What the Hockey Stick missed about climate change
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 май 2024
- The infamous hockey stick figure was published in 1999. A new paper just blew it out of the water with an INCREDIBLE reconstruction. Support the channel by signing up for Nebula (if you use my code you get 40% off): go.nebula.tv/simonclark
(link updated March 2023)
You may have already heard of the 1999 hockey stick created by Michael Mann, Malcolm Hughes, and Raymond Bradley. It's a frequent skeptic talking point, and was involved in a whole scandal called climategate that rocked the scientific world. Eventually however it was validated by dozens of independent studies, and its conclusions accepted - the world is currently undergoing warming the likes of which humans have never seen before. Last month however, the hockey stick got an amazing upgrade. A new paper by Osman et al reconstructed the past 24,000 years of climate using new techniques, and gave us new insights into just how unprecedented anthropogenic global warming really is.
You can support the channel by becoming a patron at / simonoxfphys
NOTES/REFERENCES
(1) agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.c...
(2) This is a simplification - tree rings can sometimes act as a proxy for temperature or for precipitation, depending on the typical climate at a location
(3) geni.us/mannhockeystick
(4) www.nature.com/articles/s4158...
(5) I'm slightly oversimplifying here, what the paper did was attribute mechanisms to the principal components (PCs) of the temperature timeseries. PCs allow a signal to be broken down into components, ranked by size, that, when combined, reconstruct the signal. Solar and orbital forcing appears to be responsible for PC2, which was itself responsible for 3.5% of the total signal. The vast majority (over 90%) of the warming was accounted for by PC1, which could be explained almost entirely by greenhouse gases and changes in albedo.
(bonus) Ars Technica did a nice article writing this up, if you'd like some more material! arstechnica.com/science/2021/...
Check out my website! www.simonoxfphys.com/
--------- II ---------
My twitter - / simonoxfphys
My facebook - / youtubesimon
My insta - / simonoxfphys
My goodreads - / simonoxfphys
--------- II ---------
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com
This video is about the hockey stick graph created by Michael Mann and his collaborators in the MHB99 paper reconstructing the earth's past climate. I talk about how Mann missed key information in his analysis due to limitations of data at the time, and how instead of an eigenvector approach, a new study using Bayesian reconstruction paints a different picture of the Earth's past. The planet has never been as warm as it currently is during the holocene, with the medieval warm period and the little ice age barely featuring in the timeseries of past climate. This new nature paper from Osman et al is really something, amazing new climate change science that highlights present global warming.
Huge thanks to my supporters on Patreon: Andrew Knop, Shab Kumar, Cameron Grey, Brady Johnston, Liat Khitman, Jesper Norsted, Kent & Krista Halloran, Rapssack, abruptbanana, Kevin O'Connor, Timo Kerremans, Thines Ganeshamoorthy, Jerry Moore, Sam Harvey (the ever lasting student), Ashley Wilkins, Michael Parmenter, Samuel Baumgartner, Dan Sherman, ST0RMW1NG 1, Adrian Sand, Morten Engsvang, Josh Schiager, Farsight101, K.L, poundedjam, Daan Sneep, Felix Freiberger, Chris Field, Robert Connell, Jaime Stark, Kolbrandr, , Sebastain Graf, Dan Nelson, Shane O'Brien, Alex, Fujia Li, Harry Eakins, Will Tolley, Cody VanZandt, Jesper Koed, Jonathan Craske, Albrecht Striffler, Igor Francetic, Jack Troup, SexyCaveman , James Munro, Oskar Hellström, Sean Richards, Kedar , Alastair Fortune, bitreign33 , Mat Allen, Anne Smith, Rafaela Corrêa Pereira, Colin J. Brown, Princess Andromeda, Leighton Mackenzie, BenDent, Thusto , Andy Hartley, Lachlan Woods, Tim Boxall, Dan Hanvey, Simon Donkers, Kodzo , James Bridges, Liam , Andrea De Mezzo, Wendover Productions, Kendra Johnson. 
Наука
Simon: "This graph is wrong"
Me: "Please be good news. Please be good news. Please be good news. DAMN IT!"
The good news is that the prevailing scientific view of climate change is correct. The bad news is that people have to do something about it.
It is good news. It further supports the conclusion that something needs to be done, in a much more visually striking way, and so makes it much harder for deniers to keep denying reality. If this news hadn't come out, the deniers would stand on slightly less shaky ground. Now they're wobbling really bad, and the onlookers will be noticing. There's not much room left for deniers to look like reasonable people, and so the numbers of deniers will decline further.
I say that because I also used to deny the human contribution to global warming. At some point that denial becomes too absurd in the face of the evidence.
@@ETBrooD hey good on you for accepting human-induced climate change, even if it is something thats really awful to have to accept.
i agree with the rest of your comment as well. the more proof we have of climate change, the more people will believe that its real, the higher the demand to do something about it
@@LisaBeergutHolst
It's exactly the other way around.
@@ETBrooD
Nope. It only proves the fact the alarmists still want to explain the 5 billon years old history of earths climate by just looking at the past 200 years. Which is totally stupid.
If you want to know how a scientist gets their results ask the person who gives them their funding.
Yours is the only comment that makes sense
That’s also true of climate science deniers like Heller and Watts - shilling for Saudi royals pays very nicely. Ask Christy and Lindzen.
@@NapoleonGelignite do you know what trees and plants are made of?
@@russellpurdie - did you know that humans are mostly water? That’s proves drowning can’t happen right?
@@NapoleonGelignite you don't make sense. Not surprisingly, don't know the answer?
In a fairly publicized lawsuit, Michael Mann REFUSED to hand over the data for the hockey stick chart to prove his side. Mann lost the lawsuit. You should hold anything he trots out with a high degree of suspicion.
I hold out with a great degree of suspicion anything that confirms the narrative you have almost no choice but to confirm. If any climate scientist went against it even a little, they would likely lose their livelihood. Follow the incentives. It makes it almost impossible to understand any other climate stuff, because both sides seem out of their minds.
Can you provide a source for where Michael Mann refused to hand over data because I here that the controversy came from people analysing the same data and coming up with a different graph?
Anyone else find it interesting that almost all the SST proxy data points were coastal? Seems like that would make a big difference.
Not really. Their model would certainly account for that using the current data.
Reports actually point out that the data varies, and so long as you point out that variance in the paper, it doesn't invalidate the data. Interesting little twist to scientific papers isn't it? Sort of like when I declare I became a millionaire on social media pages a few years ago, but realize it is because I stopped using Euros as a valuation and instead started counting my net worth in Pesos right about that time. Hrm.
Most remote weather collecting data stations from rural or remote locations (which tend to have more stable temperature ranges over time) have been deprecated (removed or no longer included in date) over the decades. And those in urban locales e.g. major metropolitan cities (which have more consistently warming temp changes) have increased many fold. This is also pointed out in the paper as to why there is a warming trend. but...CO2!! CO2!! CO2!! It's now getting in the eggs! So feed your kids breakfast cereal! It's healthy for them!!! So sayeth the main stream media and your government....so let it be done. Amen.
@@nerdy_dav would or did?
the fun part of statistics is that you can greatly influence the overall picture by manipulating small sets of variables
@@SickPrid3 but the idea is to find out the data - the truth. Not to manipulate the data to deceive people.
These climate alarmists have many ways to lie with statistics. CO2 levels have increased by only 1.29 parts per 10,000 since 1880. Tiny! Insignificant! Nothing cannot cause something. That's how you realize that CO2 climate change is a big lie.
Climate gate video would be great, I find the history of science controversies (and reactions to research at the time) fascinating
Potholer54 has done a video about "climategate".
@@Stealthbong several actually.
Yup and it's mostly bunk....meaning it's been used incorrectly and to try and deny madmade climate change.
@@Stratosarge Unfortunately, Potholer54's videos are not favored by the algorithm, so few people actually see them.
@@BladeValant546 madmade? 🤔
The use of tree rings as a proxy for temperature is problematic because tree ring widths are more influenced by the regularity of rainfall not temperature.
all proxies are problematic; tree rings are more effective as proxies in some regions than in others, and this is also why multiple proxies are used - as explained in the video.
@@Sa1d1n Tree ring growth is effected by the regularity of rainfall and sunlight. So large rings are produced in hot and cold years. Small rings are produced in hot and cold years. Where in the world are these basic facts not true? Were the samples taken for the analysis from only those locations? What and where is the proof of that? Also the vast majority of the analysis is based on tree rings making the other proxies used rather irrelevant. If you are going to use a proxy you need to use it throughout time not just to fill in for missing data.
@@Camerondes21 depending on tree species and location, tree rings may be predominantly rainfall-limiting or temperature-limiting. This helps you determine (with reasonable accuracy) what the contributing factor to the growth pattern is. Of course, this works better in some areas than others. This is why you use other proxies (e.g. Isotope analysis) to interrogate the rainfall and/or temperature patterns for the particular region and the particular time period under investigation.
Tree ring widths are caused by si light and rain fall. Which are caused by temperature differences.
Huh? The temperature of the earth affects sunlight? That’s backwards.
So after doing some reading the scientists don't just use Tree Rings, they also follow it up with other proxies:
- Chemical properties of fossilized remains of plankton and microbes in sediments where the age is known from radiocarbon dating
- Ice drilled from polar regions
- Stalagmites in caves
- Sediment cores - Sediment laminations, or layers, can indicate sedimentation rate through time
The problem with the hockey stick graph is that it stops using the tree ring data at about a century ago because the hockey stick doesn't show up in it.
what about the other models showing a very similar graph? The ones not only using tree-ring data
There's multiple problems with that graph starting with the time frame it covers considering the Earth is billions of year's old. Humans really have no business talking about what's normal climate patterns for Earth when they know so little. The fact is Humans are a part of the ecosystem & its humans job to focus on human preservation. The Earth doesn't need humans because it does what it wants. People that have traveled in a plane & looked out the window can see how minuscule the effect humans have on Earth. What we are dealing with is phycological manipulation on a massive scale. Its not new because in ancient times they'd cut off peoples heads in hopes it would please the Gods & bring them rain. The Global Warming/Climate Change crowd are a cult. If you want to know the limits of human ability on Earth just go research Wars. If humans could have any influence on the Climate they would have already weaponized it.
@@TheEhrnberg The problem is that they are models, not direct temperature readings of the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere.
@@wandameadows5736 What if we do nothing and then we have a better understanding later on then realize it's too late. What if we do something and head towards a cleaner more sustainable future. I know which one I would pick. You yourself state that we don't know if we are having an impact on the climate. I'm unclear on how you are able to state that climate change crowd is just a cult following. Your statements are contradictory at best.
@@wandameadows5736 So, your comment lacks in multiple ways.
First of, abnormalities like a sudden consistent spike of global temperature is a good reason to question and analyze the whys. With regards to this issue, the industrialization and the consequent emission of greenhouse gases has proven to be an overall coherent theory. In contrast the theories of climate change deniers, which dont explain this occurence at all, it has managed to connect results from a vast amount of different research areas (such as mentioned in this video) while
persisting.
Secondly you can very much see human impact from a plane, such as the shaping of land into parcells.
Thirdly, influence doesnt translate into control by default. Just because you can have an effect on something doesnt mean you have a way to turn it into a tool for your own use. But projects are working on WEATHER control (not CLIMATE), that i can assure you off. No proof cause really you google weather manipulation research and you find something
Finally, do you believe factory and car exhaust fumes just vanish into non existence? Habe you ever fancied taking a good sniff from your exhaust pipe?
No? Well, perhaps that is because it is indeed a form of so called pollution which is harmful to our species and others.
But sure its easier to ignore reality when it doesnt suit us, so we can comfort ourselves into keeping our established habits, avoiding burdening our conscience. Blame it on a scheme and off the hook you are.
Three things we do know about the MWP is that there were three crop rotations a year, vineyards thrived from Scotland to Cornwall, and the skeletons of the period indicate that even the very poorest people were eating exceptionally well in contrast to evidence from skeletons before and after that period. Historical records also state the poor were able to live comfortably outside in rough shelters and evidence of ancient houses that still stand today show us clues that it was a very warm period indeed. Well I not sure about the rest of the world, but certainly in Northern Europe the temperature was certainly significantly higher in the MWP than today for those factors to occur. Try growing vineyards in Scotland today or achieving three crop rotations per year and see how far you get.
We also know that 6000 years ago the Arctic was free of sea ice. Regional? There are 2 castles, I believe, that were built around 1200 AD with ocean docks. Those docks are now very far from the ocean because sea level was much higher in 1200 AD. Regional? THe Sahara was green 7000 years ago. Regional? If you take a bunch of proxies and average them out, won't their own lack of resolution cancel eachother out? Seems like you could make any data into a hockey stick that way.
@@johnkosowski3321 Exactly! It all comes down to natural cycles, including the four Milankovitch cycles and of course solar activity.
@@johnkosowski3321 "If you take a bunch of proxies and average them out, won't their own lack of resolution cancel each other out?"
Yes, that is very much what happens. And is how Mann got his hockey "stick" to be so straight.
Stop being silly. These mischievous manufactured contrarian narratives comprising of half truths, outright nonsense, fallacious arguments and irrelevant talking points are getting old and tired now. Boring in fact.
It's hilarious how the AGW contrarian style has evolved from the full head on beligerence model, to instead relatively recently, trying to sound knowledgeable, resonable and considered as if they know anything remotely useful about the topic.
Yep, you all look like sealions to me.
@@jamesfairmind2247 Recent rapid global warming is NOT the result of "natural cycles". Both long term Milankovitch and recent solar changes should have caused slight cooling over the last fifty years or so, NOT the observed rapid warming.
*“You can’t go back and change the beginning, but you can start where you are and change the ending...”*
*―C. S. Lewis*
"nothing ever ends adrian"
Using Christian theology to usher in radical socialism. Cute.
@@PD-we8vf .. what?
Great quote
Look out. You used a quote from a Christians author... Get ready for some hate and vitriol from strangers.
Despite being predominantly recorded in Europe, south-western North America and in some tropical regions, the Medieval warm period affected both the northern and southern hemispheres. But the temperature increase was not universal, varying across regions of the world, and did not happen simultaneously everywhere.
@@paulsnow In the Roman warm periods Julius Caesar wrote about the fine wines coming from England some of which came from as far north as Carlisle, It is only now that wine is being made again in the UK and that is only in the south.
"Mediaeval warm period" is really short localised warm periods that are not simultaneous, but spread across about 500 years. It's an artifact of deliberate sampling bias.
@@paulsnow What makes you say the South Pole isn't warming?
@@paulsnow "raw" means inaccurate.
@@paulsnow If I collect population height data from 3 different countries, the raw data is useless: Country A measurements are done in inches, Country B is done in cm, and Country C is done in cm using rulers that are known to have expanded due to the heat.
The data first has to be homogenised so it is all equivalent.
Scientists know this.
Dimwit dropouts don't know this.
I am always interested in the crazy amount of ice that covered the northern hemisphere just 10 thousand years ago. When they say that New York was covered with 500 feet of ice, I see the amount of global cooling that got the planet in that position and the amount of warming that got it out had to be considerably more than we talk about with the hockey stick climate change.
You should check out what happened during The Great Oxidation Event, which is probably the greatest mass extinction event the Earth has ever seen - almost spelled the end of life actually. It shows what happens when the correct amount of greenhouse gases do not exist. i.e. too much or too little has a detrimental effect on the Earth's environment.
Where I live we can see the remnants of the last ice retreat about 10,000 years ago...no fossil fuels or cows back then!
@@tomgreene1843 I don't remember anyone saying that CO2 is the ONLY cause of warming. There is a natural 100K year cycle, of cold and warm, the last one peaked about 20K years ago, and was 4C below today's temperature. The scary part is we're well ahead of the expected warming curve. So on the bright side, we won't have to worry about another ice age in 80K years, which is a good silver lining. But at this rate we'll be too worried about food, and starving in 25-50 years.
@@tomgreene1843 ruclips.net/video/dpvd9FensT8/видео.html
CO2 is plant food. NASA reports the greening of the earth by increase 18% since 1980. Well be able to grow lots.
So, the guy who created the hockey stick was asked to supply the data for his study, he said it wasn’t finished. Asked again later the data was vanished. So basically the hockey stick can’t be verified.
When did he say that the data vanished?
The original "hockey stick" is irrelevant now, as it has been independently corroborated so many times by other teams using better statistical methods, more evidence, and higher resolution. They did it better than Bradley, Mann, and Hughes, in an attempt to bust them, and corroborated the findings instead over and over between 1998 and today. That's why MBH1998 is superseded. It wouldn't even matter if Mann done the things the oil industry shills accuse him of, since the corroborators don't rely on his work.
The hockey stick shape of the Holocene temperature record is one of the most thoroughly corroborated findings in science.
@@rps1689
Provide a link to the corroborated studies.
@@LSuschena I keep posting them, but they get removed. It gets removed even if I just put in the titles so you can do a search.
@@LSuschena They are being removed so if you are still interested, I can put them on another youtube video called Measuring the Human Impact on Climate Change The Hockey Stick Graph.
So let me get this straight: They averaged out a lot of proxies and smoothed out their guestimates. Then added very precisely measured recent data without any averaging at the end. And what they ended up with is almost flat line with a "sharp" change of 0.5 degree at the end where they didn't smooth it out. Shocker!
Ummm... we don't need to average over sparse and disparate proxy sources to determine the recent temps. We've measured the recent temps directly, with thermometers.
Climate scientists claim WW2 destroyed all industry and that correlating to a drop in CO2 levels. Except WW2 was a war of industry on steroids. The US and Soviet Union were still manufacturing. Not every country in the world was a participant in the war. Massive armies used massive amounts of energy to fight and traverse around the world. Entire towns were firebombed in Japan. Three atomic bombs sent vaporized matter into the atmosphere. Just to name some things off the top of my head.
I’d expect a spike!
Climate scientists clearly do not specialize in history.
@@pauljackson2409 and THAT"S what the error bounds are for.
@@mathboy8188 "Ummm... we don't need to average over sparse and disparate proxy sources to determine the recent temps. We've measured the recent temps directly, with thermometers."
Sure, but when doing a temperature reconstruction it's not correct to suddenly switch from proxy data to actual data. You have to calibrate your proxy data against temperature data and then use you proxy date from start to the current date.
@@debilthomes501
To do an analysis correctly, we have to use the proxy data all the way through - including more recently when we know we have more accurate data sources? Who put that thought in your head? Sorry, but no... scientists always rely on the best data they have for any analysis they're doing.
It’s curious that Michael Mann is so reluctant to defend his hockey stick in court. He started the cases but has refused to complete them.
Not True, he lost a court case and the Judge told him his graph was fake!
So the Tim Ball case and Mark Steyn case didn’t happen ? He just refuses to give his evidence after he sues people.
You mean: the "scientist" who faked a Nobel Peace Prize award on the door of his office wouldn't defend his work? You must be wrong.
That's because the entire climate study field is based on fraud. I've made a startling realization that completely guts everything we have been told.
@@notacommie7154 If you had actually read the experiments and studies done in the last 20 years or so, you'd know how utterly foolish you sound.
There is a lot of interest in what is going on, and only very specific areas have higher degrees of certainty. There is still a LOT to learn. The problem isn't the scientists.. it is politicians + agenda driven media supporting those politicians. You'll never find any time when all scientists agreed, and there has never been a time when there were not dishonest scientists. Why should today look any different?
What I always love is how any time data is pulled and looking at pretty much anything. We always create a model where it essentially takes gathered data and then humans take anything they feel like to expand the data to make leaps. Then it turns out years later to be errored and not correct. How long before these new reports turn out to be off by some weird thing. Remember glaciers were supposed to completely gone 30 years ago and 50 years before then we were supposed to be going into another ice age.
"Then it turns out years later to be errored and not correct". Some past models got it right. Hausfather et al 2019, "Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections".
Yes, scientists can be wrong, but does that mean we just give up trying to understand? Do we just throw caution to the wind and carry on with a course of action without even looking where that may lead us?
The whole mechanism of science is that of actively looking for where we may be wrong and trying to correct it. Just because scientists _can_ be wrong doesn't mean that my pet theory is right. A scientist who has devoted a good deal of her life to the understanding of something is far more likely to be right than I am.
@@Aaron628318 I’d say you are on the right track, however it needs to be stated that far far too many scientists put out their theory as fact. The peddle it as if there is no doubt. And the politicization of scientific theory is where the real problem arises. We’ve seen it in climate and biological in the last 50 years. It is even worse now because people that question these theories are now being shut down by those in power when real science should always be questioned and tested.
Yeah how long before we find out if we look at spaghetti long enough it's not just fucking dense carbohydrate molecules!? It's like Science gets better at describing things that already exist. Like the poor and than good Climate change model.
@@Aaron628318 Yes they can be wrong, especially when their livelihood hinges on the correct answer to be produced. Note that not even one of the 102+ models have even gotten close to being accurate. Also note that virtually none of the retired scientists and some of the nonpublic funded ones agree with the Mann hypothesis. Not even the IPCC says it is man caused.....................lastly even if man stopped all CO2 emissions tomorrow, nothing would change, not for hundreds of years. Unlike the claim by Gore, CO2 follows temp, not the other way around. It is really simple to prove, right in your kitchen.
I do appreciate the research and the information.
Likewise ☺️
I find it mildly amusing that people think that the earth started to heat up immediately after they burnt the first ton of coal at the start of the industrial revolution!
Shhhhh. You're not supposed to notice that.
Real climate science is a great channel that goes into old news paper archives to show all the omitted data that was too inconvenient to include in the ever changing main stream graphs.
Can’t find such a channel is that an old name for this channel?
Few question to consider:
1) Why proxy data is used only for the past, but not for the present? Why can't we use the same methods to "measure" the current global temperature?
2) Why is data of present global temperature is gathered from cities and airports? These places are typically way warmer than their surroundings?
3) Life was thriving under warm temperatures. Most of global extinctions happened during ice ages. Why should we be worried about climate becoming better?
Gotta say... some good questions!
@@FergusScotchman You like questioning stuff? That means you are scientist denier. People of science never question anything - they believe the dogma and follow what politicians and journalists tell them to follow.
Stop questioning stuff, of else you will become climate denying MAGA conspiracy antivaxxer of putin's troll farm.
@@evgeniiferdiuk9535 It's insanity
You have to wait 30 to 50 years for ice cores so that the ice forms and stabilizes.
CO2 increase modifiés the growth of trees.
Extinction during ice ages ? Check again.
@@philippesarrazin2752
Tree rings can be checked within 2-3 years.
Yes, CO2 is the most important natural gas on this planet.
Yes, every ice age caused at least some species to go extinct, while over half of great extinctions were caused by ice ages.
Tree ring thickness is predominately relative to moisture (rainfall), and has little to do with temperature.
Perhaps, no idea but they don't only rely only on tree rings but on many other proxies.
@@jean-pierredevent970 if they misinterpreted that variable so obviously, what makes you think they did not do it with all other variables?
I am not qualified to answer this but if another proxy shows high temperatures and trees grew fast than it must have been a favorable temperature condition with enough moisture too. Suddenly with Covid, nobody trusts science anymore but medicine was always a bit a art and a science together. For many diseases we don't know exactly the cause. Some medicines work but we don't know why exactly. Etc. In climatology, there are many questions where the answer is not yet fully clear. But at the same time, this field seems to have the most humble and honest people. Not a single climatologist is a "star". Most people will not be able to give a name. They show the error bars. They show their evidence. They are often a bit shy and nerdy and find it hard "to sell" their knowledge. (ex.: Jennifer Francis )In an interview with a skeptic however, they give very eloquently their "arguments" but rarely some evidence which can be checked. They rarely have done good discoveries themselves, they just criticize. So what they say seems not so different from their opinion, their gut feeling to me. " it will all be fine" OK, do they have a crystal ball? No, so we better be careful. If the skeptics are so sure of themselves they can promise to pay if something happens. We don't hear such promises however.@@SickPrid3
Warm temps may actually stunt some plant growth, if the temps get too high. Also c02 levels also would make plants grow much faster. Didn't they also add in some data at the end to inflate the modern temp delta. Not sure, but think it was sea surface temps they added. All in all the old chart was almost worthless, I don't think humans can out perform an ice age so id be willing to take a chance on a bit of extra heating if it got us a few more years out of an ice age.
@@jean-pierredevent970 These days the public is more awake of who funds "the science" and that includes covid, paid in large by big pharma and philanthrocapitals like Bill Gates. "Who pays the piper calls the tune", in their research is tainted by having a predetermined result or they lose their grant funding. Even the most humble of climate scientist has to put food on the table, put a roof over their heads and put their children through college and university, has aspirations to climb the greasy pole. Going against the narrative paid for funding from UN Agenda 2030 sustainable development goals, Federal government and Climateworks Foundation etc etc can be detrimental to the wellbeing of their careers.
Oh... It always bothered me that the called it "hockey stick" when they aren't that shape; they make a U at the end. They meant ice hockey stick... That penny took a long time to drop.
Yes! As someone who used to play field hockey it used to confuse the hell out of me too haha
@@SimonClark Hey Simon, thanks for sharing. I hope you can please respond 🙏to my other comment when you can. It would mean a lot. Thanks very much.
If you're going to review Michael Mann's book, the should also review "A Disgrace to the Profession" which summarizes professional scientists comments about Mann's work.
Ahh yes, a book written by a conservative media host - definitely not funded by the Koch Bros. Also has NO association with any credible science outlets or scientists. You people will cling to anything at this point.
Are you going to update this in light of recent revelations (October/November 2022) about how climate models have been significantly overinflated?
The graph can be both accurate and misleading. The Y axis shows the average change in temperature with a range of +1 to -1. The same data showing the actual average temperature would show a much less impressive graph of temps ranging from about 13.6 to 13.9. Reducing pollution is a good thing but the drive to instill panic and prompt irrational action is not.
Well said. But it also avoids many dishonest and disgusting facts about the graph and the people compiling it which is now public record. Its a laughable video. The graph was cut out in the 60s or 70s them user proxy data using two sources at the time a 30 plus year cooling period ended so the spike looked increased. The tree rings weren't meant to be used for temperature at all according to those who took them and Mann took out those which showed the opposite so as the average would fit his goal. Then though on a public pay role he refused a FOI and refused to show his methodology to other researchers. When the end of the world is around the corner!
What made it a conspiracy is their active refusal to provide access to their data, and when they did provide data, it was clear they had intentionally altered the datasets. Yes, "cleaning" data is a thing and can be valid, because some data can be in error or is spoiled in various ways, but they actively opposed investigating this. Yes, you also release the bad data and explain why it is bad, you don't hide it and lie about it. Their unscientific behavior rightfully led to questioning the validity of the graph. Note that nothing I said discussed the validity of the graph itself, just the bad behavior of Mann and Company was a strong driver of the controversy. Good scientists don't refuse to release full datasets.
And they cherry picked data and papers. They claimed the majority of papers say humans were a cause, but the reality is they excluded papers thst didn't mention humans, and so few papers explicitly said humans were not a cause.
The great majority of papers on causes of climate change didn't mention humans because humans aren't relevant to it.
So it's a subset of a subset where they rules put the majority.
You're wrong in the most important part: it's a completely fraud just like this video. I love how youtube push anti science ideological videos like this pretending to be controversial that shine new light but in the end it is just repeating the mainstream lies.
"Good scientists don't refuse to release full datasets.".... I wouldn't have released my data to some of the groups that were demanding it be released at that time. Some of them were the epitome of 'thinktank' (even as a teenager I wondered about the scientific rigor or lack thereof of some of them). My memory is of the scientists email being hacked, and their discussions about cleaning the data being used to call them crooks. They were damned if they did, and damned if they didn't.
Why are the three comments hidden?
@@grumpy3543 because you stole them, give it back Jamal.
Something that is overlooked is that life, from plants to fungi to mammals, have an easier and more successful time adapting to warmer climate than to cooler climate. In simple terms, it’s easier to dissipate heat through already existing systems, like sweat pores, than to develop new warmth retaining mechanisms, like humans or birds developing blubber layers. Warming isn’t the end. Or rather, it’s mot as certainly the end as a drop in temperature would be. For a real world, real time evidentiary example, compare Texas heatwaves to that cold snap they had. You barely hear about their heatwaves. They’re easy to adapt to, even months long or multi-year lengths. Imagine in contrast if that cold snap they had lasted 18 months.
2C warmer is better than 2C colder. And a sudden and decades lasting 3C-6C drop from a single sizable volcanic eruption could happen in any given year. That eruption is coming. A mild 2C raise now will offset the drop, and will be less catastrophic and more survivable for every creature everywhere.
This forward looking plan is not discussed, as people are focused on immediate effect, and not accounting for unavoidable eventual factors. We can plan for that drop, and maybe cut it in half, there y saving 60-70% of the global population from freezing to death. No one wants to listen to rational minds, and consider the elephant in the room. They’re too caught up in hysterics of rising temps. The real threat is the floor being pulled out from under us, and our unintentional exacerbation of that.
Good post. As for your Texas example the reason you don't hear about their heat waves (In my onion) is it is expected. Right now we are hearing about how cold Fla is. Yet people are not talking about the temperature here in Western NY. That's to be expected.
Is there climate change going on? I honestly don't know. I don't know your age but I'm old enough I was around during the 70's and 80's when we were warned that a new ice age was coming. Then we get warned the planet is heating up, global warming was coming. Then we get told that global warming will trigger an Ice age. Then they change it to climate change so no matter what happens they can say they were right, the climate changed.
The other thing they do is when we have heat waves they say that it's proof of warming. But if we point out the especially cold winter we just had they say that's weather not climate. You can't have it both way.
Is the weather different from when I was a kid. I can say yes. In the 60's and 70's I was playing in the snow at Thanksgiving and we always had a white Christmas. The first day of deer season had snow. Now there are many times when we don't have snow for those times.
The funny thing is they started talking about Warming not long after they had warned of the Ice age. So why am I doubter? It's because of what I have seen over the years. I'm not a denier, it's possible. I'm just doubting what is being brought forward. I know I am a boomer, but I enjoy being called that. Why? He was one of my favorite characters on TOS Battlestar Galactical.
I just noticed autocorrect wonderful of my misspelling of opinion. It changed to onion. I'm leaving it so you can have a laugh. Keep your onions to yourself
All of that is because they are really selling socialusm, not global warming. Kind of like " get the shot to stop the spread" Clear it up?
@@notacommie7154 I can agree with you the people pushing it are doing it for that reason. But I have some left leaning friends(Hell leaning so far left they landed on their face) that believe this stuff because that's what they have been around for so long. And condition to not accept your statement without you giving your source so they can point out why that information is wrong.
And just take a closer look at the numbers. Even at the most extreme error bars, the range of change is less than 2 degrees for the whole of the last 1000 years. And the mean average by less than 0.5 degrees over the same time. To thikn we can change that within a single lifetime is laughable.
It's hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
One of the reasons why so many people still doubt anthropogenic climate change.
When you have 1) an academic community dead set on the hockey stick temperature history willing to ostracize dissenting researchers and suppress dissenting papers, and 2) a situation where the data is very easy to manipulate (choose your proxies carefully, make favorable statistical assumptions, find reasons to throw out unfavorable data, just drop a whole study if numbers don't shape up the right way, etc.), the result is that no number of these types of papers are convincing. We need testable predictions to have conclusive results; that is how science works. Not just more of the same sorts of assumption filled studies from a biased research community that don't offer any testable predictions.
Buddy, observations and data led the community to this conclusion...
Otherwise it would have been disproven by idependent groups a long while ago...
Your world view doesn't hold up, as you can't prove it.
Stop with the lies buddy, you're buind pathetic.
I attended a lecture over ten years ago where the speaker stated several scientists went back to where the ‘hockey stick blade’ started to go up. From that point forward they ignored thermometers and continued using tree ring data as had been done at the start of the ‘Hockey Stick graph. From what we were told the tree ring data continued forward on basically the same ‘level’ as the earlier data. No up tick was found. Comments as to this?
This would be a part of the Climate Gate video, so I am hoping that Simon will be bringing this up. But as someone familiar with the science and those specific studies I'll comment on this.
Direct temperature measurements are really accurate, right? We have been using them reliably pretty much from their inventions. Whenever we use alternate measurement methods they are always calibrated using direct methods, as is the case with tree ring proxies as well. So if at first direct measurement and tree-ring measurements (note that a lot more than just tree-rings were used as proxies, it is only one of the methods that were used) start to diverge, what do we do? Before the divergence the tree ring data agreed with direct measurements AND other proxies, after 1960 it went completely it's own way. So we are forced to conclude that something changed past 1960 that altered the way trees behaved during their growth seasons, causing them to skip sometimes even several growth seasons in certain areas. The most likely candidate for this is the heavy amount of aerosols that our industry used to push into the atmosphere before those emissions were curbed.
Relevant studies for this: Briffa et al. 1998, MBH 1999, D'Arrigo et al. 2008.
@@Stratosarge I have to take exception that a single graph contains both proxy and direct measurement data, where proxy data is cut off at a certain point, assuming that modern data is simply superior. Temperature instruments have their problems also, such as calibration, placement, proximity to heat sources or urban areas, poor maintenance, operator error, transcription error or fraud (can happen with proxy data too), etc. I’ve worked with enough instruments that I am quite familiar with their potential problems. The graph should include modern proxy data as well, which would show there is some other effect occurring. This would hopefully inspire others to investigate the discrepancy and explain the gaps.
@@kensurrency2564 But the discrepancy and the gaps are well documented and the dendroclimatology studies show the complete proxy data. And because all the other proxies support the instrument data, either all the other proxies along with instrumental data that is used to calibrate even the tree-ring proxy is flawed, or the tree-ring data past 1960 is flawed. And note that the tree-ring divergence problem really happens in arctic circle trees, not globally.
So the proxy data would not have been representative of the modern warming and thus it was correct to not include it in a graph that is supposed to represent the changes in climate for past 2 thousand years. All the data and the reasons for the omission are all explained in the studies, so there is no secrecy behind it either.
And your points about all the systematic and non-systematic errors on instrumental data are also something that have been thoroughly considered. The data quality control has gone through peer-review and you can check the relevant studies on GISS data FAQ. And of course if someone comes up with a better quality control, they are free to submit their methods for peer-review.
@@pauljackson2409 "Just because we don't know everything, we don't know anything" is a common science denialist mantra, be it flat earther, creationist or climate denial.
Yes, I am asking you to take the model on as much "faith" as I am asking you to take it on "faith" that 1 litre of water weighs 1 kilogram, even if only 24 out of 25 scales agree with it.
The instrumental data, the other proxies and the tree-ring data on everywhere else besides certain locations within the polar circle agree with each other. And you are asking us to dismiss the rest because one dataset happens to be different in a situation where there are numerous reasons why it would be different. So you are being dishonestly obtuse.
As to why it happens, tracking down the exact reason is impossible, but there are several plausible explanations like aerosol pollution, draughts and physical stress from the rapid warming during growth seasons. (Büntgen 2021, D'arrigo 2008)
@@pauljackson2409 Jones and Mann did not "delete data", they explained the whole thing in their studies. UK Institute of Physics did not criticize them on those studies, all the audits and future studies agreed with them. The criticism came from not cooperating with McKintyre, who was constantly pestering the CRU team.
"If as you say, that deletion was justified because of other evidence, why weren't they transparent about why they did it?"
They were transparent in the relevant studies. And again independent research teams from across the globe have confirmed their findings.
"I hold a science degree and I believe in the scientific method."
Then you seem to understand philosophy of science very poorly if you are expecting perfection in any field. Do you also dismiss theory of evolution because we don't have the full fossil record? There is always more to learn. Your whole grasping of straws and willful ignorance and intentional obtuseness comes across as childish, and very deserving of the science denier moniker.
"But if you are trying to claim that something , you don'y know what, invalidates part of your data set, but not the rest of it, then that sounds to me like special pleading, and is anti-science."
It would, if it wasn't for the rest of the evidence supporting the rest of the data-set.
"who's to say that this didn't also happen in the Medieval Warm period?"
If we did not have the rest of the proxies available you would be right. It is the exact same thing with radiometric dating, if we only had one method of dating available we would not be able to use it, as it would be constantly giving us false dates. That is why we have converging evidence from multiple methods from which we can figure out the correct method and age range, and then we can pinpoint the actual age of the dated sample.
So if you truly have a degree, I truly worry how poorly the philosophy of science is taught as part of that education.
I have what may seem to be a dumb question. The planet has been warming pretty steadily for the past 10,000 years, which makes sense because there was an ice age 10K years ago. My question is, what caused all that warming? Clearly it wasn't mankind, so it had to be natural, yet some say that all the warming for the past 100 years is all our fault. I think that's what puts many people off, this notion that we're responsible for global warming when there is clear evidence of naturally occurring warming for thousands of years.
Search for "the Milankovitch cycles".
Also oceans take hundreds or thousands of years to warm therefore contributing to the major greenhouse gas - water vapor. Clearly not man made
Your premise is wrong. The warm peak of this inter-glacial was 6,000 years ago and we've been slowly cooling since until the industrial revolution which has increased CO2 by half and caused temperatures to rise rapidly.
The glacial cycles are caused by regular variations in Earth's orbit known as Milankovitch Cycles. As Earth gets nearer the sun there is a slight warming which releases more CO2 which increases water vapor which increases warming in a feedback loop. When Earth moves away again the process is reversed and the glaciers spread. This is a very slow process. This industrial global warming is 10 times faster than normal inter-glacial warming.
@@burnoutadvice8207
Currently, water vapor has the largest greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere. However, other greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, are necessary to sustain the presence of water vapor in the atmosphere. Indeed, if these other gases were removed from the atmosphere, its temperature would drop sufficiently to induce a decrease of water vapor, leading to a runaway drop of the greenhouse effect that would plunge the Earth into a frozen state. So greenhouse gases other than water vapor provide the temperature structure that sustains current levels of atmospheric water vapor. Therefore, CO2 is the main anthropogenic control knob on climate.
@@waynepatterson5843 I recommend anyone who cares or is in doubt look it up for themselves.
The question is not whether or not the climate is changing; but rather whether or not the governments of the world can fix it by standing on your throat.
The Hockey stick graph shows two different kinds of data. There are modern thermometer readings with high accuracy, regular and frequent records and good geographical coverage. Then there are proxies which are the opposite. The proxy data is easy to find via PAGES12K (the metadata spreadsheet) and graphing up any dozen of the 1300 proxies will show huge variability even for the same places using similar methods. The graph you are shown is just lots of estimates added together. The likely +/- indicates a warm era like ours would be expected every few centuries.
The IPCC best estimate for human warming is currently 1.07C. However the first 0.5C is just a return to normal after the Little Ice Age. So we are all supposed to panic over 0.6C above normal after 150 years.
The obvious conclusion is that we are having a small effect on something that isn't that big in the first place. It might be a problem if we don't change for a few centuries but there is no reason to assume any crisis is going to happen.
Strange example... Mangoes ripen and they ALL fall to the ground whether eaten by monkeys or not. Moreover, if there were variations, that would be a better proxy for how many mangos are harvested by humans and taken home to be eaten or sold. (Monkeys seldom export mangoes outside their home range.)
Almost as poor as the date sets that were changed/delected/covered up during climategate.
Mangoes that ripen and fall grow into mango trees
🧐 this is the detail that stands out?
@@mrs.w5145 Not really. I added a more serious, detailed comment right afterwards that expressed the hope that people would not just focus on inevitably misleading partial analyses that focus exclusively on particular examples of "positive" (GHG-increasing) feedback loops without also acknowledging the complex systems also feature sometimes active, sometimes latent "negative" feedback loops that simply can't be ignored but often are by the more catastrophically minded. (For example, a warmer climate is almost certainly going to be an increased-biomass world - albeit one with significant loss of genetic diversity. I appreciate that most people (myself included) would rather stick with what we've known during the entire history of our species since the end of the last glacial maximum, but a higher-biomass planet isn't exactly a catastrophic outcome...)
Since I have limited hope that governments can/will get their acts together (I worked decades in the federal public service in my own country, 🇨🇦), I'm more likely to favour additional resources going to (politically easier) adaptationist policies that are more likely to be effective than preventative/mitigating ones that governments trot out to be SEEN to be doing something...
Excellent explanation - I love the monkey analogy! It's amazing how a 20 year old graph is still so relevant today. Also yes please for a climate-gate video - it's a conspiracy theory which refuses to die!
Well when the time scale is so wide, usually it takes a lot of time for any graph to be come dated
@@craigscott2315 "When everest popped the siberian continent move 2000 miles in seconds" - What on earth are you talking about?
“The Guardian” has a great article about Climategate from 2019.
@@craigscott2315 the moon is flat and When the sun was eaten by a dinosaur 5000 years ago, an apple exploded. Also, red is my favorite color in the alphabet, from a chart from 1-10. The universe was debunked in the faked moonlanding in the century of pears, more exactly on the date black holes. Mind the monkey! In China, a bag of rice just tilted over, and my only infinite amount of toes just cried. Now my phone is sleeping. My RUclips-Channel died yesterday and I was just to it’s funeral. REFERENCES/SOURCES:
1. logic
2. common knowledge and common sense
3. J.F. Kennedy
4. T-Rex
Happy easter!
@@craigscott2315 global warming hadn’t even really started in 1886 since temperature measurements first started about 6 years before that! And how do you debunk the temperature of the coming century, a century earlier?
So in other words, the "climate scientists" went looking for evidence that proves their theory.
It would be interesting to know if their 'research' showed how warm it was in the Antarctic when that continent was covered with rainforest
So you believe the artic was covered in rainforest in the last 24000 years?
@@YraxZovaldo It's been millions of years since then, but yes, that is a normal phase in earth's climate. The artic has been a rainforest many, many times, and covered in ice, many many times. I'm not a global warming denier or against the efforts to reduce carbon emissions, but lets be honest about the facts. Here is a link to Dan Britt's presentation. Helps put things in context. ruclips.net/video/Yze1YAz_LYM/видео.html
Are they farming in Greenland again as they were in the Medieval Warm Period? No? Perhaps then that old graph was more correct than now claimed. Proxy measurements are nothing but a best guess and when one's best guess is guided by whether your grant money gets cut off or not those guesses can be cherry picked.
There is one "proxy" type that apparently was ignored. These are "far field" measures of sea level change. Such measures are direct measures of change in sea level in locations that are geologically stable and located remotely from any regions subject to processes like isostatic rebound. These far field measures demonstrate that sea level was around 1.5 meters higher during the early Holocene, right when that warmest "hump" was mapped. These measure are located around the globe and are in very good agreement. The sea level may or may not be an actual proxy for global temperatures, but it offers profound methodological problems to attempt to argue that it sometime is and sometimes isn't. One of the issues that you fail to mention about Mann's original hockey stick is that the near end of the stick the blade, is not "proxy" data. The "proxy" data turns downward, opposite to the direct temperature measurements, which are substituted for the proxy data in the blade area. That is the kind of poor practice that called Mann et al.'s conclusions into question. The weakness of Bayesian statistics is its very strength. The method attempts to use available knowledge to more accurately make as statistical assessment. Needless to say, if the knowledge is mistaken in some fashion, then the analysis suffers from classical GIGO problems. More over if say historical accounts of weather and crop issues are ignored in favor of proxies where they appear to contradict what you believe the proxy to be telling you, then not all available knowledge is used. More to the point, uncertainty of the understanding of the proxy behaviour may not be incorporated. Caution always is called for when someone says, "I told you so." That indicates a potential of expectation bias.
Thanks well written
Hold on, so one of the major talking points about an issue caused by climate change is sea levels rising but they didn’t use sea level as a proxy when trying to estimate the average temperature?
@@nwblader6231 Not precisely. What are not considered are the "far-field" data. That shows that there is a current rise, but very minor. There are instead exicted "blutterances" about changes along say the eastern seaboard, which has definitely been losing elevation. But this due primarily to isostatic shifts in response to the end of Pleistocene glacial epoch. It is parallel to how mud oozes out around your shoe when walking on wet ground. If it is wet enough, you see it begin to settle back down and the foot print fill in. Continents do that on a far longer time scale and in meters rather than millimeters. It is also a serious problem with the infrastructure along that part of the coast. But the only way to combat that form of subsidence would be to re-establish the mile thick ice sheet over the northern US and Canada. And even then the rise would take as long as the subsidence. One possible way to understand global "warming" is to ignore the "warming" bit and think instead that there is more free energy in the system. The ups and downs are more pronounced. The average though, barely moves.
@@theeddorian thanks for explaining that
@@nwblader6231 You're welcome. One thing I missed mentioning is that globally some coasts are stable, some subsiding and some rising relative to sea level.
So, what was the global climate like between the glacial maximums? What was the global climate at the last glacial minimum (what we are currently heading towards or at)? How does maximum and minimum glacial loading effect the Earth's climate?
Michael Mann put up this fraudulent graph to get his Ph.D. I know my PhD thesis is not any better, we all cheat to get degree, but at least I stop talking about my fraud after I got my PhD.
Wdym by “maximum” and we are heading towards a hot house climate. Something our planet hasn’t seen in millions of years.
@@dallasguy236 and sea levels in the Eemain interglacial 125,000 years ago, yes only 2-3°F warmer than the late 20th century temperatures, caused sea levels be 6 meters higher than today.
@@PremierCCGuyMMXVIyou’re assuming that the trend will just continue to rise though
@@m_t_t_ why wouldn’t it not continue?
We also have data from time of first flowers in spring for hundreds of years, and glaciers melting faster and faster.
Sorry but the warmest in the lastv10k years was about 5k years ago, about 2 to 3 degrees more than today as shown in ice core studies. The coldest time in the last 10k years was the 1850's, when we started recording temperature.
[citation needed].
The graph at 7:10 implies +/-0.5 degrees error in the proxy calculations by its width. However proxies are calibrated against each other by their originating researchers, coral to pollen to tree rings, and the ones that don’t match are thrown out as invalid. So the shaded red zone could easily be twice as wide and include significant up and down swings. As far as the last 100 years nobody is arguing that temperatures haven’t gone up about a degree. Instead of panicking about this one degree, maybe a more valid point is that the preceeding 7 degree rise seems to have been beneficial to mankind, and detrimental to wooly mammoths.
That's an argument that is never made. I'll point out one more thing that everybody overlooks. There was more warming in the first third of the 20th century when man made co2 was much lower than there was in the last third when mm co2 was multiples of the earlier period. ( it didn't warm at all between 1944 and 1980 . whoops)
@@notacommie7154 kinda like all that CO2 we've made in the last 20 years and all that warming that didn't happen. (Well, unless you listen to those studies that magically found after the fact that the "pause" never happened.)
@@beetle3088 that's because there is zero correlation between co2 and planetary temps. An example of telling a huge lie, repeating it and relying on the scientific illiteracy of the public to create the consensus. Disgusting.
I remember a few years back these same people were saying the world was going into a ice age . Did I miss something.
Yes, you missed what the scientists were saying then, what they've said since, and what they're saying now.
In other words, you didn't miss something. You missed everything.
@@mathboy8188 Thanks, NPC.
@@Hornet135 No, thank you. It's always good for chuckle to hear the mindlessly trendy term "NPC". Can you figure out why?
@@mathboy8188 Probably because your software hasn’t been updated yet. The OP is not wrong though, the previous crisis was global cooling.
All the mango seeds end up on the forest floor every year. Where else would they end up?
Institutes of study and analysis should be state funded, not privately funded, since private funding is too easy to bring about skewed results.
Oh hi, nice Nebula original pick 😁
Also, great video as always
If I had time to watch more videos, I might get Nebula for Not Just Bikes and Real Engineering and Mustard.
Back in 1954, a freelance writer with a firm grasp of statistics wrote a classic little book called "How to Lie with Statistics." It is still in print and useful way for non-statisticians to see the fallacies in charts, graphs, and statistical sampling. The book has been updated and reprinted regularly and is still used in classrooms in conjunction with the study of logic. It should be required reading in every school, along with a course in basic logic and common fallacies.
In this video, we have a chart purporting to show a deviation from the mean temperature of the last 24,000 years. In a recent PBS video, climate scientists used ice cores to construct a similar "hockey stick" chart reflecting the average temperatures over the last 800,000 years. The problem with both studies is inadequate sampling -- a period of time was chosen that produces the desired political result -- the "hockey stick." But if the sampling of Earth's temperature is extended back in time to encompass a much larger period of time -- say, 65 million years -- the chart would include long periods that were much warmer and much colder than the present, and the "hockey stick" would be only one of many spikes in the chart, and an average spike at that.
In fact, we are still in the middle of the last Ice Age, since we have ice caps at both poles. But in the course of Earth's long history, the poles have completely melted multiple times. Between 100 million and 40 millions years ago, dinosaurs roamed over subtropical Antarctica and beast resembling crocodiles lived at the North Pole. People weren't around then to cause "climate change." The Earth's average temperature naturally fluctuates over geologic periods of time. During the late Pleistocene (about 14.8 to 12.9 thousand years ago), for example, there was at severe drought in several parts of the world, inclding southern California. There weren't enough people on Earth to cause that climate event, either.
Humans may be contributing to global warming, but it is only one factor among many others affecting climate. I have yet to see any credible study that proves that reducing human carbon emissions to zero would cool the planet very much. Meanwhile, we are ignoring real environmental problems we must address: improving our sewage treatment facilities, removing plastics from the oceans and rivers, reducing physical waste, removing harmful chemicals from the water and land, and using water more efficiently -- just to list a few. We all have an interest in protecting our environment, but the discussion must begin with a consensus on the facts rather than skewed scientific studies like this one.
"In fact, we are still in the middle of the last Ice Age''. Yes, but the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880, and that two-thirds of this warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade, which is a rate warming 10x that of the gradual warming that ended the last glacial period.
" I have yet to see any credible study that proves that reducing human carbon emissions to zero would cool the planet very much". Hmmm... Do you deny CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
Over those millions of years, carbon has been continuously removed from the atmosphere. Terraforming Earth into Jurassic Park is undesirable to say the least.
That natural changes in climate occur is uncontroversial. That Industry is causing this episode of extreme warming is indisputable.
@@nobottee
" Except that the accuracy of the warming data since the 70s has been disputed by highly credible people, including the people who actually created the satellite measurement system. And your thesis does account for the zero net warming observed the past seven years".
You are clearly nuts.
So won't mango seeds eventually end up on the forest floor regardless of whether there are monkeys or not?
The biggest lie of the hockey stick is it's short time line.
So what caused the Medieval Warming period...that you acknowledge was real...unlike Mann who cut it out from his hockey stick graph
There is an obvious problem with splicing two different data sets together. If I draw a graph of last week's weather with data from the weather service, then add measurements using a thermometer which I check every hour, there will be something a kin to Michael Mann's hockey stick. Relative flat for 7 days then major fluctuations.
I'm an undergrad math student but I haven't taken any stats courses yet. Take what I say with a grain of salt.
While we would see major fluctuations with more constant and steady measurements, we would not see these fluctuations occurring only in the same direction. Using your example, we would see that we would get spikes during the day time specifically during the afternoon when it is hottest but we would also see valleys during the night when it is coolest. These, of course, would not be detected by the weather service data (if you only use daily averages) and thus the weather service data would result in the "stick" in the hockey stick. However, measuring by the hour would result in data with peaks and valleys around midday and midnight respectively. This would not result in a hockey stick shape but rather just a more spiky/sporadic straight line.
The only way we get a hockey stick shape (without the average daily temperature increasing) is if you only measured using your thermometer from the start of the day until it reaches peak temperature for only 1 day. Of course, this is bad form and is very similar to just cherry picking data as well as suffering from a small sample size (only 1 day). Now, I haven't read the study from which the hockey stick graph comes from, but I don't think it would've gotten published or received all the attention it received from the scientific community if it was using cherry picked data.
@@liambenoit5327 Those are some good comments, with the following being noted: Yes, the point the person is trying to make is that it is easy to cherry-pick and manipulate data to get a desired outcome. He doesn't really mean that his scenario is accurate.
Second, I think you over estimate the academic acceptance of that particular hockey stick; the 97% agreement argument has been debunked many times.
Third, what would be signs that academics might attempt to validate their desired outcome? You go back to past data and "adjust" them to strengthen your argument. Done. You also keep moving the goal post for your predictions to incorporate ever more actual data to minimize the effect of future variation and you make "improvements" to the model. Done. If we keep making "improvements" to models, that means that past models were flawed. And it also probably means that the whole model continues to be flawed. When do you stop and say that your model is THE one that makes the correct predictions?
Third, you underappreciate the effect of funding to bias academics. These people's livelihoods are tied to bringing in federal and public-sphere grants and funding. Why would they show results that counter their paychecks? The other awful result is the bias in selecting research to be published. I've encountered this in my own publications. Journals are biased to select research that confirms current trends and methods, but not research that would result in, essentially, no hypothesis conclusion except to say they don't observe the same results and point out flaws of current research.
They probably had no idea about this (sarcasm)
@@FergusScotchman That's some impressive devotion and commitment towards delivering FUD there Fergus! Good old FUD, the AGW contrarians best friend.
forgot about this video :) can you update this with the current scientific theories on what happens in a magnetic reversal or traversal, and does co2 follow the temperature or does the temperature follow co2
Historically, co2 follows temperature. 97% of greenhouse gas is water vapor and the fanatics insist that farting cows emitting methane are a major problem.
Co2 follows temperature dead/fallen trees are carbon sinks they emit more carbon than anything I've ever heard of Temperature first increased density of trees co2 next ,cooler temps more fallen trees that's my opinion
The most accurate statement in this video is the fact that our scientific knowledge is always expanding. Unfortunately, many people, including scientists, are very resistant to new ideas that challenge widely accepted views. Just as the hockey stick graph has adjusted and fine tuned, other discoveries have been made. We have learned that climate is a very complex subject. We constantly discover new variables that have an effect on climate. You can never say that any theory is carved in stone. A true scientists knows that the more we learn about something, the more we realize what we don’t know, which is usually far more than we do know. Question everything!
Valentina zarkhovas work is quite compelling and it pretty much states in a nutshell that climate is mainly effected by the sun! Not us. Science tells us most of the time what is not, not what is.
We've known that carbon dioxide was a greenhouse gas and that increasing amounts are warming the planet since the 1950s.
That is data not theory.
All subsequent data has confirmed over and over.
Saying scientists aren't interested in new information is completely ridiculous
Modeling has never gotten anything wrong, ever.
Not true. check out "J. S. Sawyer (1 September 1972) Man-Made CO2 and the Greenhouse Effect".
@@milankovitch8697 not familiar with sarcasm, eh?
This has been discredited so many time I'm amazed any one still has the nerve to show it .
I did not read the paper, but given the nature of modelling and the time steps, is it possible to capture short term "impulses" caused by sudden CO2 emissions, such as massive volcanic activity? In other words, how well this model could capture a sudden and brief CO2 emission happened 10,000 years ago?
I'm going to have to save this and rewatch it again and again and I will get on curiosity stream this is fantastic!
Weird how when I was growing up the bands for trees were an indication for rain fall. The amount of available water for a tree to consume and grow. Not sure when it changed to heat.
When it helped get climate grants...
@@scrout yamal series
This is just speculation, but I think they would consider a proxy for a proxy to be a proxy for the original thing. The assumption is probably that warmer temperatures result in more rain fall, so the width of tree rings is a proxy for temperature (as well as rain fall). Just a guess, but if they are assuming some fixed model between all of the proxies, it would be simple to calculate. (Not claiming it is necessarily accurate to do so, just that it can be done.)
@@andrewhopkins3397 when I think of hotter Temps I think of less humidity meaning less water in the air allowing the heat to increase. With more humidity it keeps the heat down and increases rain fall since there us more water in the air to Condense into rain fall. So these climate people are just flat out lying now.
@@thanniss Just because you think or feel something doesn't mean it's true. I think it's been pretty scientifically demonstrated that higher temperatures generally result in more rianfall. Higher temperatures means there is more evaporation of water, so there is more water vapor in the air to then rain back down. I'm not sure where you live, but everywhere I can think of that isn't a desert is way more humid in the summer when it's hot. That's quite a leap to claim all these people are lying based on what you had in your comment. (Again not trying to address the veracity of climate science, but just saying you seem to have leapt to the conclusion they are lying based on a personal feeling, as opposed to any scientific evidence.)
I find it extremely odd that humanity gets time and time again schooled by nature and we still believe it all revolves around us.
Exactly, it is laughably arrogant when people claim to that humanity could possibly destroy the planet over the course of a few centuries, the same planet that has existed for untold millenia. Or that the Earth needs people to "save" it. For the entire history of humanity up till now, humans have been living at the mercy of the whims of nature, the sun and stars, and I don't expect it to be different for the foreseeable future.
The truth is that if we are to take climate change seriously and truly want to not make harm (as some may claim the Industrial Age has caused)
we must recognize the alarming similarities to said human damage that all ready happened, we all need to encourage different opinions even those who we vehemently disagree with and a free respecting debate, we need to put emphasis on not turning this into a political show and most certainly eliminate any possibility that greed might somehow destroy different or efficient ways to produce clean energy, we need to empower normal people to make good decisions for the environment not demand they do or lecture them to do so, we also need to stop fear and hatred revolving this issue no good will come from young man and woman deciding to not procreate based in part large or small of climate change, the list goes so far climate change is proving to be a business before anything wether it is fueled by opportunism or power, guilt or fear it matters not, my ancestors have been planting trees way before science deemed it necessary or beneficial.
@@anoxthefighter7933 agree💯. I'm afraid my first reply was poorly worded. I'll reword it to avoid confusion
@@superbarnie I see, it seems I went overboard, for that I ask forgiveness if I made you uncomfortable.
I also need to confess to that I used to be a person that believe in all that you have said in your comment, I still do believe in recycling but it has changed drastically as today I recognize a lot of the flaws humans bring to the table when it comes to this discussion, so I just want you to know that my oversized comment came from a place of respect and wanting to discuss with people who still blindly follow the craze climate change has become.
@@superbarnie the people who claim that climate change will destroy the world are not helpful at all. the biggest victim of climate change will be ourselves, and our civilisation. we can't shift the entire earth from it's orbit by an inch, but we don't need to that in order to melt the poles and flood our cities. even in the worst case scenario, "life finds a way". but we can destroy most of the life we have today, and we won't live long enough to see what happens afterwards. and we are not 'at the mercy of the whims of nature'. If you are cold, you turn up the heater, if you are hungry you go buy food. we have split atoms and communicate at the speed of light. pretending we're just sitting here waiting to see the cards nature has dealt us is just ridiculous.
Thanks- I needed a bit of an update.
Viewers of the hockey stick chart, please take note of the numbers ON THE LEFT of the graph. This "spike" only looks like a spike because it was measured in ONE-TENTHS OF ONE DEGREE. There is no crisis.
You mean then the chart shown at 7.10. The increase vs average stable period is +1.1°C (as far as I can see).
Two points here:
1- the increase is very sharp, and this is only the start of a long increase, so expect more to come (we know +2°C will be reached, and if we do not actively reduce CO2 emissions, a +4°C is even reachable)
2- the exit of the last ice-age some 10-12.000 years ago shows a global temperature increase of +4°C (see the very same chart). So a +4°C is NOT PEANUTS, this would lead to a massive climate change, that our planet and its inhabitants (now 8 billion people) would struggle to adapt to (don't expect North Europe to be very welcoming when African people, and maybe South European people too, will knock at their door, and same for Canada vs Central and South America immigrants).
@@franckr6159how do you know? Models?
@@jaymac2277 How do SCIENTISTS know (would be a better question ;-)
- past temperatures: direct temperature measurements during the last century, and proxy measurements for earlier times (tree rings and other elements).
- future temperatures: applying calculations based on science, the physics of climate (radiative forcing mainly and plenty of other elements, as this science is complex).
@@franckr6159 making predictions of future temperature rise is hardly an exact science.
@@jaymac2277 I see you modified your answer, from "they don't know" to now: "hardly an exact science". You are starting to improve then !
The question is then how accurate are they with their models? And answer is: pretty good !
Check paper: "Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections", by Zeke Hausfather and al.
Conclusion (extract): Here we analyze the performance of climate models published between 1970 and 2007 in projecting future global mean surface temperature…. We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations.
Nice, isn't it?
What a great price, I'm definitely gonna sign up. Keep up the hard work brother
I like how you left out the weighted algorithm used to calculate the data, and that without it the hockey stick disappears.
In fact, you can feed the program random data, and it will produce a hockey stick graph EVERY SINGLE TIME.
That's impossible, unless the program is weighted to give a predetermined result.
Ummm what? 😂
So we are literally coming out of an ice age... Yes it is getting warmer
we are not, we're still in one...
You “forgot” to include a longer period graph. I put together a graph going back hundreds of thousands of years with public ice core data from NOAA and what we are seeing now is very stable in that context. I take the sudden spike to be a function of switching from extrapolated data to observed data with better resolution.
Hi Simon, this new paper mentioned the tilt of the earth. I've watched loads of videos about the milankovich cycles, so, while i understand in general how it works, I've seen nothing tying any of them to a time period. So, i can't figure out where we are right now. Could you take this as a request for a video topic?
The last four glacial periods were 105 thousand years apart; synchronized to the Milankovitch cycles all.triggered by slowly changing greenhouse gas concentrations. The Milankovitch cycles are in a cooling phase now, as they have been for hundreds of years and will be for hundreds of years to come; those orbital eccentricities apply a cooling force yet are not driving the warming.
This channel has another video explaining how solar warming gives a different result. The stratospheric temperature changes differently if solar radiation is the cause. It clearly demonstrates that what we see now is caused by the increasing greenhouse gas4
@@DazzaOnGoogle I believe that climate change is real, anthropogenic, and a threat to humans. I want to see dates, numbers, measurements, and projections because i'm curious, but also to win arguments :p
@@manjuh4236 Win arguments? You might win them but they won't be recognized by the majority of the deniers out there. You'll write a paragraph or two with whatever dates and measurements you want but they'll just respond with "LOL nice try SHILL. Just shows how indoctrinated the libTARDS r". But someone's gotta speak the truth I guess, so I admire your compassion to seek and spread the truth.
@@DazzaOnGoogle Keep in mind nobody has successfully described a mechanism for variations in the solar wind to significantly influence climate especially during industrial times.
Look up “Solar Cycle: and “Introduction to Solar Radiation”. Also look up “Ask NASA Climate - Flip Flop: Why Variations in Earth's Magnetic Field Aren't Causing Today's Climate Change”. Good source for laymen, but other sources are available. As for papers, there isn’t much out there about the lack of correlation between completely unrelated things like solar flares and climate change, as the effects from solar flares last for less than a day and are one time events. Climate change requires a forcing, and for an event that lasts less than a day to cause climate change, one humungous forcing like a giant meteor strike or a volcanic eruption bigger than any in human history would be required.
Note that on scales from minutes to hundreds of thousands of years, total solar irradiance is practically constant; that its tiny variation on an eleven year period (one part in a thousand from the mean) correlates with no climate or weather trend; only short term changes in the atmosphere.
"The value of the constant is approximately 1.366 kilowatts per square metre. The “constant” is fairly constant, increasing by only 0.2 percent at the peak of each 11-year solar cycle. Sunspots block out the light and reduce the emission by a few tenths of a percent, but bright spots, called plages, that are associated with solar activity are more extensive and longer lived, so their brightness compensates for the darkness of the sunspots".
Have to ask why there is so much literature available with good documentation that completely refutes the whole man caused climate change idea?
because you don't understand what good documentation actually is?
@@bcwbcw3741 really, when the author references multiple documents and articles and provides links to them so you can read them and get the full context. Also provides links to all the studies and reports cited in their work.
Does that not constitute at least reasonably good documentation?
@@bcwbcw3741 perhaps you're just blinded by what you have been convinced you should believe!?
@@racetime1960 If you want to understand whether your "good documentation" is any good you should start by looking at the papers that disagree with your "refutation," not the self serving citations in these papers that agree with the authors. Unless you can understand the papers that disagree and show how they are wrong then your refutation is meaningless. The mechanism of heat trapping by CO2 is well understood, unless you can show how that additional trapping can take place and not change the earth's temperature then you haven't refuted anything.
@@bcwbcw3741 or you can explain how the atmosphere is big enough and complex enough that CO2, comprising a very small percentage of the atmospheric gases won't have that great an effect on the planets temperature.
And, if you realise that none of the predictive climate models work in the end and that none of the doomsday predictions has come about.
Oh, and the papers you say I should read are cited and links provided to the documents in question.
See, it's not that hard, with just a little effort, to understand that the "climate catastrophe" is in fact a fairytale.
As a non-scientist I know Greenland was green 1000 years ago. Treelines in the North (of Canada, Russia etc.) used to be hundreds of km further North than now. If the new "7-year" study produces a graph showing that "it's been warming all the time in the last 24K years" should I doubt the name (Green-Land) or the graph?
Wow!
@@hosnimubarak8869 Don't bother feeding the scientific illiterate troll ; )
Yeah, a multiple kilometre thick ice sheet form in a couple of years.
I am getting tired of being told every ten years that we are all going to be wiped out in 10 years LOL
No climate scientist ever said.
I feel like when I try to tell the average person what a "hockey stick" on a graph is, they don't know what I mean
What are you doing on a science video, aren't you meant to be on the self help channels 😉
@@DannyHatcherTech LMAO
It's for Americans who know about ice-hockey, if nothing else.
@@DannyHatcherTech is this joke supposed to be funny
@@lancetheking7524 depends what sense of humour you have.
I've grown weary of wealthy policymakers telling me how I should live while they'll likely continue enjoying steaks, air conditioning, and all of the other amenities I of modern society. I have no problem with using a combination of renewables and nuclear. I certainly don't think that renewables alone are ready to be our only source unless make a real effort to decentralize how we generate our energy. I just refuse to go along with any scheme that doesn't involve an effective solution to the energy-production end of the equation.
Then there are many who carry the misunderstanding that having an EV will automatically result in fewer greenhouse emissions. Maybe if you are using the most efficient power transmission lines and the fewest amount transformers and substations to the tap, then yeah.. it might be more efficient even if that energy is generated by natural gas. At least that what I've been told. Seen one meta study which tried to make this point but it got lost in the noise. Is it really more efficient to generate electricity with natural gas and send it to an EV or is it more efficient to just burn the fuel in the ICE to make immediate use of it for locomotion?
One argument I've heard is that the fossil fuel industry receives tons of subsidies. Well, if that is the case.. which ones? I'm all for nixing those subsidies as a step towards leveling the playing field.
Very good points! It seems unlikely we can generate enough electricity from wind and sun, and hydroelectricity is very limited unless you live in a really mountainous country. Nuclear, aside from being historically much safer than it is given credit for, can generate a lot of power.
In terms of EVs, the overall efficiency of generation and distribution cannot be made much better than the efficiency of ICEs though petrol and diesel contain a higher proportion of carbon than natural gas.
One thing that concerns me is reliability of supply. At present if there is a power cut for a few days, we can use gas fires and the like. If we only have electricity we will be d****d cold!
They should remove all subsidies from power generation companies including the so called green ones. See who comes out more cost effective then! Survival of the fittest
So what melted the ice cap all across North America with no human input?
"Since people have died naturally, murder is impossible!" Same logic, just as stupid.
@@Crispr_CAS9 You seem not to understand much. So stop trying and stay simple.
@@MrYort13 You seem to not understand very basic logic.
@@Crispr_CAS9 OK I think you are confused. What melted the mile thick ice?
@@MrYort13 Okay, I think you're confused. You think that someone dying of natural causes rules out someone being murdered.
I hope some number of people who watch this... realize the issue is not the absolute level of temperature.... but the rate of change
Yes indeed. They dont seem to get this part. Or that cities and much else, including plant an animal populations, were able to adapt to slow changes in climate
We (and most other organisms) adapt quite well to 10-20 degree C changes every single day. And 50+ degree C changes over the course of a year.
And we (or other organisms) won't be able to handle a 3C change over 100 years? A change of one tenth the daily magnitude over 3600 times the time frame is 'too fast'? Why aren't we all dying every day because of the ULTRAFAST 20 degree fluctuations? The alarmism is incoherent and illogical.
@@philojudaeusofalexandria9556 Oy. I think you miss the point. Perhaps you could present (or speculate) a somewhat more sophisticated view or argument?
Think you could have mentioned professor Keith Briffa's treering temperature reconstruction which didn't switch data sets, to weather station temperature records (Orchard fields airport/O'hare) Mann's "data" didn't do to will in the 2019 US supreme court case's 18-1451 & 18-1477 either.
When the raw data Briffa used was found and analyzed independently, some trees showed the temperature trend they were looking for, while other didn't. Instead of trying to figure out why, he just ignored the data that didn't support his predetermined conclusion.
Can you please elaborate on the heatwaves of 1901 and the 1930’s?
They are irrelevant; they were regional.
@@rps1689 no they were not regional
@@ddoumeche Yes they were regional; not globally synchronous.
@@rps1689if facts don’t match with your believes, than it’s just an incident…..
Aliens
In my life time here in North Eastern Canada, I have seen alarmists tell me 'Canada will in my life time' become a frozen wasteland & Innu peoples will have to move South to Survive, most of Canada's population (which lives within 100 miles from the USA) will have to go south & As I lived over 400 miles north of the US Our Multi Generational farm lands would be frozen & we would have to leave, Then a decade or so later I was told ....no acid rain & warming trends were going to make the world unlivable & "we were all going to die" with all fish life wiped out by acid rain. Then a few years later, we had increasing warming & the Ozone holes forming & "we were all going to die" & water wars were coming & there would be palm trees in the Arctic Again & the equator would be a ring of deserts & "most of us would die" , when the world started cooling again here in Canada & the Arctic Ocean ice sheets kept reforming long after they were suppose to be gone forever Climate Change came out (we are destroying the planet were all gonna die) with their predictions & doom & gloom ....while I still hang on with hope & lots of wishing for the predictions to return to warming here in Newfoundland & Northern Cape Breton ...after 60 years of it I am starting to lose hope & I gotta say I am not even slightly alarmed...the only way anyone can alarm me now, is when we get a warning that an asteroid a couple miles wide is going to make a direct hit on us ....that will probably get my attention & that's about the only thing & I have to say I'm doubtful they will tell us even if they notice in time ...the idiots who are predicting , couldn't in my opinion , predict which way their urine stream would go in an easterly blowing wind !
Hockey puck: what about electromagnetism, the sun, the polar shifts, etc.
Ross McKitrick, "Suboptimal Climate Fingerprinting," Journal of Climate Dynamics, Sept. 2021. 19 of 50 UN IPCC models show zero statistical significance of greenhouse gas induced climate change. The 19 of 50 debunk models were based on Allen & Tett's 1999 land mark paper, "Optimal Climate Fingerprinting," published in the Journal of Climate Dynamics and adopted as the gold standard in climate modelling by the UN IPCC in 2001.
I have yet to see any paper on greenhouse gas induced climate warming that has a 4, 5, or 6-Sigma level of statistical certianty, or 90% confidence level or higher.
Climate alarmist ignore known problems with recycling plastics, electronics, and batteries. In many cases what is recyclable in a responsible manner is not due to economics. Instead the waste becomes environmental and health hazards in emerging and third world countries.
There is a lot of battery research that is promising for the future, but for the foreseable future battery production and disposal is looking like a future castrophic environmental tsunami.
I must have missed something. Was proxy data validated with a new way of handling proxy data with credentials amounting to being 7 years in the processing? The end of the 25,000 year graph definitely had a vertical anomaly that has global warming possibilities but as a one step at a time person all it said to me was that what went before was indirect proxy temperature related data and what came after had direct temperature readings. In the 1960s met forecasters made serious judgements based on limited information,training and experience and the, now defunct, Bracknell met computer was being built. Now we are given a limited, but more reliable, choice of different computed models from a overload of data. It was towards the end of the 20th century that flights over the Atlantic stopped routinely passing met information in position reports and only did so as instructed to stop providing more data than was necessary. The biggest change to weather in the last 60 years is how humans can observe it. Adjectives like INCREDIBLE are for journalists not researchers who cannot live long enough to achieve results that will exclude inconvenient possibilities.
Spot on.
I can see why you'd think this, but a more accurate reading of temperature doesn't change the temperature you read, just the decimals after the point.
And there WERE accurate ways of recording temperature in the past (see: trade ships in colonial times with thermometers travelling the world and recording temperature)
It's just that the temperatures we are recording have gone up. According to your explanation we have somehow managed to significantly improve temperature recording methods, and at this trend, we can control global temperatures by getting better at recording them. If we want a colder Earth, just be less accurate?
Unfortunately, like all things, it's not that simple. That "end of the graph anomaly" looks like an anomaly that should be ignored when you zoom out to a 25,000 year scale, but when you zoom in to ~500 years you see it's a massive, constant, accelerating rise that shows no signs of stopping and exactly follows greenhouse gas emissions. We also know that humans weren't really impacting emissions pre-indistrial revolution, due to the fact that the industrial machines hadn't even been invented yet, so they couldn't be making the emissions (since they didn't exist).
Truth be told, I think your viewpoint is a good one to have that more people should use, but you also need to look closer if you want to apply it, and in this situation... You just can't. If you don't trust the dozens of credible temperature proxy recordings dating back thousands of years, you can say that, but the majority of the scientific community accepts that there is no better way to try and start recording an unrecorded past (apart from time travel, lol)
Have a great day!
@@ThatOneGoatGuy Thanks for the reply. My point was that we now have masses of temperature recordings of recorded material at recorded times. The temperatures constructed from 25000 years ago reply on deductions from what is believed to be the consequences of conditions that have ceased to exist. It shows overconfidence to believe that the graph starts and ends with the same kind of data just because it is labelled temperature.
In 1966 the senior forecaster at an airfield with a 200 feet cloud base briefed the assembled aircrew that it would clear by 1000 hours. The user audience laughed where upon the forecaster pulled out a 10 bob note and called "any takers"; the result was silence. The cloud base was still 200 feet at 1700 hours. Instead of being ridiculed the next morning for his mistake, the forecaster got a round of applause when he started with "put your money where your mouth is". That forecaster had to manually predict the future from experience and raw data off teleprinters. Now he would tell us what the more accurate computer models expected. Ask a computer about 25000 years ago and you have to give it human processed material as sensors only operate in the here and now. Computing power is a great tool for extending thought but no substitute for the same. Judgement (not AI) is a valuable quality that is not demonstrated by those who work backwards to justify their dreams instead of exploring the possiblities to discover the likely realities.
@@ThatOneGoatGuy I can't see your other comment. So replying here....
ruclips.net/video/lJxrs0v-3b0/видео.html
@@ThatOneGoatGuy here's some more information.....
ruclips.net/video/aq9gwzv6e04/видео.html
Question: I might have missed it in Clark’s video, but since the proxy data seems to be of prime importance, to what extent in time does this data exist? Is every set of proxy data valid over the same time period? If not, then what happened is that the hockey stick was assembled by merely stitching smaller data sets together to create data over a longer time extent. I suspect that is not a valid way of creating anything meaningful. Now, if each proxy dataset extended over the same time period, and they all had the same character (peaks and valleys in the same locations), I could see that this might be meaningful. Otherwise, stitching together proxies is invalid, IMHO.
But what Mann did was switch to a modern technology for the last 2 decades because the tree rings were not showing the warming he NEEDED to show. That is what started the big IPCC hockey stick scandal & the walk out of lead IPCC scientists. The creation of pseudoscience was born.
Mine as well
ruclips.net/video/CqtZdnpfgIc/видео.html
AFAIK that's how proxy data sets are generally callibrated. E.g. start out with thermometer measurements and compare them to tree rings and lake varves, then compare those to chemical markers in ice, and so on. That's the major reason you get less precision the further back you go.
IIRC the "trick" that got denialists so exited during "climategate" was a mathematical equation that lined up a set of tree ring data with other known proxies (there were other, known, factors that influenced the tree ring data, but figuring out the relationship was difficult).
@@henrikgiese6316 Hi Henrik. That is precisely my point. Not knowing all the different factors that affect tree ring data, the ability to accurately “stitch” them together relies on your confidence that you have completely eliminated all other factors except CO2. By not making public his method for doing so speaks volumes about his credibility as a scientist. IMHO his hockey stick graph should be regarded as invalid, and all future pronouncements by him should be discounted by the fact that he does not the follow scientific method.
Whether a projected climate change graph shows a "hockey stick" or not just depends on the length of time it covers. If we make it stretch from hundreds of years ago to what is fairly confidently projected as likely a few decades into the future it'll show a sudden upturn (ie, "hockey stick"). If it begins a few decades ago it will show a slope rather than a sudden upturn. That should be borne in mind when discussing this.
As a professional analyst, we have always reminded the layman that "correlation does not equal causation" and any one who depends on data analysis for insights and solutions knows this. It requires testing of individual factors and interactions for conclusions. Furthermore, the global ecosystem is extraordinarily complex making it near impossible to isolate causal factors on something so complicated as global temperatures. The very fact that an ice age existed is proof enough that our global temperature is moving and is influenced by factors greater than cars and cows. Proxy data is weak at best and can be worse than guessing because it assumes too much and encourages loose interpretation.
Correlation/Causation: For example shark attacks increase in direct proportion to ice cream sales. This doesn't mean an increase in Ice cream sales causes shark attacks, it could, however mean that more ice cream is sold in the summer months when there are more people swimming at the beach. Looking at a graph of the two, it wouldn't be obvious though.
Precisely.
You a statistician/scientist? I work as an engineer.. but my background is science (Chemistry/Biology 1970s, University of California)
@@rbarnes4076 Project Manager for an engineering firm. I did Statistical Process Control for shipyards for sometime.
Landon, you speak from the confidence that comes from knowing nothing about the subject you are talking about.Climate isn't some random dataset like the stock market or shark attacks but a physical system heavily constrained by conservation laws. The climate doesn't "just change;" it is driven by changes in the energy flow in and out of the earth's atmosphere. The IPCC report is mostly an energy conservation budget, calculating how much heat is coming in from the sun and where it is going. The hockey stick paper doesn't establish causation, that has been done by forty years of calculation and measurement of those energy flow terms.
That's crazy, I'm also a data scientist and I find the analysis in these studies to be top-notch. Did you consider that correlation can still happen to show causation or was that the whole argument pretty much? It's almost like scientists have used their correlation studies and for the past half-century narrowed down the possible causes before getting to a relevant conclusion that yeah, it's the greenhouse gasses. As any sort of data analyst, you should understand how the scientific process works and the sheer body of work done on the topic should hopefully be enough for you to realize that just saying something is complex doesn't mean a causal link can not be proposed and verified.
In fact, what's funny is pretty much the same complexity of earth's climate cycles went into figuring out that there was an ice age in the first place and we believe that enough to use it to construct arguments now right? But I guess that question was just one that any simpleton could have realized.
the hockey stick graph was declared fraud by a Canadian court after the creators refused to let it be peer reviewed.
That's an over simplification that misrepresents what happened.
Stop repeating bollox, care to substantiate that ridiculous statement you obviously copied from lies spread over the internet. Are you capable of free thinking?
@@lrvogt1257 you mean like how the climate alarmists alter data and oversimplify things they can't predict nor control?
@@SoloRenegade : How is it that deniers who pretend to care never pay attention to the facts? Or do you know it's false and don't care? Hiding data didn't happen. It was a baseless accusation that was thoroughly investigated by a dozen official and media entities and found to be false. It was a slander by fossil fuel shills based on taking a few phrases completely out of context and misrepresenting them.
There is nothing simple about climate science except the primary factor that more CO2 traps more heat. If you know how much CO2 were adding you can predict ow much warmer it will be. Today's temperature was accurately predicted in the 1970s. There is a record of global temperatures that show a very steady trend. Industry is changing the climate but not in a controlled way. We can only hope to mitigate the damage by reducing industrial emissions rapidly.
@@lrvogt1257 CO2 has a logarithmic affect on temp, even the climate crazies don't deny that because it's scientific fact and has been proven countless times throughout history. That means to get to even 3C of global warming we'd have to get to 1600ppm of CO2, and 3C global rise is nothing.
NASA/NOAA alter the temp record and refuse to share how and why they are altering the record so that others can try to replicate it (peer review). It was factually warmer in WW2 than it is today. and even as CO2 rose massively after WW2, temps plummeted for decades. And during the roman era it was up to 10C warmer than it is now.
Mann factually lost the court case in Canada for refusing to subject his work to peer review. Therefore he was ruled a fraud in court when all he had to do was open his research to the world (if it's not available for peer review, it's not science).
so, how can we imagine that we can lower the climate temperature by affecting about 5% of the Earth's CO2 emissions?
What bothers me about these statistics is that a few years ago, research was done on the post-ice age vegetation in this area. The study found, e.g. that about 7000 years ago the vegetation was similar to today about 1000 km to the south. And it proves that the temperature has been higher than today, after the Ice Age, and in the same way it was in the Middle Ages...
Of course, it can be argued that it is a very "local" temperature variation, but the same current "local" temperature variation is nowadays evidence of human influence on climate temperature... a bit incoherent.
Local temperature variation is not taken as evidence of climate. Climate is measured globally. That's why differences in temperature are given in a global context, scientists are not taking your thermometerthat shows an extra warm day as evidence for climate change. Did you watch the video at alll?????
@@michaelduguay7698 Yes, I watched the whole video. And since changes in vegetation zones require a lot more than "local temperature variation", I thought I'd ask how it fits into this new "more appropriate" temperature curve implemented with a proxy...
Or is there evidence that when the plant zones of the northern hemisphere have been 1000 km further north, it is due to local temperature variation? Don't scientists keep a thermometer?😁 maybe they should. I guess you understand that in order for the growth zones to rise 1000 km to the north, centuries of warm periods are needed? And since it is baby Europe, especially the cold months must stay warm for a really long time....that is, the temperature in Northern Europe must have been several degrees higher...so what did that mean for the temperature of the entire planet? according to the current understanding, a rise of about 0.6 degrees in northern Europe means a rise of 1.5 degrees globally... so from the pre-industrial era....
So I could say that I'm starting to worry about global warming when the reindeer eat nuts around here and tractors are ordered to Greenland.
@@exactormortis7433 You're correct, average temperature will be different for different regions for different times of the year. Some of this data has been approximated with climate modelling. I believe there is a website where you can select your location and it will show you an estimate for how much the average temperature will rise for precise regions, even areas as small as a city. Of course, these are likely rough estimates
@@michaelduguay7698 I am talking about the change in growth zones... and I'm not really talking about a small change, but about the fact that the current taiga was subtropical... that's a pretty big deal. And it's not enough that the local climate changes... it requires a much wider warming.
@@exactormortis7433 Sorry I think im just not familiar with the topic. sorry for bothering you
It's the latter...
_The_ most diabolical scam in the history of science.
Good vid, I would not watch a vid on Climategate. Too many bitter memories for me, and there's also the politics... I would encourage you to make one though. Younger people didn't hear about it, and a good number of people my age didn't actually pay any attention to it.
They cooked the books, got caught, didn't make any difference because it's a religion. The end.
@@sjb3460 Read "A Disgrace to the Profession."
@@shoobidyboop8634 by Mark Steyn.
It was a release of emails where they were having a discussion of some data. Unless you are a denier it’s pretty much nothing. Deniers latched onto any possible source of uncertainty (as they do) and tried to make these people out to be criminals.
@@sjb3460 ^ my reply there was supposed to be to you
''We understand it really very well now'' You think?
medieval warm period, a 'regional' event recorded in tree rings across the planet.
300 years of excessive warming is just dismissed as 'regional'
we have 3 weeks of days in the winter of 30 degrees below normal. that is 'weather'
we have one day of 105 degrees and that means it is man caused global warming.
one has to ask how many of those temp records of present day are taken out of town in country areas, away from any urban sprawl. my temp guage is out in the open and is more often than not colder than the local airport one because theirs is influenced by paving that never was, and by roads that werent, and more buildings all of which are heatsinks and alter the temp up. The only reliable temps are those taken out in grassy fields far away from any influencing man made objects.
Modern cities are giant heat sinks, a giant concrete pad with tall mirrored reflective buildings focusing the heat into the concrete. In order to affect climate change we need to dismantle the largest cities and remove the majority of the roads. Removing the roads will increase ground water retention which would reduce ground temperature. This is my personal theory and has been for at least a decade.
If the governments of this world truly wanted to solve climate change they would switch from Keynesian accounting to Austrian accounting and eliminate the constant need for growth that the inherit 3 0/0 inflation of Keynesian economics forces upon us.
The governments don't care about anything but their power and control over us.
"Going through recent papers in atmospheric science and translating them for a popular audience" = science communication!! I love it, as I encounter more and more climate journalists and science communicators, I want to know more about how I can potentially be one-- so please DO keep making these videos, I love them!
Yes please keep pushing lies that reinforce the mainstream fraud about unscientific man made climate change when the Earth is not even getting warmer pretending to analyze the data but having just the father of the fraud Mann himself as your source. Just like using a convicted serial killer's opinion as ultimate evidence about his innocence. Summarizing: "I was wrong and altered the data, manipulated the equations but in the end I was right by magic, let's save the Earth, folks." You clearly know science as well as the guy in the video.
You can't unless you want to lie to the world for a living
You may want to watch the youtube video "Six ways to make your science sticky" by John Cook. The video is modeled after the book Making It Stick.
I hate RUclips hard youtube's anti spam to makes it for me to tell people about other websites.
edX has free self-paced classes (MOOCs) on things, including on MOOCs on climate. edX also has a class titled "Science Communication". One class they've I've watched a lot of (Making Sense of Climate Science Denial) is geared specifically to debunking climate myths.
@@HiddenHandMedia I can. It pays well. You get loads of travel curtesy of the tax payers. It makes it easier to get stuff published. You can make up any rubbish and still sell it. You can just explain everything by blaming emissions, like some 15th century charlatan blaming it all on witches. You can commit crime in plain view yet claim you are some kind of hero acting in the public good. Plenty of reasons why the lazy, weak and corrupt join the climate franchise.
So, the good news, we CAN actually terraform a planet! We have successfully increased the amount of forest growth, both in size and density. This is great news.
Look, the fact that we can more accurately know past temperatures is great. The gigantic leap of faith is that CO2 vs temperature are cause and effect. Many ice core data show temperature change followed by CO2 and even methane change. Another serious objection is the inference that man made climate change caused CO2 will lead to certain disaster. Although this study waived away the Roman Warm Period and Little Ice Age it remains a fact that the earth has seen temperatures much higher than any predicted temperature and CO2 way higher. Those periods saw verdant life on a scale we can scarcely imagine. Finally, over the last 25 years or so, the time global warming has been a fashionable thing, we have only seen minor temperature change and no adverse climate effects such as rising sea levels, human deaths caused by weather, human life spans, forest fires, drought, etc.. in fact, the trivial increase of CO2 is linked to increased plant growth causing the world to literally green and increased crop yields. Schemes to radically cut CO2 in an attempt regulate global temperatures are Ill conceived and will lead to mass human suffering. If you enjoy a modern lifestyle you need to wise up and challenge the anti-fossil fuel acolytes.
What about the Roman Warm Period? I believe the RWP was even warmer than present day temperatures. Using tree rings to determine global temperatures is ridiculous. Drought years are small, wet years are bigger. Once while cutting firewood on my property, I counted back on the tree rings to the winter of 1968-69 - it was very big because that was an extremely wet year - and it was a cooler than usual winter. And good luck finding trees going back to the RWP.
Roman, Viking, Medieval warm periods... all of that was regional not global.
@@lrvogt1257 From what I’ve read the RWP was more global than the MWP. Both periods had temperatures as warm or warmer for periods of time. The main takeaway with climate science is the constant, often erratic, change - even when humans can’t be blamed. The Russian and Japanese climate models are reaching far different conclusions than the models our government is using. The fact that trillions of dollars are at stake with this climate warming issue and the fact that our present government is corrupt to the bone makes me wish I could find another planet. The fewer humans, the better.
Greenland was a lot hotter when the Vikings lived there.
And?
@@hosnimubarak8869 Randon numbers fit better than Mann graph. He erased the little ice too.
@@snowmannor7779
Do some research on what caused the LIA before embarrassing yourself further.
@@hosnimubarak8869 Little Ice Age or Maunder Minimum was a result of a Grand Solar Minimum. Michael Man is a proven liar. He claimed he was given a Noble Prize and even made up a dodgy one for his wall. He didn't receive one.
@@barrybloggs9474
You're an idiot. The Little Ice Age (which was not a true ice age). It was a period of cooling that occurred after an especially massive tropical volcanic eruption in 1257, of the now-extinct Mount Samalas near Mount Rinjani, both in Lombok, Indonesia, followed by three smaller eruptions in 1268, 1275, and 1284. When a volcano erupts, its ash reaches high into the atmosphere and can spread to cover the whole earth. The ash cloud blocks out some of the incoming solar radiation, leading to worldwide cooling. Also emitted by eruptions is sulfur, in the form of sulfur dioxide gas. When it reaches the stratosphere, it turns into sulfuric acid particles, which reflect the sun's rays, further reducing the amount of radiation reaching Earth's surface
The Sporer Minimum (1450-1540) and the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715). Both solar minimums coincided with (but did not cause) the coldest years of the Little Ice Age in parts of Europe.
The CO2 emissions lagged but tracked population growth through about the 1960s, after which the CO2 emissions grew at at a faster rate than pupulation, but in the same period of time, the global population grew from about 1 billion to about 7 billion people. While it is mostly the burning of fossil fuels that caused the rise in CO2 emissions, it is the growth in global population and the explosion in automobiles, jets, and marine traffic to keep all of these people in consumer goods and food, and to move them around for all of the various reasons people move around that is actually responsible for the crisis we are in. Prior to 1950, almost no one had been in an airplane, and now people fly routinely. They ship cars from Asia to the US, and fill the seas with cruise ships, which again, is something that is a recent development. *It is the growth of the population and the behaviors of this population that is most responsible for global warming* .
"It is the growth of the population and the behaviors of this population that is most responsible for global warming ." In that the behavior is to burn a bunch of carbon. If they'd stop that, the planet could support another several billion people without increasing global temperatures.
Not to worry about too many people in the earth. Now is to worry about too few in the earth. Is not important what we worry about. Is just important to worry. Get grants. Write papers. Go to meetings. Make rules. Worry. 😎
But per-capita CO2 emissions are vastly different between different parts of the world. The average Canadian emits like 15 times as much CO2 as the average Pakistani. So in terms of CO2 emissions we can "afford" a lot more population growth in some places than others.
That may be true, but if I were a young man or young woman, I would not have children because I would not want them to face a dystopiann future. I am an old man and didn't like what I saw of the world when I was young and decided I didn't want childfren, and now, as old as I am, I may live to see dramtic changes in summer temperatures in the USA, and the amount of energy that will be required to keep people cool will be astoundingly high. I bought a bunch of electric utility stocks as a hedge against high energy prices. The disaster facing us is epic, and it is too late to stop it.
PLEASE do a video just about the book Climate Gate
The Medieval Warm Period was not "regional" nor was it a little warmer.
Proof: in The Netherlands during that period wine grapes were grown successfully all over the country, including the North.
Today that is still not possible.
Search for this. “Climate Feedback, Research does not show a Medieval Warm Period warmer than the present day" Or Inside Climate News,“Medieval Warm Period Wasn’t Global or Even All That Warm” Or Smithsonian, “‘Medieval Warm Period’ Wasn’t Global".
Neukom et al, 2019
That is not proof.
The Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomenon. It is a fact that the Medieval Warming Period barely shows in the global average because it wasn’t globally synchronous; the necessary observations are missing. It barely makes a blip in the global temperature record. Globally, temperatures during the Medieval Period were less than today.
Got a problem with the tree ring core: depending on where you get the core you could get different ring thickness and spacing, just by looking at that one photo. Trees aren’t perfectly circular and some rings on the photo are right against each other on one side of the tree but on the other side those same rings are farther apart.
You need a lot of trees and sections from different directions and you need to establish how stable the water supply was. Worries about tree data is one reason there have been so many other proxies studied such as trapped gasses in ice and pollen distributions. The trapped gasses data is good because it samples the atmosphere itself which averages over the globe. On shorter scales
In addition to what you said about tree ring widths, there are other factors that affect the width of a tree ring than just temperature. A wet year gives wider rings. If the weather was unusually cloudy in a year, you will get narrower rings. Neither of these are accounted for in their proxy series.
@@e-curb with a large enough sample and careful selection they can be, for example tree rings at higher elevation respond to temperature more than rainfall
@@Benthorpy "careful selection", meaning they leave out the data that doesn't support their pre-determined conclusions. This was documented in the Yamal series. Data from trees that lived 1000 years ago that didn't show the warming they were looking for, was simply left out.
@@Benthorpy But then you are modeling less than 10% of the earth instead of the earth.
One thing I would've liked to see your analysis on is the error bars for the new graph. Is the data from 24k - 1000 years ago carrying the same error "level" as the previous graph did for 1k - 400 years ago? is it worse? better? And by how much has the error shrunk in that second period now. How much more confidence do we have?
We have a lot more confidence as we have gotten way, way more data. After all the original study is now 22 years old.
I mean you can litterally see the error bars...
And furthermore you can´t tell in figures "how much more confidence we have", through different methods you get different results, but you can say that the methods get refined everytime. It isn´t like science is frozen in biology or other fields of study. So you can say that newer results (if they are well peer reviewed) are "better" than older results with older methods.
@@fable4315 I think you misunderstood my question. I have no doubt that the error is smaller and that the newer data is more accurate. And yes I can estimate the error bars, but as the scales on the old graph and the new graph are completely different, I can't really compare them on my screen. Hence why I said it would be helpful to know a bit more detail about the comparison between the two.
@@SuchiththaW 7:44 same scale.
And btw. if you want to know more about these errorbars just go and look up the study I think it is publicly available
@@fable4315 Ah i see what you mean now. Yes, that does show it visually, but I guess what I'm saying is, I'm science literate, I have a masters in Engineering, but lots of folks can't/won't take the time to understand these papers, so an explanation of the difference in error (both quantitatively and qualitatively, for the study) would've been useful, I think. Thank you for your help!
Question for you Simon. While trying to find that paper you mention, I came across a blog post by Judith Curry that claimed to refute its accuracy. Then I read one of her congressional testimonies and it seems shes a climate scientist that is actually refuting large portions of the IPCC and whatnot.
Since this isn't just a random or non-climate scientist making the claims, curious about your thoughts? Is she just part of the 1% that don't agree? Any background or insight?
Edit - the consensus seems to be she's just overtly contrarian and doesn't actually prove any of the statistical issues she claims with papers/the scientific consensus/IPCC reports. naturally she claims everything is "too political"
Judith Curry initially supported the climate change theory, it was only when she did her own analysis it became obvious to her it didn't stack up.
Which lead her to quite rightly challenge what was being presented as established science.
After all, isn't that the foundation of scientific enquiry, that your work is peer reviewed by other equally well qualified experts in your field?
Not in this case, Judith was attacked both personally and professionally and pretty much ostracised by her opponents.
Which begs the question, how is this science anymore?
Only propogandists and those who know their contentions will not survive rigorous scrutiny behave in that manner.
There's a reason why the climate change agenda must be pushed through unchallenged, but that's a whole different conversation.
As an aside, as I'm writing this there is a suggested video to my right featuring professor Richard Lindzen, arguably one of the most revered climate scientists of his era, he also vehemently disputes the veracity of the world is going to end climate change fearmongers.
@@bradwhelan4466 You talk about peer review and the scientific process, but then claim/imply ALL the scientists who review all the studies produced are "in on it". And the IPCC is in on it to...some nefarious end.
It's not money. Scientists don't make any real money. And they certainly don't make billions of dollars like the oil companies do, who also give millions and millions to politicians to keep their industry safe. Any school/scientist that could successfully refute it would be heralded, since the situation is so dire.
Is it easier to believe all the scientists across the globe are lying about this? For no real benefit? It's much more logical and reasonable to realize the oil companies did their research in the 70s/80s (we have the docs), realized what was coming, and companies being companies, chose their self interest and greed vs humanitys best interest.
@@MonkeyChessify Richard Lindzen was one of the early IPCC scientists.
Do your research as to why he left and then tell me they are trustworthy.
In fact I will link a recent interview he did with Jordan Peterson, if your genuinely interested.
With regard to your comment, " You talk about peer review and the scientific process, but then claim/imply ALL the scientists who review all the studies produced are "in on it".
Its not that there is a world wide conspiracy,
but if your not allowed to question the science for fear of having your career ruined, along with funding withdrawn from whatever institution or university your resident at.
Then its the equivalent is it not?
The question here is not whether there is climate change. Its about whether the fearmongering and alarmism is justified.
Which is going to be used to place a huge imposition on ordinary people.
Both financially and also a persons right to freedom of choice.
Here's the link I spoke of ruclips.net/video/7LVSrTZDopM/видео.html
A climate gate video would be much appreciated. My understand of the original hockey stick was that Mann used tree ring data until recent decades but then tacked on data from thermometers. If this had not been done, much of the effect disappears. I am no statistician but am aware that changing the source of data midway through is supposed to be a big no-no.
You lost your point, WHO switched the data source? Mann? in order to DENY manmade climate change? The effect of the "switch" or the effect of NOT "switching?"
@@mrunning10 It does appear to be Mann. Not in order to deny the notion of manmade climate change to promote it. The effect of the switch is claimed to be to create the massive uptick. Continuation of tree ring data shows much less of an affect.
Not sure what 'you lost your point' means in this context. I am only asking for an impartial video into climate gate, perhaps especially the part they refer to needing to use the same 'trick' Mann used to create his original graph.
@@georgemcnally4473 It is NOT. It is Mann, Bradley, Hughes. Updated, with MORE and BETTER (accuracy) data. Not just "tree rings"
RESULT, a "hockey stick" still WARMING.
Here's the THING, the models are run WITHOUT the higher co2 concentration (Keeling) and yes it is STILL warming, BUT not nearly as much. ADD the current level of co2 and you get MUCH more warming, take it away, less warming.
And what is INCREASING the co2? Aliens? or conspiracy? or MAN?
@@mrunning10 Several points I need to raise here. Firstly, all I was asking for was a video covering Climategate and that attempts to hide data at the University of East Anglia.
Secondly, no one is disputing that the planet is warming, I believe the figure is about 1.2 degrees in the last 150 years.
Thirdly, is such a rate of warming a threat? Hard to say. Currently, the evidence would seem to suggest that we are not being subject to greater amounts or more intensity of storms. We are experiencing greening, by a massive 15% over the last two decades, this is clearly a positive development.Also, 4 out of 5 people who die because of the climate do so because of the effects of excessive cold, not warmth. In my country, the UK, around 27500 per annum have survived the winters over the last two decades who probably would not have done so if the temperatures were as cold as they were.
Fourthly, mankind may well be causing some of the warning, particularly in areas such as China and India. Any efforts to 'mitigate' the effect in the UK would have, essentially, no affect at all. In the meantime we would have impoverished millions and forced people to turn down their heating, thus leaving them vulnerable to serious injury or even death due to our cold winters.
Finally, please write in joined up sentences containing an object, a subject and a verb. It's kinda hard to work out your point with these three word staccato phrases. Lower caps will also do just fine.
Thanks!
@@georgemcnally4473 sigh, you say "no one is disputing that the planet is warming" WRONG. Lots of dispute from ignorants and ignoramuses.
"no one" --> where do YOU stand?
screw counting storms and their intensity, you sound like the small AVERAGE number (1.2) for global temperature is getting in your way of understanding. 1.2° is HUGE.
Hard to say the threat? No, no it is EASY to say, arable land WILL shrink from what we farm on now (actually turn of the century was the most acreage), as the regions close to the equator warm, arable land will start (already happening) desertify. Arable land moves towards the poles, where, there simply is LESS land.
How much? We don't know, why risk it? 8+ billion people will want to be fed and will do ANYTHING (war, etc.) to get that food.
(when you say "areas" like China and India you are confusing the source of the carbon with the effect, yes they are huge sources, but the effects are global, equator to the poles, the CARBON blows everywhere)
Write up a joined sentence? difficult for me to do that as I am just an anti-conspiracy AI software program fighting the ignorance of our times with random intellect-posing comments!
you're commenting on the nits of manmade climate change, the fix is simple, STOP voting for any politician receiving election funding from Oil or Gas or the Coal lobbies.
PROBELEM FUCKING FIXED. The preservation of Oil & Gas & Coal REVENUE is what is cooking this planet. Greed, avarice, and evil.
FUCK OIL AND GAS.