Summary of Patrick Frank: Nobody understands climate | Tom Nelson Pod #139

This is an AI generated summary. There may be inaccuracies.
Summarize another video · Purchase summarize.tech Premium

00:00:00 - 01:00:00

Patrick Frank discusses the uncertainties and errors involved in climate projections and the deficiencies in climate models. He highlights the challenges of accurately measuring and predicting cloud behavior and the lack of understanding of climate physics. Frank argues that the uncertainty in temperature projections is so large that they have no physical meaning, and that no one truly understands the factors behind Earth's temperature fluctuations over the centuries. He also mentions the limitations in measuring temperature, both in the lab and in real-world conditions, and the discrepancies that can occur in temperature recordings. Frank concludes that the field of climatology heavily relies on false precision and lacks meaningful predictions.

00:00:00 In this section, Patrick Frank introduces himself and his background in chemistry and climate research. He explains how he became interested in climate science and started investigating the uncertainties in climate modeling. He noticed that climate modeling papers lacked physical error bars and began researching the reliability of climate models and the global air temperature record. This led him to publish papers on climate model reliability and the assumption of random measurement error in temperature readings. He discusses his upcoming talk on climate modeling and the reliability of carbon dioxide climatology. He presents a linear equation that successfully emulates air temperature projections from advanced climate models, showing the potential reliability of these projections.
00:05:00 In this section, Dr. Patrick Frank discusses the modeling of climate projections and highlights the use of a linear extrapolation of greenhouse gas forcing in these models. He explains that the models are complex, involving partial differential equations and turbulent flow, but ultimately the input of forcing and the output of projections are based on a linear relationship. He presents examples from two different generations of climate models (CMIP3 and CMIP6) and demonstrates how the linear equation aligns with the projected temperatures. Dr. Frank also points out the large uncertainties in simulating the thermal content of the atmosphere, mainly due to poor cloud simulation, which dwarfs the increase in forcing due to CO2 emissions. These uncertainties make it challenging to understand the true impact of forcing on climate change.
00:10:00 In this section, the speaker discusses the uncertainties and errors involved in climate projections. He explains that when calculating air temperature projections using an equation, the uncertainty due to Thermal forcing is included. However, as the error propagates through each step of the calculation, the uncertainty accumulates and leads to a large uncertainty envelope. The speaker shows graphs that demonstrate the enormous uncertainty in temperature projections, with bars representing plus or minus 17 degrees Celsius by the year 2100. He emphasizes that these uncertainty bars do not imply that the temperature will be 17 degrees warmer or colder, but rather that there is no way to know for certain what the temperature will be due to the large uncertainties. He concludes that climate models, even the most advanced ones, do not provide meaningful or reliable projections because the uncertainty outweighs any actual changes in temperature caused by greenhouse gas forcings.
00:15:00 In this section, the speaker discusses how climate models are actually reproductions of the model climate rather than an accurate representation of historical climate. By using a linear equation to emulate the model reproduction of historical climate, the speaker demonstrates that the uncertainty in air temperature projections is so large that they have no physical meaning. The speaker also highlights the issue of climate models having different climate sensitivities, even though they are supposedly based on the same physics and forcings. Furthermore, the speaker points out that the physics of climate, particularly the microphysics of clouds and the hydrology cycle, are extremely difficult to describe accurately in the models. As a result, the speaker argues that the physical theory for understanding climate is lacking and that there is still a lot of uncertainty in how the climate works.
00:20:00 In this section, Patrick Frank discusses the deficiencies in climate models and the lack of understanding of climate physics. He mentions a study on ocean currents that showed the models incorrectly predict the behavior of the thermaline current. The mixing of the ocean, which plays a significant role in energy transduction, is also not well-known or included in most climate models. This lack of knowledge and research effort hinders the ability to accurately solve the climate energy state. Frank emphasizes that the images produced by these models may look convincing, but they do not reflect reality. He further explains that Earth's temperature can vary even without external forcing, as seen in historical climate periods. Overall, Frank argues that no one truly understands the factors behind Earth's temperature fluctuations over the centuries.
00:25:00 In this section, Patrick Frank discusses the challenges in understanding climate due to our limited ability to accurately measure and predict cloud behavior, which has a significant impact on temperature. He also highlights past climate events, such as the Younger Dryas and Heinrich events, which experienced much larger temperature changes than what we currently observe. Frank suggests that the natural variability of climate is greater than what we have seen in the historical period, and therefore, it is uncertain whether the climate will be warmer or colder in 2100. He mentions that empirical curve fitting suggests a potential cooling trend, which could make it difficult to grow crops in certain regions and even lead to conditions similar to the Little Ice Age. However, he notes that this curve fitting is purely empirical and lacks a physical basis.
00:30:00 In this section, the speaker discusses his experience with trying to publish a paper on sexual harassment and his frustration with Michael Shermer's magazine. He explains that Shermer's editors declined to publish the paper because they feared it would make them appear unconcerned about sexual harassment. The speaker also mentions that Shermer does not accept anything controversial, whether it's about climate change or other topics. Later, the speaker shifts to talking about his recent paper on the global average surface air temperature record, explaining how the standard sensor boxes used to measure air temperatures have evolved over time. He describes the thermometers used inside the boxes and how they are consulted to measure maximum and minimum temperatures.
00:35:00 In this section, the speaker talks about the evolution of temperature measurement methods over time. In the past, mercury and alcohol thermometers were used, but they were not very accurate and required manual adjustments. In recent years, thermistors have been preferred due to their accuracy, but they require wind to accurately measure the external air temperature. The speaker also mentions the effects of sunlight and snow on temperature readings. These factors are often not discussed in the literature on global temperature averages. The speaker concludes by discussing the potential temperature discrepancies that can occur in temperature boxes, with possible differences of up to three degrees Celsius or five degrees Fahrenheit between the actual air temperature and the temperature recorded in the box. Additionally, boxes can sometimes even get colder than the air temperature on cold winter nights.
00:40:00 In this section, Patrick Frank discusses the accuracy of thermometers and the challenges that arise when measuring temperature in the real world. He explains that the intrinsic accuracy of a mercury thermometer in a lab is about plus or minus a tenth of a degree, but there are other factors that can affect its accuracy, such as the cleanliness of the mercury and the uniformity of the capillary. Additionally, there is visual repeatability, which refers to how closely one can read the temperature between the divisions on the thermometer. Frank also mentions the issue of non-linearity, where the expansion of alcohol or mercury is not linear with temperature. This can introduce an uncertainty of up to half a degree in measuring minimum temperatures. When considering all these uncertainties together, the total thermometer uncertainty is about plus or minus four tenths of a degree. Frank points out that this uncertainty is actually larger than the quoted uncertainty in the global air temperature record. Furthermore, he mentions the challenges of measuring temperature in the field, where external factors like sunlight, rain, wind, and obstructions can affect accuracy. Overall, Frank highlights the difficulty in accurately measuring temperature, both in the lab and in real-world conditions.
00:45:00 In this section, the speaker explains the various methods used to measure air and sea surface temperatures. They highlight the importance of using well-calibrated thermometers in order to accurately measure temperatures. For air temperature, aspirated shelters with good thermometers can provide measurements accurate to within a tenth of a degree. Similarly, for sea surface temperature, buckets were historically used, but the accuracy depended on factors such as protection from wind and sun. In more recent times, cooling water intake thermometers on ships have been used, although they are not always reliable. However, by combining data from various sources, including engine intake temperatures, scientists can obtain a large amount of temperature data for analysis.
00:50:00 In this section, Patrick Frank discusses the various sources of uncertainty that arise when measuring temperatures for climate studies. He explains that historical temperature data collected from ships using thermometers may not be accurate due to errors in reading, parallax issues, and assumptions made about the instruments. Additionally, Frank mentions that different types of thermographs have varying levels of accuracy. He emphasizes the importance of properly combining and proportioning these uncertainties in order to calculate global air temperature accurately. He presents a comparison of published uncertainties and laboratory uncertainties, highlighting that the maximum uncertainty in 1850 is already half of the detection limit of the thermometers used, indicating significant levels of uncertainty in early temperature records.
00:55:00 In this section, Dr. Patrick Frank discusses the issue of measurement uncertainties in climate science. He highlights the discrepancy between the laboratory uncertainty of thermometers, which is much larger than the published error in global temperature records. The error bars are deemed unrealistic and physicists often avoid dealing with physically valid uncertainties. Dr. Frank argues that this lack of valid error bars prevents scientists from making meaningful predictions about future temperature changes. He also points out that even satellite radiometers have limitations with a resolution of plus or minus three tenths of a degree. The published satellite temperature data lacks confidence intervals and is presented as absolute accuracy. Dr. Frank concludes that the field of climatology heavily relies on false precision, particularly when it comes to CO2 data.

01:00:00 - 01:25:00

In this YouTube video titled "Patrick Frank: Nobody understands climate | Tom Nelson Pod #139," the speaker, Patrick Frank, criticizes the lack of understanding and errors in climate science. He argues that climate scientists often lack knowledge in error analysis and physical error propagation. Frank questions the use of tree rings and ice cores as proxies for past temperatures, stating that they lack a solid physical basis. He also criticizes the uncertainties and errors in climate modeling, emphasizing the large-scale errors made by climate models. Frank suggests defunding climate science and urges people to voice their concerns to Congress. He concludes by expressing skepticism towards renewable energy solutions and the belief that society's wealth has protected us from the consequences of these initiatives so far.

01:00:00 In this section, the speaker mentions that when discussing the concept of error propagation in climate science with those in the field, they are met with hostility and rejection. They believe that climate scientists are often untrained and lack knowledge in error analysis. The speaker notes that very few climate scientists understand physical error analysis and how to propagate it. They mention a manuscript they have written that highlights the ignorance of climate scientists in this area. The speaker then goes on to discuss the uncertainty and errors involved in measuring sea surface temperature, stating that when environmental impacts are considered, the uncertainty triples. They argue that the published uncertainty intervals are significantly smaller than the total measurement uncertainty and, therefore, it is difficult to accurately determine the actual temperature increase over time. The speaker does mention other observables, such as the advancement of the growing season and the migration of the Northern Tree Line, as indicators of climate warming.
01:05:00 In this section, Patrick Frank criticizes the use of tree rings to determine global average temperatures, stating that it is physically meaningless as there is no physical theory to convert tree ring metrics into temperature. He explains that correlations between certain trees and air temperature are made based on the assumption that if tree rings mimic temperature changes, then they must be good thermometers. He also criticizes the use of principal components analysis to extract temperature data from tree rings, stating that it is statistically based and lacks any physical basis. He mentions that the belief in using tree rings as thermometers is widespread in the climate science world, despite the lack of physics behind it. Additionally, Frank argues that the lack of self-correction in climate science is due to economic and political interests, stating that criticism is not free or vigorous. He believes that if left to itself, science is self-correcting, but in climate science, this is not happening.
01:10:00 In this section, Patrick Frank discusses the use of ice cores as a proxy for past temperatures. He explains that scientists measure the temperature of the ice by sending temperature probes down the borehole. However, he points out that there are various factors that can affect the accuracy of these measurements, such as heat flow and the exclusion of salts and chemicals in the ice. Frank also mentions that there can be microbial activity and other interesting phenomena found in ice cores, making the study of ice cores more fascinating than just global air temperature. He shares an example of a researcher who explored frozen lakes in the Antarctic to understand what might be found on Mars. Overall, Frank emphasizes that studying ice cores is a complex and intricate process.
01:15:00 In this section, the speaker concludes that there is a lack of understanding about future global surface air temperature and its measurement. Climate models cannot accurately predict or attribute the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, and there is no evidence of unprecedented changes. Furthermore, the speaker points out that the entire surface air temperature record before 1900 is unreliable due to the use of soft glass or lead glass thermometers. These thermometers caused a distortion in the temperature readings, leading to inaccurate data. The speaker also criticizes the lack of physical error analysis and reliability assessment by CO2 climatologists. Ultimately, the speaker argues that the claim of human-caused climate change lacks scientific basis.
01:20:00 In this section, Patrick Frank discusses the uncertainties and errors in climate modeling. He mentions a paper from 2003 that highlights the large-scale errors made by climate models, particularly in simulating the climate. These errors, with discrepancies of tens to hundreds of watts per square meter, bring into question the accuracy of climate predictions. Frank suggests that if climate science operated like a well-functioning discipline, this paper would have put an end to the global warming narrative. He criticizes the lack of ethics in modern climate science, where researchers are dismissive of contradictory evidence and continue with flawed models. To bring sanity back, Frank proposes defunding climate science and urges listeners to contact their Congress representatives to voice their concerns.
01:25:00 In this section, the speaker expresses their belief that climate scientists don't understand what they're talking about and that all the money and resources being spent on renewable energy solutions are being wasted. They urge people to contact their Congress people to vote against these initiatives and even vote them out of office if needed. The speaker also acknowledges the amount of money that has been wasted but emphasizes that society's wealth has protected them thus far. They conclude by expressing gratitude for being on the podcast.