Comments by "TeeKay" (@teekay_1) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

@altrag Because we took the science seriously and did something about it. Nah, you're changing history. Acid Rain and Climate Change are two completely different things. We were never in danger of creating an ice age, much as we're not in danger of boiling the planet. We simply don't have the data to prove anything about the climate because we've only recently gotten good data. We're looking at a climate that's been around for 7 billion years and we're using 50-70 year of verifiable data to make conclusions about it.
3
@Christian-yz1qu Surface temperatures have not risen in the past 10 years.
3
@macraghnaill3553 So.... how do we know the 30s/40s/50s in this century won't be a cooling period. Answer: We don't because the climate models simply don't work.
3
@Christian-yz1qu If that record is 100 years long, then it's difficult to argue that this is something unique; we don't have accurate temperature readings for more than 100 years. And even that's a stretch. We have no idea of where trends begin what's normal variation and what's not. What we do know is that no climate model is accurate enough to distinguish between noise and trend. Heck these climate models can't tell us what next year will be like. And the excuse "you're confusing weather with data" applies to every single claim of "hottest summer" . And as someone who follows climate change, surely you're aware of the latest peer reviewed paper that finds no link between CO2 and temperature rise.
3
@JCAtkeson3 Oh, it was the journalists fault that scientists were predicting the next ice age. Got it.
3
@davidinkster1296 But China continues to open new coal plants, even as they shut down obsolete ones.
2
@Ruktiet NASA redefined it back in 2012 (or so) the average weather over 10 years, one supposes to push a political agenda.
2
@HealingLifeKwikly You'll need to show us the data that proves that. The reality is global temperatures have never been stable throughout history. Ever.
2
@madshorn5826 You cannot force people to do what they don't want to do. And when people say things like "we're shutting down farms because they harm the planet", they're harming their own cause. Why do you think the EU voters threw out all their leaders just this past week? The alternative is that if you start forcing people to live in 15 minute cities, shut down farms, and make them live in little flats "to save the planet", take away affordable transportation, they'll simply rebel by force.
1
@davidinkster1296 which is why China is actually doing quite well at reducing it's CO2 Since China is effectively a fascist country (I mean that in the dictionary definition of the word), the cure is worse than the disease; unless you think living in a free society is a bad thing. But more to the point: What could revive this flagging transition [to green energy]? Perhaps connections between human influences on climate and the disastrous effects of more frequent severe weather. But despite claims to the contrary, the U.N. finds such connections haven’t emerged for most types of weather extremes So in the end, what we're faced with is that the climate will continue to change regardless of what we do, and we'll do what humans have done for 100's of thousands of year; we'll adapt.
1
@davidinkster1296 I personally don't care if anyone opens coal plants. The US and EU could go back to a bucolic 18th century lifestyle and it would have 0 impact on the climate or temperature. The problem is government and private entities are investing in getting rid of carbon and it's a fools errand. There is no real-world data that demonstrates that lowering carbon has the impact that the true believers say it does. Imagine spending $55TUS on "de-carbonization" and then finding out it did nothing. That's the experiment we're apparently trying to do. I would rather the people who believe put up their money rather than mine.
1
@wssw9465 China isn't just lagging behind, they're actively blowing through their ceiling. But no worries, a peer reviewed study was recently released that found the CO2 emissions have no effect on planet temperature or climate. P.S. Tell Chairman Xi I said herro.
1
@marin4311 China is used to demonstrate that going "net zero" is not only dumb and unachievable, but pushes money to unproductive uses and prevents the west from improving transportation, infrastructure and improving people's lives in general.
1
As has been pointed out by Dr. Koonin, none of the climate models work. If given a known set of temperatures at a point in time even from just 50 years ago, none of them will show the correct temperatures for the present day. Which should actually be quite easy if we're going to use these models to project rising temperatures. And the real problem with Net Zero is recent peer-reviewed studies cannot show a link between CO2 and temperature rise. So if as a civilization we spend hundreds of trillions of dollars trying to get to Net Zero and it turns out it has no affect on climate, then where do we go from there? To be taken seriously, these scientists need to make a hypothesis that says "if we reduce CO2 by 'x', then temperatures will moderate by 'y'". If they refuse to do this, it's a strong indictment of climate science itself.
1
You realize nobody really recycles (except for iron, steel and copper) they just throw it in with the regular trash at the dump and the taxpayers are left with an expensive bureaucracy that would be far better if we spent it on ice cream for people.
1
The issue with heat pumps is they heat quite poorly when it gets under 40 degrees and it generally uses electric heating elements (even with 2-3 stage compressors). Worse, since they are essentially air conditioners, the compressor will fail every 15-20 year, and the replacement cost may be $15-20K negating any short term cost advantage. If you live in a climate that has a fairly warm climate, they can make some sense, but it wouldn't be my first choice in any case.
1
@altrag "> We simply don't have the data to prove anything about the climate That is strictly false" That is absolutely true. Tell you what... this is an easy one. Can we predict what the temperature will be (within 5 degrees) 20 years from now? How about 100 years from now? How about a 1000 years from now? Not a trend, but temperature. If not, then it's junk science.
1
@ricladouceur6202 Do you mean universities Purdue Indiana State University Notre Dame Ohio State Penn State University of Texas at Austin The list goes on and on. What school did you go to?
1
@chrispark9343 Untrue. Search for "The ice age that never happened". And the belief was such that in 2004 a disaster movie called "The Day After Tomorrow" was made which showed... you guessed it. Global freezing. So please stop the "no scientists ever predicted that". Yes. Yes they did!
1
@calvinfowler6872 If you're being honest with yourself, you'll admit that in the 70's and beyond there was fear of a new ice age. You can verify that with a simple search.
1
@andrezcabara2774 Even today, people are saying melting icecaps will make the sea rise. But the same people are buying seafront property on Nantucket. So there's a lot of BS'ers around on global warming.
1
@andrezcabara2774 Search for "Florida Map Shows Where State Will Become Underwater From Sea Level Rise" or the more generic "florida will be underwater from global warming" Many scientists are claiming this. You're a smart guy, so you know you can't post URLs in the comments except links to other youtube videos. It would have been faster for you to type it into a search engine rather than argue on Youtube.
1
@altrag Otherwise you just look like a whacko shouting randomly at a crowd Wow. The lack of self-awareness here......
1
@Christian-yz1qu I can't post the DOI url, the best I can do is give you the title: "Climatic consequences of the process of saturation of radiation absorption in gases" Jan Kubicki, Krzysztof Kopczyński, Jarosław Młyńczak This is a relatively new paper, just published March 2024
1
@WilliamStaples-sw6vg The dust bowl didn't make it hot. Being hot created the dust bowl.
1
@WilliamStaples-sw6vg Is that speculation or have they demonstrated it with experimental data? If so, can you share a link to the data?
1
Well, electric cars will not save us either. Analyst have determined we either have enough raw materials to increase our grid capacity or build electric cars, but not both.
1
A great editorial this past week in the WSJ from Dr. Steven Koonin The ‘Climate Crisis’ Fades Out As the energy transition inches through the ‘issue attention’ cycle, a wiser approach should emerge As he points out in the editorial: Despite generous subsidies, U.S. deployment of low-emission technologies can’t meet near-term goals, let alone the projected surge in electricity demand owing to data centers, artificial intelligence and electric vehicles. “Green” investments aren’t yielding competitive financial returns, and the annual cost of a 30-year decarbonization effort, estimated to be upward of 5% of the global economy, weighs on national budgets. Simultaneously, the scientific rationale for the transition is weakening as expectations of future warming are moderating
1
@old-pete Not so much, and over the next four years most of the subsidies for them will curtailed in the US most have already been curtailed in the EU because Europe is far from an ideal place for solar. Read the editorial I suggested. We're entering the terminal phase where it will be only practical solutions that make money will be financed.
1
@old-pete Unfortunately the economics don't work particularly well in Europe for Solar. So it's not the most efficient use of Euros if you're really interested in making a difference.
1
@old-pete People would not do it at all if the cost came out of their own pocket instead of the taxpayer's pocket.
1
@old-pete It's subsidized. Fact.
1
@old-pete Most people aren't. They're buying them from a chinese supplier and using a contractor to install them.
1
@madshorn5826 No, it's literally true in context.
1
@TheoEvian And yet the UN admits that there is no immense damage and there is no link between weather events the current climate.
1
@daanschone1548 "Humans want to hold on to their life standards by trying to replace their luxuries with sustainable alternatives and that this isn't going to work. Humans need a bigger change." You go first, let us know how it works and we'll follow if it makes sense.
1
@daanschone1548 I'll be poolside with my phone awaiting your first brush with the simpler life.
1
"it's all about the money." But everything is about money. Do you work for free? Do you expect others to do things for free? The profit motive with the promise for a better life is a far better incentive than depending on the kindness of strangers. This has proven to true throughout history.
1
@ThanksForTheLaugh "News reports 100 or 1000 year storm totals frequently now" Which makes them sound silly. We don't have 1000 years of records, we don't even have accurate 100 year records. Certainly the severity of hurricanes has gone down significantly since we started measuring, so don't be so accepting when someone says "this is the hottest system in the last million years", you know it's complete B.S. because we don't have the means to determine that.
1
@Kallisto.0 Marxism is any philosophy (funny way to put it) derived from the works of Karl Marx. It is about social consciousness and in the current age it has led to what is broadly called "woke". BLM is a Marxist movement (which they admit, BTW), and by that definition, climate alarmism is a Marxist movement. It's not really about changing the climate, since man has no ability to do that in a meaningful way. It's really about trying to enforce equity of outcomes for people. Another "blame the rich" sophomore philosophy that generally goes away by age 21.
1
@franktorejohansen7874 It is weird anyone would want to live in a system that controls every aspects of their lives, and forces equity because of imagined -isms . It must be exhausting to think that way all the time.
1
@HealingLifeKwikly , where they were for the last 800,000 years A blink of the eye in a geologic scale.
1
@HealingLifeKwikly Average global temps have been very stable for the last 6,000 years: Not to the degree that the climate alarmist are talking about. And we know that's true because we don't have the data from 6,000 years ago unless we're talking about 30-50 degree swings in temperature. As you know even mildly accurate thermometers weren't invented until the 17th century.
1