Can Climate Models Predict Climate Change? | 5 Minute Video
Predicting climate temperatures isn’t science – it’s science fiction. Emeritus Professor of Physics at Princeton University Will Happer explains.
Donate today to PragerU! http://l.prageru.com/2eB2p0h
Have you taken the pledge for school choice? Click here! https://www.schoolchoicenow.com
Get PragerU bonus content for free! https://www.prageru.com/bonus-content
Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips.
iPhone: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsnbG
Android: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsS5e
Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager! http://l.prageru.com/2c9n6ys
Join PragerU’s text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru
Do you shop on Amazon? Click https://smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful.
VISIT PragerU! https://www.prageru.com
FOLLOW us!
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/prageru
Twitter: https://twitter.com/prageru
Instagram: https://instagram.com/prageru/
PragerU is on Snapchat!
JOIN PragerFORCE!
For Students: http://l.prageru.com/2aozfkP
JOIN our Educators Network! http://l.prageru.com/2aoz2y9
Script:
Let’s talk about climate models.
Specifically, let’s talk about the climate models that attempt to predict the future temperature of the planet. But before we do, it’s important that you know a little about me.
I’m a physicist. I taught at Columbia University and then at Princeton for five decades.
I have published over 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers. I have coauthored several books, including one of the first on how carbon dioxide emissions—CO2—affects the climate.
I served as the director of the Office of Energy Research at the US Department of Energy. And before that, I invented the “sodium guide star,” which is still used on most big astronomical telescopes to measure and correct for atmospheric turbulence—that is, for the unpredictable movement of air and water. This turbulence blurs the images of stars and other space objects.
One more thing: I care deeply about the environment. We live on a beautiful planet. I want to keep it that way. I’ve spent a lot of time working to do just that.
In short, I know a lot about the earth’s atmosphere and climate. I also know a lot about long-term predictive climate models.
And I know they don’t work. They haven’t worked in the past. They don’t work now. And it’s hard to imagine when, if ever, they’ll work in the foreseeable future.
There’s a common-sense reason for this.
Aside from the human brain, the climate is the most complex thing on the planet. The number of factors that influence climate—the sun, the earth’s orbital properties, oceans, clouds, and, yes, industrial man—is huge and enormously variable.
Let me try to narrow this down. For the purposes of illustration, let’s just focus our attention on water.
The earth is essentially a water planet. A major aspect of climate involves the complicated interaction between two very turbulent fluids: the atmosphere, which holds large amounts of water (think rain and snow), and the oceans, which cover fully 70% of the earth’s surface.
We can’t predict what effect the atmosphere is going to have on future temperatures because we can’t predict cloud formations.
And the convection of heat, oxygen, salt and other quantities that pass through the oceans, not to mention weather cycles like El Niño in the tropical Pacific, make predicting ocean temperatures an equally difficult business. We can’t predict either side of the atmosphere/ocean equation.
But we can say this with certainty: Water—in all its phases—has huge effects on atmospheric heating and cooling. Compared to water—H20, carbon dioxide—CO2—is a minor contributor to the warming of the earth.
It’s devilishly difficult to predict what a fluid will do. Trying to figure out what two fluids will do in interaction with each other on a planetary scale over long periods of time is close to impossible.
Anyone who followed the forecast of Hurricane Irma’s path in the late summer of 2017 should understand this. First, the models predicted a direct hit on Miami and the east coast of Florida. Then, defying these predictions, the hurricane suddenly veered to the west coast of Florida. In other words, even with massive amounts of real-time data, the models still could not accurately predict Irma’s path two days in advance.
For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/videos/can-climate-models-predict-climate-change
source
Concise, clear and objective. A real scientist.
I would be more willing to accept the models the "experts" offer, IF The "solution" wasn't the SAME every time as it was for Failed predictions!
"We are facing a "New Global Ice Age" and must end the use of fosil fuels, stop eating beef, massively change our lives, and Obey the "elites" (who will continue to Enjoy all of the "Privileges" of modernity)!
We are facing "Over Population" and imminent Global Canabilism and must end the use of fosil fuels, stop eating beef, massively change our lives, and Obey the "elites" (who will continue to Enjoy all of the "Privileges" of modernity)!
We are facing the "Disappearance of All the World's Oceans by 1990!" and must end the use of fosil fuels, stop eating beef, massively change our lives, and Obey the "elites" (who will continue to Enjoy all of the "Privileges" of modernity)!
We are facing the "Melting of the Icecaps by 2000!" and must end the use of fosil fuels, stop eating beef, massively change our lives, and Obey the "elites" (who will continue to Enjoy all of the "Privileges" of modernity)!
We are facing "Global Climate Warming by 2010!" and must end the use of fosil fuels, stop eating beef, massively change our lives, and Obey the "elites" (who will continue to Enjoy all of the "Privileges" of modernity)!
We are facing "Global Climate Change by 2020!" and must end the use of fosil fuels, stop eating beef, massively change our lives, and Obey the "elites" (who will continue to Enjoy all of the "Privileges" of modernity)!
So, as long as the "solution" is identical, I am Sceptical.
My thanks to Dr. Happer!
This is one of the best videos I have recently seen. Perfect!
"PragerU is an American advocacy group that creates videos promoting a conservative viewpoint on various political, economic, and sociological topics.[4][5] It was co-founded by Allen Estrin and talk show host and writer Dennis Prager in 2009.[4][6][7][8]
Despite the name, short for Prager University, PragerU is not an academic institution and does not hold classes or grant diplomas.[5][8] Some of PragerU's videos have been criticised for presenting misleading or factually incorrect content.[9][10][11][12] "
no surprises there
That's why they have an ensemble of all models they have used. Most models predict the same change for the upcoming few decades. Climatologists and meteorologists themselves are aware of this and that's why they are using tens of different models even for short term predictions (weather forceasts).
Climate models have given us a better understanding of the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere plus global patterns in the ocean, atmosphere, and records of the types of weather that occurred under similar patterns in the past, and they have reduced the uncertainty of climate change impacts, which aids in adaptation to name a few. This is the reality when these models use physical laws and mathematical equations that reflect our understanding of atmospheric and oceanic processes.
Models are just tools; they don't drive the data: they are attempts to understand the data either in terms of specific reactions or in historical terms. Scientists understand them well enough to know their limits, which is why there hasn’t been a failed prediction from main stream climate science, and climate projections have been accurate for fifty years. No lack of predictions on track. The general circulation models are right enough to project future climate trends to USABLE accuracy and usable confidence. Problem is deniers and “skeptics” of climate science often cherry pick the extreme end of projections, which is statistical malpractice. Mid-range projections have been strikingly accurate for over 50 years.
William Hopper, you speak the truth. Thank you so much. False experts and "activists" who claim they care are acting like eco terrorists claiming that you have been debunked. Yet, you are the expert, you have done alot of deep work. You are not wrong.
Panic! We can't predict future climate! More taxes! More green vehicles! Only communism can save us and that's only if half of us jump off a cliff!
Meadows moment
A question for the professor: if computers can’t work out all these equations, and considering all of your experience, have you gone to excessive lengths to work out the equations yourself? Where has your research brought you?
Whether the professor or someone else answers this, I’m just looking for a discussion:
I’ve heard from a number of other climate scientist that carbon emissions have gradual effects. Let’s imagine a scenario. It’s fairly lengthy, but I find to be a pretty accurate, anyone please correct me where I’m wrong. If you take a portion of the earth which contains 50 gigatons of atmospheric carbon, and a nearby factory emits .1 gigaton of carbon annually, then it will cause a minuscule effect on the environment. However, the area is a mid-altitude, humid forest full of hills that collect water and build up humidity, and is surrounded on mountains on 3 sides. There is heavy snow and rain from the mountains half the year. But the other half is moderate and contains light rains year round. When the rains come at the end of every week , the carbon that was in the atmosphere combine with the water vapor to form a dangerous acidic acid. It’s still a low concentration because .1 gigatons per year is very low, but considering this happens weekly, the continuous high ecological disturbance will eventually take its toll on the local biodiversity. In a few years, only the larger trees of the forest remain, and the undergrowth is deprived. Even worse, the factory operations have grown, and there was a dry year, so there was nothing to wash away all the toxic chemicals. When the heavy precipitation return from the mountains, the toxic carbon is washed out the valley. However, it washes the few small shrubbery left, so the the smaller vermin have nothing to eat, and most of them die off by the time the birds migrate back. The birds have no food and most either die or move elsewhere. Now the leftover producers have nothing to help them germinated and I think we all know what happens next. I know this situation could look cherry picked under some lights, but I could have chosen a far more convenient environment. Can you live with this; an entire ecosystem soon to completely die off. Apparently you can, because it’s been happening for a minimum of 75 years. This is small scale, but it’s occurring every. Different, places, different times, but a similar effect.
I’m not saying the renewable energy sources are better than this thing I just described. I want to discuss it, because there is much more to discuss than can be put in a 5 minute video.
YES.
https://youtu.be/wbR-5mHI6bo
theres a difference in predicting weather and climate? The hell is this guy on? Also we just gave a noble prize to reasearchers on complex system. Weve had made quite a lot of progress. Also: The climate predictions from decades if not centuries ago (yes the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere has long been understood) prove to be pretty precise. Models from the 70s have predicted the 1 degree change we are seeing today
Several problems with this video, reseafor yourself, you'll find this guy's out of his league or is intentionally misleading people.
Common sense? You misspelled unscientific
Even the most basic look into chaos theory explains how unpredictable systems can be accurately modeled in their averages and underlying patterns. Just because you can’t predict the weather a month from now doesn’t mean you can’t predict the most probable range for average temperatures several decades from now. You simply need to reduce the chaotic noise, which is why climate models use global mean temperature.
This logic is bogus. As a physicist, he should know about the momentum and position of a particle cant be measured beyond a certain degree of precision (heisenberg uncertainty principle). So I guess I can't make predictions about motion of a ball because it's made up of particles?
What an informative one
Philippines: Category 5 storm YOLANDA predicted to hit land by 8am to 10am. It arrive much very much earlier at 5am. Many people drowned because of storm sea surge
Very good videoi
How can these guys call themselves a "university"? Where is the government when you need it to enforce advertising laws?
https://youtu.be/l2g0jEdu8qk
What a nice man
You know what we can predict? When we’re going to run out of fossil fuels. Under a century. Nuclear, hydro, and investing in other renewable tech so we can transfer off of nuclear and some of the less clean renewables
Second worst shit I have ever seen after nazi propaganda
This guy is confusing local with global phenomena. Weather vs. Climate.
"That's not science. That's science fiction"
Majestic
Thank you sir, rational, reason based. Science.
Dude. Prageru just talks a lot about very controversial concepts with very strong opinions to spark conflict, whether it be in the YouTube comment section or in real life. But this is beyond too far. I don’t want to listen to someone tell me how we can’t predict climate change while using evidence that is very different from the subject. And then telling me that computers can’t predict the weather is absolutely stupid. And please don’t spend half the damn video talking about your proffesionalism to prove to me your right.
I guess we'll just ignore that 99% of the scientific reports say it's real and it's happening, and I guess we'll just ignore the fact that PragerU is funded by oil billionaires…
Climate is not weather
Why does Youtube find it necessary to include a Wikipedia disclaimer to Happer's video.
Is this video trolling? Comparing the complexity of the climate to that of the brain to make a point but ignoring the fact that we have various ways to analyze and predict human behavour? And good portion of the video he is telling us all his qualification, only the only important qualification, to be an expert on climate, is missing.
And he brings up Irma, now it's getting OBVIOUSLY stupid. Irma is a single event, what for gods sake has the prediciton of the path of a Tornado/Hurrican/Taifun/Marbles to to with longterm measurment of mean temperature values?
Doesn't he know of the difference between weather and climate?
This is a parody of an informative video.
This channel has 2,38million views…