Summary of #45 - Christopher Essex: “standing in way of a mob trying to throw a sacrifice into volcano”

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

00:00:00 - 01:00:00

Christopher Essex, a professor and applied mathematician, discusses the challenges of computing climate and the problems with conventional terminology used in climate science. He argues that models cannot accurately represent climate due to the finite representation of computer systems and the lack of general solutions for nonlinear differential equations. Essex also discusses the challenges of conserving energy in numerical models of physical systems and the negative impact of politicization on science and progress. Finally, he questions the persistence of the climate change movement and the use of crises and emergencies by those in positions of power to gather more power for themselves.

00:00:00 In this section of the podcast, Christopher Essex describes his background in science and mathematics, and how he became skeptical about climate science models. He explains that there are different levels of approximation in physics and mathematics, and that there are some approximations that are simply like cartoons. Essex goes on to discuss how the conventional ideas in climate science are dead ends and cites the absence of a global temperature as an example. Despite being cited in major news media, Essex has decided to stop participating in the field of climate science as he feels that people do not often pay attention to what he says and continue with their own agendas.
00:05:00 In this section, Christopher Essex discusses his experience with computing and the challenges of dealing with partial differential equations and mathematical infinities when using computers to capture them. He also questions the validity of climate models, describing them as more about a meteorological agenda than understanding climate itself. Essex argues that we don't really know what climate is to begin with, making it unlikely that models can successfully represent it. He believes that the finite representation of computer systems and lack of general solutions for nonlinear differential equations render it impossible to get an accurate representation of climate through models.
00:10:00 In this section, Christopher Essex, a professor and applied mathematician, explains the problems with computing climate. He notes that there are subtle issues that come up with computing climate that he lists. While talking about these issues, he explicates that nothing significant has changed, nor have we learned large amounts of new information since the 1970s. Essex mentions the closure problem of turbulence, which is 150 years old, stating that it is a fundamental problem in all of science, not just in climate. Therefore, he says that even the big climate models are in the same category as Mickey Mouse with a finger missing, since nobody works from first principles to calculate climate.
00:15:00 In this section, Christopher Essex discusses the difficulty in understanding the earth's climate and how he is exploring classical physics on very long time scales to potentially understand it better. He expresses frustration with the lack of coherence in climate change discussions, particularly the oversimplification of the greenhouse gas effect. Essex also addresses the claim that understanding clouds is one of the biggest hold-ups in modeling climate change, calling it a more fundamental problem and questioning the assumptions underlying current climate change discussions.
00:20:00 In this section of the video, mathematician Christopher Essex discusses his problems with conventional terminology used in climate science. He believes that certain properties of climate systems, such as feedbacks, are intrinsic rather than being part of a structured electronic system. Essex explains that the various issues that arise when modeling the climate, such as non-linear and unstable systems, present significant challenges. One problem with computational climate modeling is that computations can produce unstable results, as the time scales of different entities such as radiation, dynamics, thermodynamics, and chemistry do not always line up in the right way. Essex also touches on the mathematical symmetry of differential equations and how it relates to the conservation of energy and other properties in climate modeling.
00:25:00 In this section, Christopher Essex discusses the challenge of conserving energy in numerical models of physical systems. While the original equations conserve energy, when they are put onto a computer and transformed into a discrete map, the resulting model may not conserve energy. To address this, models often use flux adjustments or parameterizations to introduce extra energy flows and stability. However, Essex argues that this computational overstabilization may actually be suppressing the real oscillations and long-term variability of the climate system, leading to a fundamental problem that cannot be solved through numerical adjustments.
00:30:00 In this section, Christopher Essex, a professor of Applied Mathematics at the University of Western Ontario, shares his skepticism towards identifying the signal of human contribution to climate change. He argues that long-wavelength behaviors, rather than solely human influence, contribute to slight deviations from steadiness in nature. Many mainstream climate modelers, he adds, may not have looked under the hood and thus defend their models as part of their team, rather than scientific, identity. Essex discusses his own work in physics and mathematics, including his discovery of the entry production paradox and his fun with radiative entropy transfer. While he used to do more computer programming, he now focuses on proofing theorems and uncovering mathematical and physical gems that few may ever care about.
00:35:00 In this section, Christopher Essex discusses modeling and the use of simplifications in modeling. He brings up the concept of a spherical cow, which is a way to simplify a model to get a feeling for how something works before putting in more details. However, Essex expresses annoyance that in some cases, such as in climate change models, the simplification becomes the only approximation without any real improvement. He notes that this is an example of two different worlds, the science world and the politics world, and how politicians pick whichever opinion suits their personal agenda and call it science, ignoring other credible scientists who do not fit their narrative. Essex believes that this irrationality ultimately harms people and has a history of causing harm because of screwball ideas that create political and social movements behind them.
00:40:00 In this section, Christopher Essex discusses the politicization of science and its negative impact on progress. He cites examples like the U.S Congress-driven nutrition pyramid, certain science establishments forcing out certain people, and the current state of climate science that has emerged as a "Frankenstein's monster" composed of different scientific fields. He points out that the problem with politics and science is a perennial one, and human beings need to resist their tendency to put the scales out of balance secretly to get the answer they want.
00:45:00 In this section, Christopher Essex discusses the irrational behavior of people and how they let group mentality take over, leading to poor decision-making and public relations issues. He talks about his initial naivete in thinking that scientific arguments could solve things, only to realize that people interact on a different level and that science is just a box in their minds. Essex also believes that good scientists must remain both cocky and humble, which can be problematic, especially in situations where people refuse to look inside the science box. Despite this, he remains sympathetic and understands that public relations and moral turpitude play a significant role in the world.
00:50:00 In this section of the video, Christopher Essex discusses the varying perspectives of scientists in regards to politicization in the scientific community. While some scientists take a cynical approach and use politics to advance their own research schemes, others choose to take the more challenging path of being a maverick and going against the grain. Essex recounts how he has been labeled a heretic and has had to navigate this path carefully, but has enjoyed total fun in his research. He mentions how having advisors like Freeman Dyson and Leslie Woods were valuable as they gave him advice on how to be a successful maverick, which involves discovering things that other people wouldn't even dare to touch. Essex recalls how he was never invited to join the Royal Society of Canada because of his heretical views about climate change.
00:55:00 In this section, Christopher Essex questions the persistence of the climate change movement, stating that it should have died in the 90s, but is being propped up by money and power. He suggests that people in positions of power use crises and emergencies to gather more power for themselves, which is why climate change is being perpetuated as a perpetual emergency. Essex believes that with common sense and asking the right questions, the average person can be a judge on how politics unfolds and stop the movement from taking over. He cites examples of absurd pandemic policies and encourages people to not get caught up in the momentum of things.

01:00:00 - 01:00:00

Christopher Essex critiques the policy on climate change by arguing that controlling greenhouse gases like nitrous oxide and methane is futile because water vapor absorption is so intense that nitrous oxide shows up when all the food has already been eaten. Additionally, the policy only focuses on the 15 Micron band of carbon dioxide, which lines up with the water vapor window, and ignores the other carbon dioxide that doesn't. He further describes the current policy as the "stupidest way of doing things" and argues that it will only continue due to money and power for another 30 years until new ideas emerge.