Comments by "Mark Pawelek" (@mark4asp) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

  1. All the other examples I remember of people "embarrassed to be german" at least has german efficiency and techology to be proud of. But now Germany has become inefficient and post-industrial.
    3
  2. Is it hot on Venus due to adiabatic compression of the atmosphere? Venus has 92 times as much atmospheric mass as earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process
    3
  3. Climate change is NOT about the changing climate. It is a proxy eugenicist / Malthusian discussion. Climate change is an attempt at a grand ("Platonic" - see The Republic) noble lie. Like previous noble lies it's elite group-think. But unlike Socrates' noble lies and most from the past (religions, nationalisms, ...), today's noble lies are ONLY here to scare us - not to inspire us. Our elites no longer lead, they think they "nudge". Climate sensitivity is pseudo-science. "Greenhouse gases", do not drive climate changes, nor does pollution, nor anything man-made. The sun dominates climate changes. Climate models are bad; varying from could-do-better to absolute garbage. Greenhouse gas climate models are the garbage. These are the official, IPCC, WEF, green-NGO models. These model validations discussed here are pseudo or illegitimate science. In real (working) science it does not matter who validates a model because empiricist research is competence-based. Skilled empirical scientists agree. That's why the research is accepted as a validation. No theorist, nor modeller validates their own theory or model. But "climate change" is elite groupthink; a noble lie. Elites only want to hear lies. More importantly, they only you to hear lies. So, ONLY modelers and IPCC spawn are allowed to validate climate models. Non groupthink is rejected by scientific journals, and the researchers are monstered as 'climate deniers'. Big journals are all run by elites. For example, James Hansen is a modeler and greenhouse gas theorist. With good science he would not be validating his own work. It's a shame Sabine was bought into the groupthink. I guess she makes too much money from elite funders. It really is evil lying to kids about the world ending. Sabine should be ashamed of herself. PS 1: Sabine has been invited to discuss this with expert doom-skeptics, but she refused as there was no payment for her. PS 2: Not all noble lies are elite. For example: woke, Marxism, feminism, ... are anti-establishment. But anti-elite noble lies are all dreamt up by academics. None are validated (AKA: they don't work either). PS 3: Other climate models, those unofficial, non-IPCC ones are interesting but every one of them - I "believed in" - disappointed me.
    3
  4. “Vacuum energy is positive and has a constant density throughout space. Thus, increasing the volume of space increases the total amount of vacuum energy, which requires work. It is the opposite of a gas, whose energy and density decrease as it expands. When that happens, the gas exerts positive pressure. In contrast, because vacuum energy is positive, it exerts negative pressure, so galaxies on the largest scales are pushed apart, not pulled together.” <- Nonsense on so many different levels it's comical. The author uses a negative comparison with gas as a metaphoric example! Can't do that, 1) gases are actual matter, Vacuum energy is not. Real gases exert pressure. Fictional vacuum energy pulls things apart.
    2
  5. The narrative of climate change, given by media, elites and academia is a myth. He clearly needs a more sophisticated level of expression. If only scientists were taught to express themselves as novelists and poets do!
    2
  6. "This is bad" fraud.
    2
  7. That was the simplified version !!
    2
  8. Sabine claims that General Relativity "fails in many circumstances". Strangely enough she doesn't tell us what these circumstances are.
    2
  9. "No one cares" part of this is terrifying. The next scary part is "scientists" modifying dark matter to accomodate their simulations.
    2
  10. The AMOC cannot collapse. Why does Sabine think it will? What will make it collapse or weaken? LOL - a science video-cast where Sabine predicts catastrophe but she cannot explain why?
    2
  11. There's not even a greenhouse effect on earth - let alone a "runaway" greenhouse effect. No one ever showed a greenhouse effect for Venus. A 1969 scientific paper claims such an effect but it's not a model, nor an empirical study. It's only a claim. No one can write a greenhouse gas model for Venus. This is all just guesswork and metaphor - not science.
    2
  12. This explanation of the greenhouse gas effect, GHGE, is factually biased, and misinforms. When explaining earth's cooling Sabine only talks about infrared radiation. But there are 3 ways heat is transported: conduction, convection, and radiation. Sabine takes her cue from the self-styled "Climate Consensus" (CC), who are the IPCC, and your government, and other authorities. They claim that, at the surface of earth, cooling is: W/m² 390 ------- 79% radiation (infrared) 24 --------- 5% convection and conduction 78 --------- 16% latent heat transport 492 ------- total In practice all that latent heat must be transported by convection. So the simpler version has 21% convection and conduction / 79% radiation (infrared). But their (CC) claim for 390W/m² of average infrared cooling, at the surface, is a massive exaggeration; achieved by misusing the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. In fact the operation of the Pirani gauge shows actual cooling of the surface immersed in an atmosphere will be 99.6% due to convection and conduction, with hardly any infrared [ see (3) ] When the Stefan-Boltzmann Law was derived, 150 years ago, experimental derivation measured cooling by objects in vacuum. Earth's surface is not in a vacuum. When, in face, objects cool immersed in air they cool way quicker. 250 times faster. -------------------------------------- IR radiation ---- Conduction/Convection Sea level ---- GHGE model --------- 79% ---- 21% 80+ km --------- 0.004 Torr ---------- 79% ---- 21% 76.2 km -------- 0.02 Torr ------------ 50% ---- 50% 33.5 km -------- 10 Torr -------------- 0.7% ---- 99.3% Sea level ------ 760 Torr ------------- 0.4% ---- 99.6% Eventually when the atmosphere is very rarified - at high altitudes - radiative emission will cause most cooling. ( in the Mesosphere !). GHGE "theory" says that a radiative imbalance causes the GHGE and this imbalance happens far below, close the top of the Troposphere! Our new understanding that heat transport below 76km is dominated by conduction & convection rules out GHGE warming of the surface. Since the theoretical surface warming is due to the ToT being higher for GHG with more CO2 in the atmosphere. See Hansen 1981. James Hansen's influential GHGE model (no doubt still used by many to calculate "radiative forcing" ) depends on radiation escaping at the ToT = Top of the Troposphere - about 10 km above our heads. So that model is clearly nonsense. Basic fact-checking tells us that at 10km the pressure is ~ 523 Torr, and the balance there is still close to what it is at the surface ( > 99.5% conduction/convection). Yet Hansen calculated his GHGE based on: "The basic physics underlying this global warming, the greenhouse effect, is simple. An increase of gases such as CO2 makes the atmosphere more opaque at infrared wavelengths. This added opacity causes the planet's heat radiation to space to arise from higher, colder levels in the atmosphere, thus reducing emission of heat energy to space. The temporary imbalance between the energy absorbed from the sun and heat emission to space, causes the planet to warm until planetary energy balance is restored." - Hansen et al, 1981. To summarize Hansen - the GHGE is due to the radiation window (to space) beginning at a higher (therefore cooler) place at the top of the troposphere. Because it's cooler there - energy is emitted with less energy! So a GHGE is ALL about where this atmospheric window to space opens. Is it 10km above (ToT) as Hansen modelled it, or is it +75km above where reality says it should be? Note: In earth's atmosphere: Troposphere ~ 0 - 10 km Tropopause ~ 10 - 20 km Stratosphere ~ 20 - 47 km Stratopause ~ 47 - 53 km Mesosphere ~ 53 - 84 km Mesopause ~ 84 km Thermosphere Citations: (1) Hansen et. al. 2011; Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11, 13421-13449. doi:10.5194/acp-11-13421-2011 https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1140 (2) Altitude/pressure conversion: https://www.sensorsone.com/altitude-pressure-units-conversion/ (3) Tom Shula: A Novel Perspective on the Greenhouse Effect https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS55lXf4LZk
    1
  13.  @enderwiggin1113  Sabine H doesn't get to define the meaning of the GHGE. If she wants to publish a paper to influence climate scientists then nothing's stopping her. The modern idea of a GHGE derives from the application of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to determine radiative emissions from earth's surface - 390W/m² according to NASA's (wrong) calculations. This application is invalid because S-B Law cannot apply to earth's surface as it is not in a vaccuum. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS55lXf4LZk Sabine H entirely ignores this discussion. In addition alarmists also treat earth's surface as a black body which it is not. The emissivity of earth varies from 0.65 to 0.95. Nowhere is it = 1. A black body has an emissivity = 1. I calculate earth's average emissivity = 0.92 Which means: even by their own logic NASA are over estimating that 390W/m² claim by 8%. Fraud to the left of us, fraud to the right! BTW: GHGE is not a hoax - it is a fraud. There is a GHGE, but the size of the effect is fraudulently presented.
    1
  14.  @sjsomething4936  So the "public review & criticism" of peer-review will, itself, be a peer review!
    1
  15. "Waste heat will boil the oceans in about 300 years" <- Loony. Heat is defined in physics as a movement of energy from hot to cold. The heat on earth eventually goes to space. It doesn't stay in the ocean. The vast majority of waste heat produced by people doesn't even get to the ocean. The sun warms the ocean, not the people.
    1
  16. I remember fake scientists claiming to be skeptics first. I call myself a skeptic because I take my model from The Enlightenment. Namely from Immanuel Kant's answer to the question "What is Enlightenment"?, from 1785. Summary here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Enlightenment%3F#Basic_understanding "Kant answers the question in the first sentence of the essay: "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity (Unmündigkeit)." He argues that the immaturity is self-inflicted not from a lack of understanding, but from the lack of courage to use one's reason, intellect, and wisdom without the guidance of another. Kant argued that using one's reason is considered dangerous by most men and all women.[in 1785!] He exclaims that the motto of the Enlightenment is "Sapere aude"! – Dare to be wise!" I take this to mean "think for yourself"; take nothing on trust. "Skeptics" who take ideas on trust are not skeptics; they don't think for themselves.
    1
  17. How is mathematical modelling - employing a parametized greenhouse effect (which is itself a more basic model) "science"? Models built on models - nothing ever validated. Modellers are such terrified jerks they cannot debate anyone in public. None are able to explain why my refutations of their crude, simplistic, wrong models, are illegit. Scientists misused science by redefining science to mean playing tricks with maths. This divorced science from the real world. They do it this way because they know man-made climate is the ONLY thing influential purse-holders in control of funding want to hear. Alarmists - in contrast work with no gravy train funding - on a shoe-string - yet still manage to more or less completely explain how and why the climate system is solar-driven. To shore up their credibility - so as to maintain their monopolistic access to funding Alarmists lie about skeptics being "fossil-fools" - funded by industry interests. Alarmists are dishonest, libelous scammers. Skeptical scientists - at CERES (Soon & Connolly & Co) can explain ALL the behaviour (warming, cooling) of climate over the past 150 years. They base their work on empiricism - it is bottom up. Has Sabine even bothered looking at it before deciding who is right in science? I don't think so. Man-made climate studies are top-down science. Models first. The twist data to straight-jacket into their models - so as to pretend to be doing empirical work. Climate alarmist scientists Sabine kow-tows to are ignorant of basic empirical work. They likely think it's below them. Alarmist skills: Libel, telling fairy stories, monstering good people, jerking off TPTB. Man-made skeptics skills - working on a shoe string to debunk man-made climate lie and explain how the actual climate works.
    1
  18. So many anti-nuclear myths in this talk, I lost count. 1. "Uranium is runnng out" <- The institute who authored the study Sabine cited are an anti-nuclear power think tank. There's loads of Uranium. Nuclear fuel can also be made from Thorium. One Physics Nobel prize winner estimated there's enough Thorium in the earth's crust to supply all the energy needs of humanity for the next 20 billion years (which is far longer than the projected life of earth and sun) 2. "Nuclear power is expensive" <- Everything is expensive. Also: levelized costs of energy is a nonsense idea - because no renewable energy stands alone. "Levelized costs of energy", is basically: dishonest, anti-nuke, pro-renewables, propaganda. Because levelized costs, don't measure dispatchable power - which is the only useful power. Nuclear power is dispatchable. Wind and solar are not. 3. "Nuclear power plants take ages to build" <- Everything does today. For example, as I write, they've been building a housing estate near me for over a decade. Still no people living in it! 4. "Accidents in nuclear power plants are a nightmare" <- No one ever died due to a radiation accident in a civilian nuclear power plant. Chernobyl was military technology in a dictatorship. 5. "Fast breeder reactors are cooled with sodium" <- They don't have to be. They can be cooled by molten salts. 6. "Molten salt is highly corrosive and quickly degrades containers made to hold it" <- Really? So why are solar power plants trying to use molten salt to store heat? I agree with Sabine's conclusion "let the market decide" I disagree with Sabine's climate paranoia. BTW: To fans of nuclear power - everytime you try to scare people by citing climate paranoia you are just giving the scare-mongers more fuel to burn me, and you, with.
    1
  19. Methane is not an extremely potent greenhouse gas. Nor does the term "potent greenhouse gas" have a scientific meaning, or definition. It's objectively a meaningless term.
    1
  20.  @mathboy8188  There is no empirical test to measure the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. The numbers are all gamed and modelled. Fraud as "settled science"
    1
  21. There are lots of good books about the climate - written by a whole load of people - with very diverse backgrounds. I did about 2 or 3 hours climate science reading every day for about 2½ years (mostly during my absurdly long commute). There are also key papers you need to read.
    1
  22. I was never party to your climate goals, only captive to them. So drop the "we". It's a tell fraudsters always use.
    1
  23. Sulphur - Iodine cycle? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur%E2%80%93iodine_cycle
    1
  24. Climate models are junk; because they are untested and not validated. They are literally pseudoscience. It's possible to write a basic greenhouse gas effect model with a climate sensitivity for CO2 anything from 0.01 to 11C. How can we tell which model is right? Do we just take the scientists' word for it? There is another way. We could test and validate the models independently by asking independent scientists to find tests for the models. The scientist interviewed here Prof Tim Palmer is so biased he simply cannot see the problem with his preferred models.
    1
  25. The Arctic is not melting. There is as more ice there today than 2 decades ago. Doomsday nihilists are as incompetent as you've always been.
    1
  26. Pseudoscience = scientific ideas which aren't based on good empirical evidence; but which have fooled scientists. For example: Lysenkoism, Linear No-Threshold, ... Both Lysenkoism and Linear No-Threshold got massive support from the establishment. I would not class Mesmerism as Pseudoscience because no scientists, nor establishment ever supported it. Likewise for homeopathy; who ever supported that?
    1
  27. NO such thing as theoretical physics. That's just another term for a branch of maths. The only real physics is real physics, not theoretical ...
    1
  28. Hilarious manipulation. I question the existence of neutrinos. Someone calls me out, and I reply. The callout is highlighted by Sabine, but my reply is trashed into the waste. Here's my reply again. What evidence is there for neutrinos? What experiments / observations show them? How many validation experiments/observations do physicists believe are needed for us to accept these ghostly "particles". What would be a suitable falsification experiment / observation which will convince Sabine that neutrinos are fictional?
    1
  29. There is no significant greenhouse effect in earth's climate system. The confusion over the GHE began with the IPCC and their energy balance diagrams. The IPCC claim earth's surface cooling is: ______________________ W/m² . . % Infrared radiation . . . . . . 398.2 . . 79 Conduction/convection 18.4 . . . . 4 Latent heat . . . . . . . . . . . 86.4 . . . 17 IPCC say 79% of cooling at the surface is due to emission of infrared radiation and 21% due to conduction, convection, and water latent heat. The IPCC told a bold lie. In reality, earth's surface cooling is no more than 0.4% due to radiation. Earth's surface overwhelmingly cools by conduction and convection. Tom Shula explans this, and explains how the behaviour of the Pirani gauge means there can be NO meaningful role for radiation cooling the surface, nor lower atmosphere (troposphere and tropopause). Tom Shula's: explantation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS55lXf4LZk
    1
  30.  @enderwiggin1113  The IPCC numbers are senseless and evidence free - in fact - contradicted by what we learn about how the Pirani gauge works. Yet you're complaining about me not substracting back-radiation (which is 99% fictional). Did you ever complain to the IPCC about them making their numbers up off the top of their heads?
    1
  31.  @enderwiggin1113  Please source the detailed breakdown then, with a citation. For: - radiation - conduction/convection - latent heat transport too (if you want) According to NASA GISS, average OLR = 398 W/m². Their cooling numbers: 398.2 W/m² - infrared radiation 86.4 W/m² - latent heat (of water) 18.4 W/m² - 'thermals' (conduction and convection?) They also say: 340.3 W/m² - back-radiaton, therefore 57.9 W/m² - net radiative cooling But those figures are disputed by me, and many other people. The are armchair physics. Modelled numbers with no emprical validation. 35 years of 'climate crisis'; costing us several $ trillions so far. Complete disinterest in validating those numbers shows the people behind them are fraudsters.
    1
  32.  @enderwiggin1113  You are cheating by giving a net number. Because you already did a lot a modelling trickery and stage magic to get your the that 30% number. 398.2 W/m² - infrared OLR (radiation) - 340.3 W/m² - back-radiaton, therefore 57.9 W/m² - net radiative cooling
    1
  33.  @enderwiggin1113  Watch out! Cavemen are on the prowl today.
    1
  34.  @enderwiggin1113  The Stefan Boltzmann Law can be misinterpreted in many ways. It's an empirical fact that at 1 amosphere pressure and ~ 65C, the sensor in the Pirani gauge looses 250 times more energy via conduction and convenction (of air) , ~100mW campared with with its radiative losses (0.4mW). You can do that experiment with a Pirani gauge yourself. You better do so - as you are in reality denial, and you'll only believe it if you see it for yourself.
    1
  35.  @enderwiggin1113  No Nobel prize for Tom Shula. The Nobel committee only give the prize to establishment arse-lickers.
    1
  36.  @enderwiggin1113  "What you have checked yourself?" <- Good point. Everything climate alarmists tell me about the climate is lie built on lie, model built on model. All of it carefully tuned to give the maximum catastrophe effect. None of their countless projections of doom and apocalypse ever materialize. That sounds like fraud to me. In contrast, I'll give Tom Shula the benefit of the doubt, for now. I'm eager to hear what more established skeptics have to say; such as Curry, Lindzen, Happer, Nikolov, Zeller, Stallinga, Soon, Connollys, Rex Fleming, Yong Zhong, Scafetta, ... If any proper scientists raise an issue I'll consider that.
    1
  37.  @enderwiggin1113  Because your argument contradicting facts are worth nothing. The Pirani gauge is a scientific instrument meeting precise standards. Your "what about the backradiation from ..." fails because the gauge itself does not care about back-radiation. When you get a sensor you use the sensor - you do not attack another sensor to the sensor - as you think we should do.
    1
  38.  @enderwiggin1113  I suggest you study how the Pirani gauge works to understand it. If you have a better gauge - as you seem to think you have - write a patent - or, if you want to be nice, send a letter or paper to the people who make these gauges.
    1
  39. You do not use it by trying to measure radiative loss by the enclosure. One measures raiative loss by the sensor - because - it is a sensor.
    1
  40.  @enderwiggin1113  But is wrong. And scientists in the early twentieth century never bothered with a greenhouse gas effect. That did not begin until the cult began within atmorpheric modellers.
    1
  41.  @enderwiggin1113  Red herring. You keep adding red herrings. If Dines 1917 used a Pirani gauge, tell us. I am only talking about Pirani gauge. Because it is a simple thing, which works in a known way. If you can explain the behaviour of the Pirani gauge at 1 atmosphere without it cooling overwhelmingly due to conduction and convection - then explain away.
    1
  42.  @enderwiggin1113  Logic, theory, and whatabouts do not prove emprical facts wrong. You keep ingnoring the fact that the Pirani gauge is a simple instrument, and it's operation falsifies the 'climate crisis' by showing the greenhouse effect is insignificant as the amount of real radiation was overestimated 250 times over.
    1
  43. Thanks for all the replies below. I've tried to improve my refutation above. Please disagree with that instead.
    1
  44.  @enderwiggin1113  Why the IPCC subtract back-radiation - so will I.
    1
  45.  @enderwiggin1113  0.4% due to radiation is shown by the Pirani gauge. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law cannot by applied to earth's surface - as the Law was derived by measuring cooling of bodies in a vacuum but earth's surface is bathed in an atmosphere. Just a Sabine ignored convection and conduction above - so did the IPCC - and so do you (it seems).
    1
  46. This hydrogen economy nonsense has been going on for a good 45 to 50 years. 46+ years of living on myth. I have an undergraduate Inorganic Chemistry book here published in 1978 - "Chemistry of the Elements" by Greenwood and Earnshaw which includes a whole page on "The Hydrogen Economy". It wasn't happening back in 1978, and we're no closer to their dreams today either.
    1
  47. I don't have a problem with physicists or anyone else speculating about whether an asteroid was "alien tech". It's all OK. But when physicists tell us they're "doing science". That's what I object to. No. Doing science is when you write a testable hypothesis. It's not when you make it up.
    1
  48. There is no greenhouse effect. There are just bad models, as explained by Dr Roy Clark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsM4aOmCb_U
    1
  49. The politics is the only thing to see. The climate agenda has always been about replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar.
    1
  50. "Climate Change is our own fault" <- Nonsense. There's is no greenhouse effect. The incompent greenhouse effect is not science & has nothing to do with climate. It is one massive pseudo-Marxist gaslight. Carbon dioxide, CO2 does not heat the climate. CO2 is, in reality, good for the environment. It is plant food. The greenhouse effect barely qualifies as a model since it is so incompetent. Notice how they never debate the greenhouse effect? That's because they know it's garbage, ideology, and does not pass the test of scientific model.
    1