. The physical reason for it is that the oscillation relaxation time of CO2-molecules is in the order of 0.1ps (pico-seconds) but the molecule flight time between collisions of air molecules at 1 atmosphere and 59°F (288K) is around 147ps. So by a factor of more than 1000 longer in time …
    So each infrared-active molecule like CO2 has re-emitted isotrop (in all directions) the upfront absorbed ir-photon (13um..17um) far before the next collision with another air molecule. What that means? … well … it makes clear that CO2 can only COOL the earth, because it scatters only half of the emitted radiation back, which still is a 50% energy loss for the earth, which is scattered towards space. By scattering energy back to earth, which got radiated by the earth upfront tells us only that this mechanism of COOLING the earth gets slightly slowed down, but it is still COOLING the earth!
    In numbers:
    Sun constant is 1361 W/m2 coming in … averaged to the whole surface of the earth to 342 W/m2 (1361/4) …
    23% gets converted into chemical energy of ozone (O2 => O3) and 29% is the albedo effect (reflections by clouds & ozeans) … so that only 48% of sun radiation reaches the earth surface!
    From this 48% the biggest part of 25% gets into water evaporation for building clouds in the troposphere and 5% goes into conduction into the lowest air level of the troposphere …
    The atmospherical window (8um..12um) let additional 13% go into space as direct energy loss for the earth … so that only the rest of around 5% gets radiated by the earth in form of infrared radiation (4um..66um). Most of it gets absorbed by water vapor (H2O) and just 0.5% or 1,7 W/m2 gets absorbed by CO2 and half of it (0.8 W/m2) scatters back to the earth surface … what climate alarmists call "atmospheric back radiation" … lol …
    NOBODY deny climate! What they deny is the man made climate change, which the alarmists called at the beginning "global warming" … lol … I call it the CO2-lie! We are all witnessing the biggest science scam of all times! … made by the "scientific" church-of-global-warming!

  35. you just do not get it shame. Sun cycles solar minimal will bring in very cold weather for a few yrs, confusing everyone. Then the heat comes but extreme heat.

  36. The world population has the same relative curve as the mean Earth temperature,,, hmm now that would literally be human caused global warming.

  37. When is this extreme weather to start? The 2010s have had lower amounts of deaths from extreme weather than the prior century's decades. Antarctic sea ice extent growing, arctic ice thickening in many parts of the circle, defying Al Gore's prediction they'd be gone by 2014. Agricultural booms, IPCC confirming this year hurricanes, drought activity not associated with climate change so far.

    Do the models still have an inability to factor in how clouds, rain effecting temperature? Why start at 1960-1990 as a temperature anomaly when we know the 60s/70s were marked by extreme cold, with scientists warning about global cooling back then? Why is the warmth of the dust bowl era in America not represented? Isn't it difficult to use temperature anomaly in general as a standard given how bad our global temperature records are from before the 60s basically? Why do these scientists never just present us graphs of raw temperature data? How could it possibly be better to show us a value that represents the deviation of temperature from a given time period?

    This guy is bullshitting–he says "it's basic physics" then "it's really complicated", he hems and haws and brings up totally irrelevant, indirect points. He can't point to any models that clearly represent phenomena in the world now.

  38. A respected scientist lying through his arse or he is an idiot. Simulations using computers are limited by Irriducible Imprecision which tells us that modeling climate into the future will quickly go out of whack. Co2 represents 0.04 of atmospheric gas and Anthroprogenic Co2 is 3% of the 0.04 is a tiny addition. Imagine an Ant arm wrestling an Elephant. un-noticeable by the Elephant. Co2 in such relatively tiny amounts could not possibly cause warming but this so called scientist would have us believe it does.

  39. There are a lot of comments here that say the data itself has been faked. To those people, I have to ask, why are you even here?

    I understand differences of interpretation, but if you flat-out think they fudged the raw data, then there is literally nothing anyone can say to you to change your mind. This is not something you can just stick your head out the window and see for yourself; you have to rely on data collected by people who study this for a living… which turns out to be the very people you think are making it all up.

    So what, exactly, are you hoping to accomplish by engaging with them, or they with you? I don’t get mad if you call me a liar, but I will say the conversation is over, because there’s no point in continuing with someone who is not arguing in good faith, whether that’s you or me. You should go find a video that tells you what you want to hear.

  40. So brilliant! science today is a bunch of junk driven by $. Which she has the courage to say. So she sits there and gives this guy enough rope and he does "what the numbers predict he will do.". So she's doing good science again. Love these videos, we are not worthy!

  41. Climate models have been an utter failure in predicting actual temperatures. Climate alarmism isn't science, it's junk science. Science means using the scientific method to falsify claims. It doesn't use the scientific method and the AGW claim isn't falsifiable. Climate alarmism is a cult, not science.


    The AGW climate "scientists" have taken to falsifying the temperature record to agree with the compute models.

    Go to Tony Heller channel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOHrYY3yAGE

    Climate alarmism is a giant scam.

  42. A lot of himming and hahing trying not to say they can't prove anything with their climate models when the actual measurements are always lower than the model. Stating that climate deniers are attacking at about the one minute mark just shows the weakness of the models. Questioning the validity of the climate alarmist data rendering should be a normal function and not perceived as an attack. It only show a lack of confidence on the part of alarmists. (fear of getting caught manipulating the data)

  43. The easiest way to cut CO2 emission is by not being dumb and idiot.
    Such as Donald Trump who not belives in climate change.
    Or the German goverment, which shutting down existing nuclear power plants, and burning more coal than ever, because the renewable power sources are not enough.
    The nuclear power is the most reliable power source with zero CO2 emissions. In continental Europe, there is no risk of earthquake like in Japan.
    Due to nuclear power plants shutdown, Germany remains a very big contributor in CO2 emissions.
    Congratulations, dumb german "green" activists for your role in increasing the CO2 levels, and more climate change.

  44. That's the Physics of Reality, complicated and messy, hands-on and next to impossible. The reason LHC and LIGO, Hubble space telescope and Moon Landings are recognized as achievements is despite the known political sabotage of clear thinking, some human characteristics are outstandingly impressive.

    The converse is how much we are afraid to identify investments like the Marshall Plan as a grudging means of stifling political competition between Totalitarian tribalisms.

    Better management of Energy, at every level, is life and living.

  45. Climate catastrophe a billion $ juggernaut, unsupported by science, with a zombie army of followers.
    S. Hossenfelder: Hold my beer.

  46. Modelling scientists are astrologers. Like if your water tap is leaking one drop per minute your house will be flooded in 20 years.

  47. He has a great set of models for predicting global warming…. however his mental model of the economics and sociology of the developing world is like that of a 7 year old child.

  48. Quite terrifying to hear a potential disaster spoken of in mostly technical terms. While the technical aspect is super critical, is the world listening, and changing?

  49. You erased the heatwave from the 1930's and from 1878–1879. 2019 is one of the mildest and wettest years on record. And what about the growing sea ice in Antarctic or the growing ice cap in Greenland during the past 3 years>. Speaking the truth requires courage and intelligence. You lack both.

  50. Pretty sure the problem is only that climate facts don't fit politician's fear mongering claims. They deny that weather on the planet has always been affected by stuff like The 210 year Suess cycle, The Hallstatt cycle, solar dimming and the fossil record. There is a great atrocity being perpetrated climate scientist activists are going back in time and adjusting temperatures record in the past to manipulate the results. They do it with the Tree rings "trick" and the new trick, adding ocean temperature data and adjusting it for no reason, claiming some bs like "there are more ships now" or something

  51. There seems to me an important part of the analysis of climate change which is missing. Early on in the talk the speaker says that there is no doubt that human activity is increasing global temperature. I agree with this viewpoint.

    However, the actual global temperature must be made up of the natural background variation plus the variation due to human activity and then the variation due to human activity must have two components first due to CO2 and second due to other (Non CO2) factors attributable to human activity.

    I agree with everything that is being done to reduce CO2 emissions such as green energy and planting trees but I would like to know what percentage of the problem this is addressing. If the CO2 is only 50% of the problem of human activity causing global warming then we have to also look at other factors. It is known that temperature in the cities is often higher than in the countryside by one or two degrees so this gives a clue that the growth of cities may be a factor in increasing global warming.There may also be other factors which are less easy to control such as water vapour in the atmosphere.

    I would like to see a more general solution which can mitigate the effect of human generated warming plus also variation in solar activity. I would like to see the testing of a space based solution to address the problem in the longer term. Start with a single sun screening unit which is able to unfold a screen which is 20m x 20m covering an area of 400 m^2 and can be placed in space at the Lagrange L1 point which is 1.5 million km from Earth in the direction of the sun. The test would show the technology of screening the suns rays and show that a single unit can be placed in a stable and controlled position and be controlled from Earth to furl and unfurl the screen.

    To have any effect on global temperature there would probably have to be maybe thousands or even millions of these devices in the vicinity of the Lagrange L1 point. Creating one such device would not be a huge investment. Creating millions of units would be a huge investment but it seems that the scale of the problem of climate change would justify such an investment. Before having a noticeable effect on average global temperature such a system might be able to have a local effect on specific badly affected areas of the globe.

  52. The IR absorption spectrum (2-12um) for water overlaps the CO2 absorption spectrum completely, and at only 400ppm CO2, any GH effect is masked and completly irrelevant with water vapor present.
    When will this Hoax end….

  53. Sabine,

    I really would love to see you put your incredible scientific mind to this issue. There is too much politics in this issue, to much fudging data on both sides. I would really love to see an honest attempt to determine the issue. Does man affect the climate, yes but to what extent? How much is natural variation caused by the Earth, Sun, etc. I would prefer we work on basic pollution control as I'm not sure CO2 is an issue. I can remember when the air was dirtier and the river were dirtier when I was young, and its better than it used to be. Of course this isn't the case in places like China, where rapid industrialization has polluted the air in that local

    One question I want to pose is what concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere starts to affect animals. We know CO2 is good for plants, but can there be a toxic level in the atmosphere for animals?

  54. Here’s the thing, science is a work in progress. 10 to 20 years of data, is barely a single solar cycle. We’re moving through an entire galaxy, that in itself contains a type of womb with varying conditions, being affected by other outside electromagnetic processes. I’m not saying humans have no effect on the climate, they obviously do, but let’s get a grip and stop the constant political fear mongering, and work at cleaning up the planet realistically. Every kid I see out protesting climate change, carrying the newest iPhone, and wearing synthetic clothes, is like listening to a new Kafka novel unfold. We’re all contributing to the destruction of the planet. Resource depletion and water polution, population growth are going to kill us LONG before the climate.

  55. I’ve been watching Professor Palmer for many, many years.
    I’m speculating that he is definitely less hopeful now than ever.
    The eyes are the windows to the soul.
    I’m so very glad I didn’t have kids.
    The microbiologists and scientists from other fields that I backpacked with in the 1980’s showed me hundreds of signs from the environment that were very alarming to people trained to be objective and not emotional.
    They were obviously correct about the science even prior to the 1980’s (I.e. Exxon’s own in house studies).
    This is sad stuff.

  56. Didn’t Sagan get embarrassed when he said the Iraq oil fires would cause a global winter? Do scientists exaggerate? Does it create climate change research jobs?

  57. Does the `scientist` realise that CO2 forcing diminishes logarithmically and that for 1 deg rise the CO2 level would have to be doubled ? So 1 deg = 400 ppm, 2deg 800 ppm, 3 deg 1600 ppm etc . This will never occur as plants and animals will `bloom` with more CO2 and CO2 will be absorbed .

  58. at 4min06 :" Now, we have established beyond doubt, I would say, that humankind is warming the planet".
    The usual pseudo-science.

  59. Even as I sit down to write this YouTube has put a banner undo the video telling me "global warming … has been demonstrated …"
    That in itself is telling me the cause is more religious that scientific. Even Mr. Palmer has to resort to "denier" as the preferred designation of sceptics, he might as well say "heretic" or "unbeliever"
    As I watched I hoped you were going to get through his boring avoidance of any point and nail him with a sceptical question. I was disappointed. Instead we listened to useless discussions about the necessity of removing carbon from out once-prosperous economy instead of common sense flood control. Energy poverty is real, is it not? More people die from cold than heat.

    The models are symptomatic of what you called postdiction in the LIGO video, always tuned (parameterized) to give a result of increasing temperature. Anyone who deviates from that goal has a very short tenure and no funds in Climate Science. If the past is too difficult to parameterize the past is modified {"we must remove the Medieval warming") or the present is misrepresented. To increase the average global temperature just tweak the computation of Sea Surface Temperature (SST version 1 version 2, etc.).

    Storms have not gotten worse, only the reporting.
    Study the Sun not CO2.

  60. Even if you assume anthropogenic climate change as fact, and that it is dangerous, you have to also ask what is the best way to fix it. The only answer is thorium based nuclear reactors. They produce virtually no CO2, and are the most energy dense substance known.

    The real question is: “Are you interested in POLITICAL CONTROL, or are you serious about climate change?

    You have your answer: Green energy does not work. Nuclear power does.

    Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

  61. I love the idea of getting rid of CO2, or carbon dioxide. Reducing it will help decrease the amount of plant life, and in turn reduce the animals that depend on a vegan survival. It’s a great idea!

  62. Solar particle forcing is the definitive effector of climate change, neutralizing human factors. This dude is a shining example of 100% floundering bull shit.

  63. What predictions have been proven right? Do yourself a favor and visit Tony Hellers channel for a historical perspective and a grasp on how historical climate data is been tampered with to corroborate a climate change narrative.

  64. Most of the confusion comes from deniers and that is more about whether or not man caused it. which is silly because we can all see that it is changing regardless of the couse and it does nothing to alter what needs to be done

  65. Climate change is a daily proven hoax!
    Tony Heller exposes all the lies and faked charts and their taking things out of context.
    He exposes the movement of faked climate change advocates.

  66. this video is BORING. Some scientists have charisma and personalities that are magnetic. Bill Nye the science guy, Michio Kaku and Neil DeGrasse Tyson and when he was alive Carl Segan. These people have no personalities and it is a struggle to stay awake while listening to them. They remind me of that droning teacher from the tv show WONDER YEARS.

  67. At 26:10 "…and we can do that, in principle, but like all scientific big projects, it requires a certain amount of investment…" Aye, there's the rub. Global warming is now big business like the cancer business.
    I initially believed in anthropogenic global warming. I decided it was so important that I needed to learn about it.
    Much to my shock and dismay I found it to be a motley assortment of junk science, grant pursuing deceptions, covering up "mistakes" with outright lies and of course power, money and politics. It is truly appalling. I would encourage everyone to investigate this subject. If you simply rely on intermediaries for information you will be totally misinformed. The IPCC is a political organisation designed to cherry pick and manipulate in order to pursue an agenda. What we need are some genuine scientists (with truly independent funding and academic tenure so they cannot be threatened or bribed) to sort this mess out. We also need to sort out "peer review". It is now so corrupt and debased I would not be surprised to find that someone has peer reviewed their own work. Oh wow! at 28:56 thanks for including the shot with the EU flag! hahaha it is so predictable, now we know Tim is unbiased …like hell…hahaha

  68. The real question isn't if it's a real effect, but how big it is. It is a complicated system, and there could still be mechanisms that are not known about that might step in and regulate the temperature…… or exhibit positive feedback and make it worse. And the methane hydrate at the bottom of the ocean could be such a thing. Party like it's the Permian extinction.

  69. Over 13,000 genuine scientists have rejected anthropogenic climate change, and over 900 have PhD's. The vast majority of climate scientists reject anthropogenic climate change. All current models ignore Solar Forcing. Go to you tube channel SuspeciousObservers and watch the Solar Forcing lecture.

  70. While it is absolutely true that CO2-GHG warms Earth, I'm curious if Prof Palmer has the integrity to check his own database at Hadley when making the claim that CO2 warms Earth (please note the distinction). If he did check, he would find that the later is not the case. That begets the question, "Does Prof Palmer lack integrity or is he not skilled in basic cause-effect analysis or is he just a follower and not a critical scientist?"

    If he did a check of the Hadley Climate timeseries on CO2 and T, he would find the opposite of what he is saying. I've done those checks. Hadley, NASA, NOAA, Spencer, RSS, Berkeley, MLO, and TCC all show the same signal. Prof Palmer, do you have the integrity to check your own database and report the results?

  71. This is absolute bullshit, the “science” is completely paid for and polluted. Any honest look at the data shows little to no effect

  72. He says “the warming from CO2” as if there is a foregone conclusion, this man is not a scientist he is a propagandist, this data is cherrypicked at best, very shameful.

  73. They sure do get it wrong, a main issue models need 1km resolution for ice dynamics, the obviously too warm N.Pacific prevents west•to•east jetstream flow, so, turns Siberian cold into rain in Anchorage in December that air cools and you get frozen oranges in Florida.

    The planet moves COLD from the pole only over LAND to balance equatorial overheating.

    Get used to the lovely weather, eh?

    The only fix is to cool the 'The Blob' in the Gulf of Alaska back down.

    Good Luck, it'll never happen without ending emissions, ever.

    Dr. Rignot's recent talk covers the climate model limitations, 13:30 in of 35min;

  74. That"s not all they have got wrong! climate science has been wrong from the start,
    when the father of climate science "Galileo Galilee" first saw first saw those sunspots
    racing @ 67,000 ML/H across the face, He thought they were embedded in it.
    "Yet" when we are shown an image of the sun, it is a perfectly globe!

  75. The models have not predicted temperature. Temperature readings have been changed to match the models, and model predictiona have been altered retroactively to match lower temperatures.

  76. If I’m correct most of these models have been developed within the last couple decades, right? And they correlate with past data pretty well but do poorer with future data (ie the most recent couple decades) as shown in the graph. I would interpret this as over-optimization, no?

  77. Rubbish. These people have no idea what they're talking about. There is no "CO2 forcing". There is no climate crisis. For independent information on this subject (ie, information from people other than idiots like the one in this video who are receiving generous government grants to promote the bogus climate change agenda), go to:
    "Climate Change Is A Scam" – Facebook page.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *