How does Clauser define global warming differently from climate scientists?

Clauser focuses on the 'radiative imbalance' (energy in vs. energy out) to define global warming, while climate scientists primarily use changes in global surface temperature. The video argues this is a misrepresentation and a 'strawman'.

Why is measuring the Earth's radiative imbalance difficult?

Measuring the radiative imbalance is difficult due to fluctuations from natural variability, fluctuations in solar irradiance, and cloud cover. Satellites cannot measure the entire surface consistently, leading to large uncertainties.

What role do the oceans play in measuring global warming?

Oceans act as a major energy sink, absorbing a significant amount of heat. Ocean heat content is a more stable measurement than atmospheric radiative flux, averaging out short-term fluctuations and providing strong evidence for warming.

What is Clauser's 'Cloud Thermostat' hypothesis?

Clauser proposes that increased evaporation leads to more clouds, which then reflect more sunlight, creating a strong natural feedback that stabilizes Earth's temperature and negates the effect of greenhouse gases.

Why is Clauser's cloud hypothesis criticized?

His hypothesis is criticized because it oversimplifies cloud effects, ignoring different cloud types and their varying impacts (some trap heat). It also contradicts measurements of Earth's reflectivity and generally accepted climate science.

Who organized the conference where Clauser presented his ideas?

Clauser delivered his talk at a conference organized by 'Doctors for Disaster Preparedness,' a nonprofit known for promoting climate change denial.

Key Moments

"Climate Change is a Myth" -- A Nobel Prize Winner's Embarrassing Ideas

Q: What is the 'Missing Energy Problem' Clauser refers to?

The 'Missing Energy Problem' was a period around 2008-2009 when top-of-atmosphere measurements showed a radiative imbalance, but ocean heat content changes slowed. Clauser speculates this energy went into Earth's rotation, a claim refuted.

Sabine Hossenfelder

Science & Technology4 min read22 min video

Aug 5, 2024|1,239,868 views|44,281|21,538

science without the gobbledygoook hossenfelder science humor climage change climate change denial debunked clauser climate change john clauser climate change deniers debunked climate change myth climate change myth debunked global warming climate change real

Save to Pod

Key Moments

TL;DR

Nobel laureate John Clauser's climate change denial is debunked by physicist Sabine Hossenfelder.

Key Insights

Nobel laureate John Clauser incorrectly defines global warming based on radiative imbalance instead of temperature.

Clauser misunderstands or misrepresents how measurement uncertainties are calculated and applied in climate science.

Ocean heat content is a crucial, reliable indicator of global warming, contrary to Clauser's assertions.

Clauser's 'cloud thermostat' hypothesis is a flawed oversimplification that ignores cloud type complexity and atmospheric processes.

Clauser accuses climate scientists of dishonesty and incompetence, which Hossenfelder refutes with evidence.

The video highlights the importance of understanding scientific methodology and evidence-based reasoning in climate discussions.

FLAWED PREMISE: DEFINING GLOBAL WARMING

The video begins by dissecting Nobel laureate John Clauser's central argument that climate change is a myth. Clauser starts by focusing on the Earth's radiation imbalance, suggesting it's the definition of global warming. However, Hossenfelder points out that this premise is fundamentally incorrect; the IPCC defines global warming by changes in global surface temperature, not radiative imbalance alone. This initial misrepresentation sets a flawed foundation for Clauser's entire argument.

MISUNDERSTANDING RADIATIVE IMBALANCE AND UNCERTAINTY

Clauser claims that satellites cannot accurately measure the radiation imbalance due to large fluctuations and that the error bars are too significant to establish warming. Hossenfelder explains that while measurement uncertainties exist and natural variability is a factor, these are well-known issues that climate scientists account for. She clarifies that the formula Clauser uses for uncertainty summation is often misapplied, as it doesn't account for how correlated energy fluxes, particularly those absorbed by oceans, naturally reduce the overall uncertainty.

THE CRITICAL ROLE OF OCEAN HEAT CONTENT

A key piece of evidence that Clauser appears to overlook or deliberately misinterpret is the ocean's heat content. Hossenfelder emphasizes that oceans absorb a vast amount of heat, acting as a natural buffer and averaging out short-term fluctuations in radiative flux. Measurements of ocean heat content show a clear warming trend, providing a robust and reliable indicator of global warming that complements satellite data and offers a much smaller, more conclusive uncertainty than Clauser suggests.

DEBUNKING THE 'CLOUD THERMOSTAT' HYPOTHESIS

Clauser proposes a 'cloud thermostat' mechanism, suggesting that increased temperatures lead to more clouds, which then reflect more sunlight, cooling the planet. Hossenfelder counters this by explaining that clouds are far more complex than Clauser's simple model allows. Different cloud types at various altitudes have vastly different effects on temperature, with some trapping heat while others reflect it. The interaction between temperature, circulation, and cloud formation is a major area of research, not a simple feedback loop as Clauser suggests.

EXPOSING CLAUDER'S ACCUSATIONS OF DISHONESTY

A significant portion of Clauser's talk involves accusations that climate scientists are 'clueless' and 'dishonest.' Hossenfelder finds this particularly galling, especially coming from a fellow physicist. She systematically debunks his claims, showing how he either misunderstands or misrepresents established scientific principles regarding temperature anomalies, measurement uncertainties, and cloud feedback mechanisms. Clauser's assertions seem to stem from a deliberate cherry-picking of data and a misunderstanding of complex scientific processes.

THE 'MISSING ENERGY PROBLEM' AND CLAUDER'S SPECULATION

Hossenfelder addresses Clauser's discussion of the 'missing energy problem'—a period where satellite data showed a radiative imbalance but ocean heat content changes appeared to slow. She explains this was a temporary anomaly discussed by scientists, with various hypotheses proposed. Clauser's peculiar suggestion that the energy went into speeding up Earth's rotation is dismissed due to a lack of angular momentum and the precise measurement of Earth's rotation rate, which showed no such anomaly.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CLAUDER'S PLATFORM AND AUDIENCE

The video also touches upon the context of Clauser's talk, held at a conference organized by 'Doctors for Disaster Preparedness,' a known climate change denial group that has hosted other contrarians like Willie Soon. This suggests that Clauser is aligning himself with a group that actively promotes climate skepticism, rather than engaging in a neutral scientific debate. The speaker expresses a sense of 'fram,' a German word for being embarrassed by someone else's actions, due to the disappointing display from a Nobel laureate.

CONTRIBUTIONS AND CONTEXT FROM OTHER SCIENTISTS

Hossenfelder credits several scientists and channels for their input in helping her understand and refute Clauser's arguments. She mentions Gavin Schmidt and Graham Stevens, authors of relevant papers, and the 'Disproof' channel. This highlights the collaborative nature of scientific discourse and the efforts within the climate science community to address misinformation, even when it comes from respected figures like Clauser.

Mentioned in This Episode

●Software & Apps

●Organizations

●People Referenced

Debunking Climate Change Denial Arguments

Practical takeaways from this episode

Do This

Understand that global warming is defined by temperature change, not just radiative imbalance.

Recognize that ocean heat content is a key indicator of global warming and helps constrain radiative flux uncertainty.

Be aware that different cloud types have varying effects on temperature, making climate models complex.

Consult reliable sources like the IPCC and peer-reviewed scientific literature for accurate climate information.

Consider the expertise of climate scientists and the complexity of the science beyond high school arithmetic.

Avoid This

Do not define global warming solely by radiative imbalance, as it's a misleading simplification.

Do not ignore the large role of oceans in absorbing heat and averaging out radiative fluctuations.

Do not oversimplify the impact of clouds, as their effect on climate is complex and depends on type and altitude.

Do not dismiss scientific consensus based on perceived 'errors' or uncertainties without understanding the broader context.

Do not conclude there is no climate crisis based on a single scientist's alternative hypothesis that contradicts established evidence.

Common Questions

John Clauser, a Nobel Prize winner, argues that climate change is a myth. His primary claims involve questioning the definition of global warming, the accuracy of temperature anomaly plots, and the measurement of radiative imbalance, suggesting that clouds provide a strong natural thermostat.