What the Hockey Stick missed about climate change 

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.

"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.

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.

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?

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? 🤔

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

"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.

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?

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.

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.

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 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-dpvd9FensT8.html

CO2 is plant food. NASA reports the greening of the earth by increase 18% since 1980. Well be able to grow lots.

@@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.

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.

Likewise ☺️

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.

Can’t find such a channel is that an old name for this channel?

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-CqtZdnpfgIc.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.

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!

"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.

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.

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

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.

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.

No climate scientist ever said.

Wow!

@@hosnimubarak8869 Don't bother feeding the scientific illiterate troll ; )

Yeah, a multiple kilometre thick ice sheet form in a couple of years.

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?

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...

Nonsense. Non of that is true.

Cool, I'm sure everyone here is genuinely pleased for you. Now would you please tour the Pacific islands & tell them their graveyards aren't under water? Explain to the people of Wales why coastal villages have been abandoned & the villagers moved inland? Explain to the taxpayers of London why the Thames Barrier was built & why it has been used? Explain to the people of Bangladesh what's happening to their country?

I too live on a geologically static tectonic plate and have noticed from photographs more than 130 years old, that indeed, there is no appreciable difference in the level of the Pacific Ocean. However I’m sure the other commenter to you has accounted for tectonics because of course we know the oceans aren’t continuous.

Same. No rising here so far.

I lived in Honolulu for 20 years and the sea level has risen enough to make Kaka'ako inundation a regular event, when it used to be just during spring tides. The average rate is only 1.4 mm/ year over the past 100 years, but when you live on the edge a small change is a big change.

@@nmarbletoe8210 Definitely geologically stable and not in a subduction zone at all...no active volcanoes to be seen I’m sure...

Extreme sarcasm, right?

It's not a predictive model. It's a reconstruction model.

The only model you should follow is above the arctic circle. The melting of ice is the only parameter. What happens below the circle is just normal weather patterns.

You're being sarcastic but most of the models actually have been pretty accurate. People claiming otherwise are either cherry picking, lying about current trends, or both.

@@randyohm3445 he's being sarcastic over the stupid predictions of the coasts like NY being under water by now. Many scientific informed have made those predictions at least 10 years ago.

like he said in the video. a proxie is often taken regionally and thus can show data that is a result of something else and not what you are trying to measure with it. "medieval" warming could be just a result of the warm sahara winds dominatingly going in direction of europe and pushing the cold north winds away. there is most of the time a almost 10°C difference in temperature between germany and italy or spain. if the winds blew for a long time from the south west to north east around the alps then it is possible that the climate was way warmer in europe than it is now because at the moment the north winds are dominatingly blowing from the north west onto europe and especially greenland, iceland and the UK (one of the reasons why it is raining so much in the UK). also don't forget that europe is really small compared to the global landmass, so having it go up a few °C for a few years/decades is not that much of a "global" event.

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.... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-lJxrs0v-3b0.html

@@ThatOneGoatGuy here's some more information..... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-aq9gwzv6e04.html

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.

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. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Yze1YAz_LYM.html

[citation needed].

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.

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!

We're super duper serial now

Please ignore literally every prediction we said was scientifically proven to come true but didn’t, we know for sure this time!

P.S. Please give us all of the money. Thanks.

That is why I beg people to read "An Inconvenient Truth". Notice the publish date before. Notice all those "in 10 years this" or "in 20 years that" have come on gone. Nothing has come true...

@@barrythehatchet1380 Pretty inconvenient, that. For the Author, I mean.

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?

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

They did understand it pretty well in 1999.

@@Chiungalla79 No. In fact they still don't. NO hard proof has ever been delivered.

@@nicomeier8098 If you expect hard proof in science you are wrong. Mathematicians proof stuff. Scientists provide evidence. And there are tons of direct and indirect evidence. And I can't believe how dumb and uneducated you act here, when it comes to your wish to deny an established fact. We know how CO2 works in the atmosphere. For more than 100 years. We know that we emitt CO2, since we can measure it. We know that CO2 levels are rising, since we can measure it. The rest follows by simple logic. Which part do you deny? The facts or the logic?

@greyone40 Or what year California-- supposedly-- just falls into the Pacific Ocean during The Big One.

@greyone40 Or what year California-- supposedly-- just falls into the Pacific Ocean during The Big One.

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.

If I had time to watch more videos, I might get Nebula for Not Just Bikes and Real Engineering and Mustard.

Not true. check out "J. S. Sawyer (1 September 1972) Man-Made CO2 and the Greenhouse Effect".

@@milankovitch8697 not familiar with sarcasm, eh?

Totally correct. Reinforced by this paper showing the error propagation over time is so enormous as to make these projections meaningless. Reliability of general circulation climate model (GCM) global air temperature projections is evaluated for the first time, by way of propagation of model calibration error. An extensive series of demonstrations show that GCM air temperature projections are just linear extrapolations of fractional greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing. Linear projections are subject to linear propagation of error. A directly relevant GCM calibration metric is the annual average ±12.1% error in global annual average cloud fraction produced within CMIP5 climate models. This error is strongly pair-wise correlated across models, implying a source in deficient theory. The resulting long-wave cloud forcing (LWCF) error introduces an annual average ±4 Wm-2 uncertainty into the“The simulated tropospheric thermal energy flux. This annual ±4 Wm-2 simulation uncertainty is ±114 × larger than the annual average ∼0.035 Wm-2 change in tropospheric thermal energy flux produced by increasing GHG forcing since 1979. Tropospheric thermal energy flux is the determinant of global air temperature. Uncertainty in simulated tropospheric thermal energy flux imposes uncertainty on projected air temperature. Propagation of LWCF thermal energy flux error through the historically relevant 1988 projections of GISS Model II scenarios A, B, and C, the IPCC SRES scenarios CCC, B1, A1B, and A2, and the RCP scenarios of the 2013 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, uncovers a ±15 C uncertainty in air temperature at the end of a centennial-scale projection. Analogously large but previously unrecognized uncertainties must therefore exist in all the past and present air temperature projections and hindcasts of even advanced climate models. The unavoidable conclusion is that an anthropogenic air temperature signal cannot have been, nor presently can be, evidenced in climate observables.” www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full#B97

And I don’t hear any factors for volcanic activity and cloud cover (since CO2 is a minuscule component compared to atmospheric water vapour) entered here. Which means the assumption that anthropomorphic climate change is the sole driving force for temperature change is probably Hawthorne Effect.

@@cestmoi7368 The water vapor component is a big deal. The problem with higher temperatures is that that will increase the vapor levels too, then clouds go up and don't come down. Obviously this isn't an overnight event but it would turn earth into a planet much like Venus over time.

My concern is that (western) governments have chosen the alarmist view of an extremely complicated and inconclusive body of work, then say "the science is settled" and go about scaring school kids and gullible adult voters. The only thing that's settled, now that we've swallowed the big green deal, is a lot of people are going to get very cold and hungry in coming years.

@@paulwooton4390 So much money. So little results. The science used to be settled that the earth was flat. The science used to be settled that scurvy was could not be helped by citrus fruit, but exercise and laxitives. Alarmist scam.

we are not, we're still in one...

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 RU-vid-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?

Shhhhh. You're not supposed to notice that.

Gore is a hypocrite, and most of have read the deniers' version of Gore's comment to Maslowski. His rare gaffes don't count nor do misremembered interviews.

That's lame. If you want to be a denier you're going to have to do better.

@@hosnimubarak8869 not lame at all. Watch the video and you will note that Simon says this exactly but somehow keeps a straight face. And of course that's before you consider that some of the tree ring data is cherry picked from only a single trees in a single location and also is not consistent with other proxies such as plant stomata. I'm an engineer and I would never rely on such poor, shallow and inconsistent data for any of my decisions. But then if I was building a model there would be only one required as I would understand my subject.....not the 200 odd models which are fudged and then the average taken. That's not science that's desperately trying to fit data to a narrative.

@@iant4060 "some of the tree ring data is cherry picked from only a single trees in a single location" [citation needed].

@@hosnimubarak8869 that may have been slightly incorrect. The single location was correct and that was Yamal. Mann took the data from only 12 specimens out of 252 in the data set from Yamal….while a larger data set of 34 trees from the same vicinity weren’t used showed no dramatic recent warming, but warmer temperatures in the Middle Ages. You picks your cherries and makes your pie accordingly.

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.

You've never seen it, because it's a fantasy living in your imagination. You do understand that your personal paranoid delusions don't correspond to reality, right? You do realize that discarding known-wrong data isn't an unscientific practice, but rather is proper scientific practice, right? You do realize that the world's scientists researching this have scrutinized the techniques used by Mann - and many many others since - and have found them credible, right?

So in your view CO2 atmospheric accumulation and resulting to global warming is hucksterism?

The discarded tree ring data was about something REALLY recently (geologically speaking). So recently we have actual temperature measurements made with man made instruments. I think it's the 1960s and 1970s? So we KNOW something is off with those tree rings. Furthermore, other proxies from that time frame have continued to match observed temperatures. I recall scientists believe (perhaps tentatively) they figured out what caused the tree ring data to be weird. IIRC it was regional volcanic activity.

@@faceoctopus4571 it's just fraud. Yes, we have thermometer data, but then we have tampered thermometer data. The tree rings still align well with the raw data - the manipulated data, not so much. If you need more proof, go with glaciers that were retreating in the 1930s and growing in the 1970s. Raw thermometer data aligns with glacier behaviour, manipulated thermometer data doesn't.

@@vannersp Thermometer data is adjusted to deal with things that would create misrepresentations. If a disproportionate number of measuring stations are in one area, those get averaged together. Imagine if your goal was to assess the average temperature of california and half your thermometers were in death valley. Not taking that into account would be pretty silly. The example of a methodology in a class I took said dividing the surface of the earth into 200 squares and each square would have all the measuring places put the numbers together and then average them out. If a measuring station is moved from a mountain to the area below the mountain, the measurements are adjusted to maintain some level of continuity with past measurements. Also on average, glaciers have been retreating. IIRC a class I took said that at this point in for a typical year all or almost all glaciers in the world get smaller. And 1 or so glaciers get bigger. May I please have a citation or citations on where you are getting your information from?

Very well said 👏

The most sensical approach to the data that I've heard. I too am suspicious of volcanism, solar events, and the oceans ability to process CO2. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is .04%. How much of an effect does it really have at .04%? Trees and plants grow faster (what we need for food BTW) or do we burn to a crisp at .05%??? I'm not on any bandwagon simply because I don't see one that I can jump on.

One can look at major trends in the record and see that as CO2 continues to increase so does temperature. The last record cold year was 1909.

@@lrvogt1257 That's a correlation, which means those things *can* be linked. Correlation is not the same thing as Causation and that's where the rub is for half the population. 1909 being a record cold year does not establish any firm connection to warming as 1902-1908 saw multiple volcanic events with large cumulative ash releases. The impacts of which can vary greatly depending upon where the eruptions occur, the size of particulates, how high they are delivered, the wind currents, seasonal changes at that time and the strength or lack thereof of systems like El nino. The absence of that volcanism or a different geographical layout of eruptions could have otherwise saw 1909 as a normal or mildly cold year. As a result the baseline for the start of warming could be further back. we don't actually know that much about how volcanic activity alters climate and on what timescale. Even today we are surprised by the results of the last major eruption in Iceland. So here is the common low resolution theory based on correlation: Humans release CO2, CO2 increases in the atmosphere, it retains more heat than is radiated into space, then temperatures rise, will never stop and we all die. That is neatly wrapped up and seems rock solid, so that's where we've stopped. The reason why you have such a large amount of people who are either opposed or just apathetic is because when something in science is so neatly wrapped up and straightforward, it's usually wrong. Previous recent catastrophic models claimed we've already passed a (few) no return point(s) and seal levels would have risen 6-8 feet globally, which didn't happen. The frequency of apocalyptic climate predictions is getting close to the frequency of "the re-re-re-re-revised date of the apocalypse decoded from the bible." It doesn't help that advocacy of climate science has become dogmatic. Opposition gets criticized for poking holes in the models and theories, but no one stops to ask why there are holes, how many there might be, and how big an effect they could have in their predictions. If we suppose the correlation is just that and pretend that some new study has uncovered a previously unrecognized process that establishes a direct causal relationship to warming. All of the existing data is still exactly the same. All of the observations are identical. What has to change is the explanation and strategy. That might look something like : "X is causing a heating effect on the planet. Normally this excess heat would diffuse into the oceans at 10 to 20 times it's current rate, however, because human civilization rose during the end of a glacial melt period when the melt water made increasing land area habitable for a few thousand years, humans were able to spread to those areas. This was accelerated due to technological advancement before the warming trend dried out the inner continental areas and made them uninhabitable. During this growth period, humans released massive amounts of CO2 which has trapped much of the heat that would have already been absorbed by the oceans into the atmosphere instead. This, in turn, has slowed the effects of the heat increase on the oceans and kept the average salinity at a point where ocean currents haven't collapsed. As it is unknown how long this current heating action will continue, we are close to the ceiling on CO2 counts that are survivable for land based life, and a massive reduction in CO2 would cause a rapid heating of the oceans resulting in a backlash re-glaciation effect, our best option appears to be researching practical methods of triggering large numbers of small scale volcanic events. This will occur slowly with a few per year, over the next 100-200 years to offset further heating until the main source of thermal increase begins dropping off. " I'm not saying either theory is correct, but establishing more than a correlative, circumstantial case is required. This is true both intellectually, and in order to proceed in any effective direction, because no effective strategy can be employed with such a large portion of the population unconvinced and apathetic. We are seeing that politically in the US as we speak. The portion of the same population that is largely silent most of the time is a sleeping dragon that no hobbit can wake without severe repercussions. As i mentioned there are a bunch of things that the opposition takes issue with and the apathetic aren't motivated by. Those need to be addressed sufficiently to either reinforce the current theory or, if they don't, give a clearer picture so a better theory can be established. We need a much closer examination of world ocean data. Tracking of temperatures current speeds, salinity, etc mapped onto the atmospheric data if it produces a matching correlation, would go most of the way. We need to address the issue of CO2 being the weakest greenhouse gas and understand what happens when petrol is replaced by an increase in water vapor from the increase in Coal or nuclear use with battery charging. What effect the additional water vapor release will have on temperatures, since it has a much greater greenhouse effect per litre than CO2, is a big hole in the petroleum elimination part of the current plans.

@@mrnobody2873 : The actual affect of infrared on CO2, the re-emitting of that energy into the surroundings, the increase of CO2 by half and the fact that it lingers for hundreds of years are not just correlated. Increases in industrial CO2 are causing global warming. It is measurable and predictable and well-understood for a hundred years. CO2 is the temperature regulator, water vapor is the feedback mechanism.

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

Ofcourse there are many better contributers, but you can see from this how climate deniers drive the public debate wheter or not they have science behind them

@@fable4315 You can see it from the fact that this very video, which is well researched and on the CORRECT side, got that misinformation banner.

@@monad_tcp I cant see any misinformation banner on this video? has it been removed, or is this a regional thing?

@@MrAntice I don't see any either, it likely gets slapped onto videos by some algorithm that can pick up climate things are being discussed but is probably not reliably capable of determining if it's a video with accurate information or just plain misleading. So maybe it was reviewed manually by a human later and the warning label removed? Or maybe youtube/google by now have some kind of more processing power intensive second system that reviews videos if requested before it gets seen by a human, honestly don't know how their vague systems work. But I have noticed that some videos will typically get warning things slapped on it early on and they disappear over time when they probably shouldn't be there.

@@extrastuff9463 Analysis software is computationally expensive, and AI's that use trained detectors are even more so, So maybe it's a case of them only using their AI on videos reported as controversal/has certain keywords in their title/descriptions. I looked into the price for an image processing AI that uses trained detectors for analysing orthophotographic images. (used for counting trees, animals, detecting cracks in pavement over large areas etc). The prices are pretty darn stiff to say the least, and I cant imagine video with sound being any cheaper computationally than 8 bit orthophotos even if the photos are in the GB range size wise. (orthophotos do not contain compression btw. since that would cause a loss of critical data for the detector algorithms to work with).

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.

NO, the downslope of the hockey stick was within the time period where we have THERMOMETER records and these showed an INCREASE in temperature, thats why they HID the downslope.

@@peterjones4180 Come on ! 2000 years of downslope ! Actually even Andy May, a guy who publises regularly in WUWT posts regional reconstructions and if you do some research you will that the NH temperature furiously looks like a hockey stick.

@@philippesarrazin2752 You may be referring to a DIFFERENT downslope, I was referring to the temperature downslope that Mann deliberately hid behind another graph line so that others would not realize his data was NOT fit for purpose.

Insofar as the earth has a 120,000 year cycle that is very clear in the Vostok and other ice cores, yeah, the basic trend applies to the whole earth.

Questionably accurate, at best. The problem is that whilst it is not unreasonable to treat tree growth as a proxy for warmth, tree growth is also affected by many, many other factors, none of which can be separated out. Really, all proxy data for warmth have some deficiencies (or else we'd be able to get accurate, uncontroversial estimates of global temperature for as far back as we'd like), and climate "scientists" have done a great deal of damage to the credibility of their claims by indulging in some pretty shady practices in how they manipulate their data, and more so by how they present their findings. Now, that said, I also find it inconceivable that human activity has had NO impact on the global climate. Is it to the degree that some claims have stated? Probably not, it turns out. Is it far more than is good for us? Probably yes, and this new (and apparently much more rigorous and credible) paper may well be a good place for climate scientists to start making that case properly. I would also add that regardless of all of climate science, it is an absolute fact that the world needs to stop using fossil fuels (or at least greatly decrease their usage, and limit them to those things where we kinda need them for the moment, and work on finding alternatives so we can completely eliminate them). They are a finite resource that have fairly unpleasant environmental effects even if you totally ignore their potential for causing warming, and getting away from their use would be a really, really excellent idea. Just, let's have that debate on its' actual merits, backed by actual science, and not the bullcrap that the climate science industry has been peddling for far too long

@@talltroll7092 Ok, you sound reasonable to a point...Until you come to what can only be described as the absolutist point of view " it is an absolute fact that the world needs to stop using fossil fuels " even your bowing to reality with your caveat that followed shows your Myoptic vision that only sees oil and coal...and your willingness to throw the baby out with the bathwater....You have no appreciation for how pervasive Oil and Gas are responsible for the quality of life you enjoy...Your health, your wealth, your freedom from drudgery is all made a reality provided by Energy from Gas and Oil...The Concrete that builds our cities, the Fertilizers that are needed to grow the food on your table the, plastics that replace wood and so much you use comes from Natural Gas...All I ask is that you look before you force us all to jump this green shark

@@talltroll7092 That's a pretty well rounded, and reasonable view on the subject. It falls somewhere between complacency and hysteria which is exactly how we should be approaching this.The only thing I ever see in science and academia is "could", "might", "maybe", etc. They honestly don't know. All I see in politics is "definitely", "will", "inevitable", etc. The experts. The bottom line is that if you follow the science far enough, you'll find the money behind it.

👏👏

@@TheJeffcurran Jeff I agree 100% with what you wrote

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

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.

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.