General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Mosern1977
Sabine Hossenfelder
comments

Comments by "Mosern1977" (@Mosern1977) on "How can climate be predictable if weather is chaotic?" video.

Well, there are no tons of older data points on large parts of the world. So, unless you can tell me the average temperature of the entire continent with 0.1 degree accuracy by looking at the temperature on your wall once pr. day - then whatever you come up with is more or less wishful thinking. But I've seen videos on NASA's website showing global temperature anomalities with 0.1 degrees scale in Antarctica and south pacific in the 1890s. Seeing stuff like that, just tells me this climate model research has nothing to do with science, but a lot to do with politics. Adding all the failed predictions over the last 30 years to the mix, and I still find it hard to understand anyone actually buying the junk science being presented.
8
@fergochan - what measuring devices was available, and was recorded and documented in the 1920s in poorer countries and/or ocean (say central Africa/south America/south pacific)? The instrument: A termometer. The amount of measurements: One or two pr. day. Mode of operation: Guy reads of termometer manually, writes down result on paper. The number of these: Maybe one or two pr. continent. That's why I ask, how you can tell anything about the temperature of a continent by looking at your own outdoor termometer. As for predictions? Any predictions that has said the climate/weather would change has failed. Climate is exactly* (* as noticeable by humans) the same now as it was 30 years ago. Examples: Amounts of islands lost to sea: 0. Amounts of ice free Arctic summers: 0. Polar bears struggling: 0 Mountains without snow in Himalaya: 0 Increases in deaths by "climate change": 0
4
@IMindiffernt - noticeable climate change is something that happens on the periods of centuries and millennia. Human lifespan is too short to notice it. But that's not what all the noise about "climate change" is about, now is it?
4
That depends on your location. I guess being a meteorologist in Saudi-Arabia is quite a bit easer than on the west coast of Norway.
3
@chiefxtrc - probably because it is somewhat related to reality.
2
You can predict averages in some systems, but not predict individual values. Dice throwing for example. You won't know what the next value will be. But if you throw it 1000 times, the sum will be close to 3500.
2
Right, and now I throw a small pebble into the river upstream. Can you tell me what will happen to the river and turbulent flows?
2
It is not hard to predict the future, if you have a respektable pattern, and lots of data, and large error bars. So if the average temperature where I live is 6.5 degrees in April, then I can predict it being average 6.5 degrees in April in 2050 as well. That's easy. Now, the hard part is: I now kill all birds in Turkey, Spain and Australia - how will that affect the average temperature in April 2050 in my country?
2
@MrSunrise- Correct. If your "chaotic" system is having a tendency to average out - then you can say something about that average. But it does not say anything about how changing one parameter out of maybe a thousand will keep everything else the same - and just shift things nicely like she did with her constant.
2
@spanke2999 - that's nice you found a few non-insects and non-rodents (on single desolated islands). The two larger animals were already killed off long way back by excessive hunting. (No wonder why you didn't like my "had a healthy population requirement" - because that would (as I knew) netted you with 0 examples). How many new spices have we found in the last 50 years, probably multiple books worth? Long story short - "climate change" is a non issue for life as we know it. And we humans have generally stopped hunting animals to extinction. So there are no big issues here, except scare-mongering in the media.
2
@spanke2999 - well, you are correct that the measured amount of the CO2 trace gas in the atmosphere has been increasing lately, and it will (most likely) continue to increase. The few larger species that has gone extinct over the last 50 years, did so due to human hunting over a century ago. Since then - nothing. It is perfectly natural for species to go extinct, if they cannot adapt and reproduce fast enough to handle predators in their area. Nothing to worry about. " in the future the increase in temperature will be high enough to be the main impactor with respect to ecosystem destruction" - this is may or may not be true, and at the moment can only be characterized as a hypothesis with no solid evidence, as we need to wait for the future to happen, before we can verify this. Even evil pussy grabbing people might be right, you know - from time to time. Feel free to believe in whatever doomsday scenario you like to believe. The good news is that since the climate won't change in 30 years time, you can pat yourself on the back in 30 years time, and say: "because I bought an electric car - the world didn't end". You'll win regardless :)
2
@spanke2999 - no, I'm not afraid - because this has smelled like junk science for over 30 years now. It smelled bad back then, and the stink has not gone away. It has only gotten worse as predictions has failed over and over and over again. What is concerning is that a new generation has been indoctrinated in this junk science from childhood, and they are much more likely to believe it - without question. It is also sad that poorer people will have to suffer and die because of this junk science. At least I can buy a incentivized Tesla, which is nice (although I don't like their seats). And forced changes of food habits is again for the poor people that have to be sacrificed because we want to go "green". But yeah, that's good for the environment - so f*** the poor people.
2
Why? Did she say something wrong?
1
Just like climate models then..
1
Exactly. Plugin in a forth feedback formula and see how the average then is shifted. This was a very simplified view of an already super simplified version of a "chaotic" system. But the point still stands, if you look at averages with enough error margings, then you can roughly predict the future. I can for example predict that January will be colder than July where I live in 2040.
1
@u.v.s.5583 - yeah, that won't happen anywhere anyways, so nothing to worry about.
1
This is at best a political and not a scientific argument. It is a variation around the "ends justify the means". Because you have multiple assumptions going: 1. It is easy and cheap to do the changes required to prevent "climate change"' 2. It is potentially dangerous to not prevent "climate change". #1 - is clearly false. It is actually extremely expensive, meaning someone carries the heavy economic burden - with actual cost in lives lost and quality of life lost. #2 - is totally unknown and speculative.
1
@markbehets - just replace "climate change" with "judgment day" and you'll see how your argument is the same old argument any doomsday-pedler have peddled since the beginning of time. #1 Just pay us some money/do something we like now and... #2 be saved from eternal damnation and death. Yeah... Same shit, different wrapping.
1
A) True - climate is average weather (normally over a 30 year period). B) Thank god. That would have meant sunshine in the middle of the night, sandstorms in the middle of winter, and -200 degrees snow-storms in July followed by 100 degree sunshine 2 hours later. Weather is extremely predictable, if you zoom out. But when you zoom out, you don't talk about 0.1 or 1 degree of accuracy. July is warmer than January is probably correct most places on the Northern hemisphere.
1
She isn't saying anything about climate science at all. Just that some non-deterministic mathematical formulas can have predictable averages - and that you can change these average values by tweaking the formulas.
1
@colto2312 - well, the formulas does not represent anything in nature anyways, so this is just mathematics.
1
@colto2312 - correct. It has no relationship with reality. It is a pure mathematical exercise to prove that you can change the average value of a chaotic mathematical system.
1
Haha, ok - give me 30 years of that, and you have a climate change on your hands.
1
Well, this is basically common knowledge. I already know which months in a year where I live that has bad weather, good weather etc.
1
Naah, science was settled decades ago. Time to act or else dooom!
1
@fergochan - well, the problem is that it was only historically in West Europe and USA measurements were consistent and of high quality. (Still only done in larger cities - which leaves large areas unmeasured). And the areas with absolutely no data were basically the artic regions (which supposedly are having the most change detected) and sea (70% of the globe) and southern hemisphere. So there are no data "that can be collated from many other places". Before invention of advanced satellites, we only have a few spot measurements on large parts of the world. In other words - we have (and will never have) no idea of the actual global average temperature (at least with any form of precision) was back then. You cannot claim a model to fit reality - when we don't know the reality. You can speculate what you think the situation was, and therefore speculate how the change has been. Or you can claim reality to match with your model, and not the other way around. But that's junk science and politics - not real science.
1
@Michael Ferguson - sure you can guestimate - which is fine. But it is still just a guestimate. You cannot even know what the error bars really are. Because if I say: In 1923 the average temperature of antarticata was -45.2 degrees, based on X, Y, and Z - we have no idea if I'm close, a bit close or totally way off. But I regularly see guestimates with 0.1 degree increments for past records - which is of course whishful thinking at best.
1
@fergochan - so can I get the average temperature of a smaller area - like the continental US - with 0.1 degree certainty, by having one guy reading of a termometer once pr day in a field in say Huston Texas? Why not the entire earths average temperature using that one termometer? The only way that makes sense is if there is no change in global temperature ever. Meaning you won't need to measure it at all to know it is 15.3 degrees or whatever. Of course then any change claimed is nonsense.
1
@fergochan - well, your assumption is that because we have rough idea of how the temperature in a fotball field in Houston correlates with temperature in Angola, we can figure out the average temperature of Angola without actually meassuring it? (Doesn't need to be Angoloa, can be Africa, or Europe or Earth for that matter). Is that the gist of your assumption? And since we can guestimate that way, we can use our guestimates to give a guestimate of how things have changed. And based on this delta-guestimate we can influence politics and affect billions of people and our own science funding? Just want to make sure I'm understanding the scientific principle in play here. Because this is a more advanced scientific principle than I was ever taught. Can anyone btw falsify any claims of average temperature in the south pacific in the 1910s? As long as the claims are within reason? (I mean, back in the day, that was a nice thing about science, falsifiability).
1
@fergochan - of course you are banging your head against a wall. Because it is a fact - that we can only guestimate previous temperatures of areas of the world that had no measurements taken (which is the vast majority of it). And by "within reason" I mean, something "plausible". So if we know today the average temperature in July of Africa is say 35 degrees C. And I claim it was -32 degrees C in July 1931, then that is not "reasonable". However, If I claim it was 34.3 in July 1931 - no one can prove me wrong. If I say it was 35.6 it is the same thing. Even probably 29 degrees or 39 degrees is "within reason". So when making claims about average temperature changes of less than 1 degree over a century, we are well within the error bars. There are no such precision available. Astronomy has the same issue, but at least we are not sacrificing kids anymore to keep the sun alive. But we are killing (although indirectly) children to keep the temperature down . So yes, junk science isn't without human cost.
1
@fergochan - Hahaha: "precise estimate" - that's funny - is that a technical term? How would you know what the error bars are for entities that has not been measured? Number of rats in Kabul, Afghanistan in 1956? Can I get a precise estimate please - based on amount of rat poo in London 1987. You see - you cling to the assumption that there is some "magic" here that allows us to know unknown things. There isn't of course. But what we have is people having access to advanced computers making programs guestimating the past, and guestimating the future. Failing miserably at the future (of course course correcting and "adjusting" all the time when time passes by and future doesn't care), and the past cannot be falsified. And finally - combating "climate change" costs billions of dollars. Taking that money out of the mouth of people that doesn't have much to live for already. That kills poor people, but who cares about them anyways.
1
@altrag - well, where I live the summer weather is notoriously hard to predict accurately - because of the prevalence of local rain showers. My personal experience is that they manage about 24 hours. And every day after that is more and more unpredictable. Of course if there is a high or low pressure system in the area giving a more constant weather pattern, they can be pretty accurate a week or so into the future.
1
No, climate is average weather. You first have weather over a period - then you calculate the average of that (30 years being default) - that's your climate. To change the climate, you first need to change the weather (on average).
1
This is also why everyone knows that summers are warmer than winters, and one roughly knows how the weather will be in a given month at a given place on the planet. However, this does not prove / disprove some hypothetical correlation between climate with minor changes of some trace gases in the atmosphere.
1
@spearheadbt9601 - your knowledge of the properties of CO2 is pretty lackluster when comparing it to cyanide...
1
@spearheadbt9601 - yeah, one trace gas to rule the entire climate on earth because it has a slight 'insulating' effect. Gotta be the best trace gas in existence. That theory was ok, in the 1980s. Not seen much luck in predicting the future with it though. But hey, they've made some great useless data-models. Oh well, nobody really cares about CO2 - unless they can get money or power from it - one way or the other. Wonder how many more decades they can keep the charade going. My guess is 2 - maybe 3. At that point it must be obvious to everyone they've been had.
1
@spearheadbt9601 - one thing you don't do to increase your home temperature is to open a few soda cans to increase your indoor air's CO2 content to keep the radiated heat trapped inside. (I'm sure it helps, maybe 0.0000001 degree or something). Some scientists believe that a slight increase in CO2 content in the atmosphere will radically change the climate on earth. Claiming "positive feedback" and "tipping points" and other bogus stuff. It was a stupid hypothesis then, and it still is today. So far the CO2 content has increased, but the climate is unchanged. The only place climate has changed is in the future of their useless data-models. The rest is politics, money and power (and a bit of religion). It is sad really.
1
@spearheadbt9601 - giving 'scientific' critique of the climate change hypothesis is "fun" as well. There is so much to potentially attack, so let's do one thing at a time. Let me start with a simple one. How can one know if the average temperature on earth has increased over the last century (with decimal point accuracy), when there doesn't exist any reliable (with that kind of accuracy) measurements of the actual temperature for enormous areas of the world a century ago. For all we know average temperature could have fallen. If you don't know the starting position, but only know today's position - you cannot know which direction you have gone.
1
@spearheadbt9601 - (I'm not a native english speaker, so some technical terms might be a bit of - but hey, you got the gist of it anyways - glad you doubbled down on it). Right, so you think it is possible to know the average temperature in Africa in the 1920's with one significant digit - because of ice cores in Greenland... Some people are just so gullible. No wonder it is possible to sell this quackery to seemingly educated people.
1
@spearheadbt9601 - OMG. So you think that a point sample (or a few) of the atmospheric composition in ice core in Greenland can give you an extremely exact average temperature of the globe. Holy shit. That's incredible. And of course totally nonsense... The only way one can get away with that, is because it cannot be disproven. Because we don't actually know the real value - so anyone claiming to know the value can get away with it. Doesn't matter if it is written in Wikipedia, the Bible or any scientific journal - it is just not possible to know the answer with that degree of accuracy. It's pretty simple to create and validate a theory when you can invent your own data to match its predictions.
1
@spearheadbt9601 - dodging the real issue are we? I repeat: How can someone claim the global average temperature has been increasing over the last century, when one doesn't know what the temperature was back then? If I tell you the average global temperature in 1920 was 15.0 +- 3 degrees. And today it is 15.2 +- 2 degrees. Can you claim anything about the global temperature has risen or fallen or stayed the same over the period?
1
@spearheadbt9601 - Good, it seems you are getting the real question slowly. Why don't you provide the "actual numbers" (hehe) and the uncertainties and how one know that those uncertainties are correct? I'm not the one claiming there is any change in global temperature over the last century. Hence it is not my task to prove that any statistically significant change has in fact occurred. However, I know for a fact the only numbers existing for a century ago are estimates and model calculations done by the same models that claim they are correctly estimating the past. Which is bogus science at best. You can prove anything with that way of doing things. Wonder if this kind of dodgy methodology would have passed in any other fields of science.
1
@spearheadbt9601 - aaah.... I trust the "scientist", "I'm sure they've done a good job", "Of course they know it", "I don't know the numbers", etc. So, in short - you just trust them. Mighty scientific of you. Especially when they claim to do impossible things, like knowing something that was never measured. It is also strange that you cannot smell junk science when you hear/see it. Maybe you're too close to the source?
1
@spearheadbt9601 - well, you can talk all you like... But it doesn't change the fact that claiming to know something that cannot be known, is bad science. Regardless of if it sounds plausible or not.
1
@spearheadbt9601 - can you tell me the number of rats living in Kabul in 1930? No? Why not? Because we never counted them. Oh... But we can know that the population of rats in Kabul has increased over the last 90 years by 2.3%. Because we have counted rat poo in London in the 1930s.... I mean, its pretty obvious that we don't know this stuff. And we will never do that.
1
@spearheadbt9601 - you got a bit too much confidence in indirect measurements, don't you? (Might not be too strange taken your field of study into considerations - how much of the universe is "dark" now? 96%? thihihi). So you think you can tell the average temperature of Africa or the entire Earth for that matter by knowing the approximate atmospheric composition by looking at gas trapped in old ice with like sub 1- degree precision. Yeah, got a bridge or two to sell you. But sure, if you believe stuff like that, I do understand how you can buy into the rest of the story. It is just sad to see that presumably intelligent people just gladly accept what they get told, without even asking the most basic questions. Here, let me help you with critical thinking: So what is the formula for yesterday's global temperature (with one significant digit) given the atmospheric composition that we had yesterday? And what will todays global temperature be? Given the enormous change in atmospheric composition between yesterday and today? (Of course, that you understand is ridiculous - but hey, doing it for "the summer of 1924" is totally fine).
1
@spearheadbt9601 - man, you sure like to ramble on and on... Maybe some simple math will help you. D = 15 - X Please give me the value of D. Can't? Need more info? No worries for Climate "Scientist" - they have put this formula into a super-computer and run it models on it. Turns out: D = 1.2 And it seems D can become 2 soon, if we don't spend billions more on Climate Science. So that we can calculate D with greater accuracy in the future.
1
@spanke2999 - which species has gone extinct over the last 50 years - that had a healthy population 50 years ago?
1
@spanke2999 - sure, why don't you list some extinct species regardless of their status 50 years ago. Top 10 will do fine.
1
@spanke2999 - I know you like to believe there is an issue. Because you've been told so by so many people for so long. But hey, I'm just asking for evidence for any of the claims you regurgitate. And whoopsie, there is no issue, but scaremongering. This applies to all the "warnings" you've heard. They don't match realities.
1
@spanke2999 - nope, not at all. How so?
1
Yeah, like the average temperature in July where I live is higher than in January. But it does not say much more than that.
1
@db7213 - yes, but the issue is that some scientists claim that by changing just one miniscule parameter, they can predict the stock market in 2050. It's like someone should be able to say how the stock market would be different in 2050 if I did or did not buy a few Tesla stocks in 2020. That's a very different proposition.
1
@db7213 - well, no that would be more like the sun changing power output (one massively important parameter). Marginal changes of a trace gas in earth's atmosphere = Norway's Sovereign Oil fund buys Tesla stocks for a couple of hundred billion dollars. Now predict what would happen to the average stock price in 2050. In any case, that is not an easy task to do, and is much much much harder than saying that we have a 30 year average increase in stock prices of X %, so we estimate stocks to be worth X% more in 30 years.
1