Can you outsmart the apples and oranges fallacy? - Elizabeth Cox
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 04. 2021
- Dig into the false analogy fallacy, which assumes that because two things share a characteristic, they must be alike in other respects.
--
It’s 1997. The United States Senate has called a hearing about global warming. Some expert witnesses point out that past periods in Earth’s history were warmer than the 20th century. Because such variations existed long before humans, they claim the current trend is also the result of natural variation. Can you spot the problem with this argument? Elizabeth Cox explores the false analogy fallacy.
Lesson by Elizabeth Cox, directed by TOGETHER.
Support Our Non-Profit Mission
----------------------------------------------
Support us on Patreon: bit.ly/TEDEdPatreon
Check out our merch: bit.ly/TEDEDShop
----------------------------------------------
Connect With Us
----------------------------------------------
Sign up for our newsletter: bit.ly/TEDEdNewsletter
Follow us on Facebook: bit.ly/TEDEdFacebook
Find us on Twitter: bit.ly/TEDEdTwitter
Peep us on Instagram: bit.ly/TEDEdInstagram
----------------------------------------------
Keep Learning
----------------------------------------------
View full lesson: ed.ted.com/lessons/can-you-ou...
Dig deeper with additional resources: ed.ted.com/lessons/can-you-ou...
Animator's website: wearetogether.ca/
----------------------------------------------
Thank you so much to our patrons for your support! Without you this video would not be possible! Ryan Weiler, Jesse Lira, Ezekiel Raui, Itay Levi, Cameron Chakraverty, Petr Vacek, Rhys Patterson, Dennis, Margaret King, Olivia Fu, Katrina Adams, Regina Post, Mary Collins, Kari Teffeau, clumsybunnie, Adam Leos, Jeremy Laurin, Cindy Lai, Liz, Hannah Nommé, Rajath Durgada Manjunath, Dan Nguyen, Chin Beng Tan, Alejandro Gomez, Tom Boman, Karen Warner, Isorn Sookwanish, Iryna Panasiuk, Diane Gallin, Aaron Torres, Janice ESL, Vasundhar, Dessislava Vassileva, Denka Wee, Daru Bhargav, Brett Kaufman, Amy, Michael Clement, Christopher Lye, Ghaith Tarawneh, Nathan Milford, Tomas Beckett, Alice Ice, Kurt Paolo Sevillano, Max Salas, Xavi Ramos, Khoa Nguyen Anh, Ron Kakar, Jennifer Heald and flóra lili donáti.
Everyone instantly drops what they’re doing to watch the demon of reason.
Like Minecraft
Even us.
didnt even read the comments till i was done with the video! who does that?
I was having a test due in 5 minutes
@@mixmastermike2128 Seeing the comments can make you reach a conclusion before watching the video, you're just being affected by the demon of reason ;)
Yes, I’m so happy you decided to continue with this character!
love ur pfp.
@@dafanoffandoms8414 Tysm
I MISSED THE DEMON OF REASON TOOO!!!
4:20
Minecraft villager sounds
i want more
The thing about fallacies is that even if you know what they are, you still fall for them subconsciously.
That's how cognitive bias works. We can never stop it, we can only work to mitigate its effect upon our thinking.
It takes constant practice and seeing more examples to be able to spot fallacies on the spot
Like the CO2 caused man-made catastrophic global warming fallacy ?
The simplest solution is to learn to accept when we fall for them. Most people try to defend their egos and make the problem even worse.
@@ricktd6891
Source in order: Skeptical Science
CLIMATE DENIER ARGUMENTS #1: CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND CLIMATE
SS-"Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth.
Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165:
"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2."
On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low?
To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2.
Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally."
What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle.
Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.
In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions."
2nd -"This graph is from a seminar given by Christopher Monckton in 2006, who for those who don’t know is a leading climate skeptic blogger, and is based on the findings of Berner, who compiled a graph of CO2 levels, and Scotese, who compiled a graph of temperature. When put together, it does appear that there is no correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels; however there is a reason for this. Scotese did not do research into the correlation of CO2 and temperature, but lucky for us, Berner has. So since climate skeptics enjoy using Berner’s research to “disprove” the fact that CO2 levels do impact the climate, let’s see what Berner himself has published about the topic. In February of 2001, Berner published a paper in the American Journal of science titled “A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME” (1) in which he studied of effect of CO2 on average temperature, let’s see his conclusion: 'Results for GEOCARB III, as presented in the present paper, are compared to those for GEOCARB II in figure 13. As one can see the modeling has retained its overall trend, and the GEOCARB II curve falls within the error margins for GEOCARB III, based on the sensitivity analysis of the present paper. This means that there appears to have been very high early Paleozoic levels of CO2, followed by a large drop during the Devonian, and a rise to moderately high values during the Mesozoic, followed by a Fig. 12. Effect of global degassing on RCO2 vs time for the Mesozoic-Cenozic. fG(t) 5 1 and fC(t) 5 1 means no change in degassing rate over time. 200 R.A. Berner and Z. Kothavala-GEOCARB III: gradual decline through both the later Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.'"
"Now, how can the underlined conclusion be possible given that Figure 1. clearly shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature? Are climate scientists all in on some globalist conspiracy to set up a world government? Well no, it can be explained using basic science. To explain this, I will use the analogy of a cabin with a heater. If you were living in a cabin somewhere off in the middle of the woods, you would most likely have a heater. In the winter, your heater would most likely be at full blast to keep the temperature in the cabin stable. However come summer, you turn the heater down to keep the temperature in your cabin a normal temperature. If you were to graph the average temperature of the cabin vs the output from your heater, you would see no correlation between the two because how could it be possible that your heater is low in the summer yet temperature remains constant or even goes above what it normally does? Anyone should be able to tell you the answer, it’s because the temperature of the cabin is not only dependent on output from the heater, it is dependent on both the heater’s output and the weather outside (cabin analogy courtesy of potholer54). This same logic can be used when trying to see Earth’s climate, because the climate is not only dependent on CO2 emissions, but rather both CO2 and the sun; and one can have more of an effect on temperature than the other depending on the rate at which they are being radiated."
"Just because the sun plays a very important role in regulating the Earth’s temperature, it doesn’t mean that CO2 cannot also play a role. Throughout the history of the Earth, sometimes the sun has driven climate, and sometimes greenhouse gases like CO2 has driven the climate. Today however, the evidence shows us that CO2 is being the main driver of the climate due to the fact that solar output has been decreasing, yet global temperatures continue to rise."
"Babe, wake up, new Demon of Reason video dropped"
"It must be just as good as the others"
Wake up, it's all lies.
@@ricktd6891
Wake up, it's someone who needs to go to school to get educated.
@@ricktd6891 Cough, how is it a lie?
@@spookyscarylamppost3431 Good to see you finally stopped pasting propaganda. When you have proof of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming caused by CO2, let me know.
People in the 1950s: “there will be flying cars in the future!”
The future: *an animated demon explaining to animated people that climate change is human caused*
And he lied to you because CO2 doesn't control the temperature of Earth. Go do some research.
@@ricktd6891 You do some research. While CO2 is no the sole cause, it IS one of the causes.Ted-ed already has a wonderful video about how greenhouse gasses trap heat. However, the growth of the amount in CO2 does not correlate with the temperature growth, since Earth is a very complex system (for example, ocean absorption). Stop telling misleading statement and tell them to do "research".
@@ricktd6891 oh so what does? You have some theories of your own? Something that can contradict majority of research in past decades
@@ricktd6891 You do realise that the inherently dismissive and derogatory nature of "go do some research" doesn't add credibility to a statement, yes? Furthermore, if you're making a claim, support it with evidence, as the burden of proof lies with you, which as it happens, was covered the focus of another of these "Demon of Reason" videos
@@ricktd6891 I neither have the patience or compassion towards human being lacking anything in their skills to explain anything to you but look at the other replies please.
I wish a random purple mythical speaking purple dragon that could talk with 150 iq appears in 1997
300iq*
@Merodi Extensions he looks more like a dragon tho
@@TNIBall demon of reason though
it's a fiend
The demon of reason has 666 IQ
"Red are the roses
Curved is my spine
Your logic is flawed
And your clothes are now mine."
The CO2 global warming hypothesis is flawed, as in totally wrong.
@@ricktd6891 I’m curious, as you see it, what is the flaw in the CO2 argument?
@@argyldeathbrand6192
He saw that CO2 and temperature don't correlate predictably in a book. And says all Global warming is lies while ignoring outside factors outside of CO2 concentration that can affect the temperature of the planet.
@@spookyscarylamppost3431 And you don't understand the hypothesis at all. If you did then you would know CO2 is supposed to be "the main driver of climate", "the thermostat of the Earth", "the controlling factor", but if other factors overpower CO2 then it's not the "main driver of climate", is it ? For the hypothesis to be correct changes in temperature MUST follow changes in atmospheric CO2, not follow sometimes, go in opposite directions other times. Go learn some basic science and get back to be in 6 or 8 years.
@@ricktd6891 But this video wasn't discussing CO2 they were discussing change the climate so that hypothesis you keep bringing up in several comment threads has no bearing
I feel like a very important part is missing.
past warmings have been really slow compared with todays human made warming. This gave species plenty time to adapt to new conditions. We are driving the warming so quickly, that many species will go extinct that could have otherwise found a new niche
Yeah, I hate people say that the climate changed in the past so there's nothing to worry about. There have been 5 mass extinctions in the past, with one of the driving factors of those extinction events being climate change.
Even if climate change wasn't human driven, we would still need to be worried and be preparing for the worst.
@@EmotionsNeverLie Yeah, but the current idea that the burning of fossil fuels is causing Global Warming is a kind of false analogy too, rather like the WW1 and all wars. Just because we are producing CO2 and the past instances of global warming produced CO2 doesn't mean that the extent to which we are doing it is enough to cause the effect.
Deforestation, or even coincidence could account for the warming. Now there is other global warming research, but going just on the evidence of the video, the reverse assumption is almost the same apples and oranges fallacy.
@@EmotionsNeverLie That is not what they are saying in this video. They’re not deny the severity of it or the knowledge that it is happening what they are doing. It’s saying that It makes no sense to blame one thing in particular for complex climate change. We should instead focus on ways to make renewable energy.
A very important part, but not relevant in this video. This video was about false analogies-and as an example, they used the false comparisons people made, and still make, about climate change. They dove into what a false analogy is, to what its consequences can be, which, in the context of climate change, could be the impediment of scientific research that is needed to understand climate change.
It's still slow enough for life to adapt. Imagine Africa becoming a blooming fertile land ...
I’m a simple man I see the demon of reason I click
The demon of reason is laughing at you, there is no treason, you do as you're programmed to.
He lied to you.
Ah, a man of Culture I see
@@robertsnider9880 Well due to dopamine Subjectivity and Pleasure to watch a Entertainment Animation is A programmed Configuration So technically you're Right but It's better than watching Let's plays anyway
@@ricktd6891
Nah, you're the one who's spreading lies mate.
We really do need this guy to show up more often in human history; I think he's desperately needed by most of the people in power.
and the public
@@endermeap6488 mostly the public. the people in power are simply complicit. that's the sad reality this character doesn't touch on. the powerful make-up these stories knowing full well it's all lies and the actual evidence does not support their claims. and ofc, a few "reputable" influencers/experts spread it for one reason or another. perhaps because they were bribed/blackmailed/etc. or perhaps "expert" in their case just means a worthless paper says so and they are in reality, quite clueless. a portion of the public eats it up and another portion has the intelligence and common sense to refute it.
specifically in regards to global warming, recently learned something quite troubling, indeed... some will say "but, back then, these companies couldn't have known what their products do!" [live with one, in fact...] , the oil industry knew, well before everyone else. now the game they try to play is "we support/develop clean energy." [also ...mostly false, it's not a majority and i imagine their true objective in R&D is lock the tech behind patents so no one can use it] or even such bold claims as "we create jobs". that said, i wonder how many OLD industries/companies knew/suspected their products were not necesarrily safe?
1:31 For a second there I was like, wait he's not gonna steal his clothes? Never have I been so happy to be wrong.
Ted-ed: alright here's our new video-
commenters: HES BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!!!!!!!!!!!
He's Lyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyying to you.
@@ricktd6891
Source in order: Skeptical Science
CLIMATE DENIER ARGUMENTS #1: CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND CLIMATE
SS-"Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth.
Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165:
"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2."
On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low?
To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2.
Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally."
What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle.
Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.
In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions."
2nd -"This graph is from a seminar given by Christopher Monckton in 2006, who for those who don’t know is a leading climate skeptic blogger, and is based on the findings of Berner, who compiled a graph of CO2 levels, and Scotese, who compiled a graph of temperature. When put together, it does appear that there is no correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels; however there is a reason for this. Scotese did not do research into the correlation of CO2 and temperature, but lucky for us, Berner has. So since climate skeptics enjoy using Berner’s research to “disprove” the fact that CO2 levels do impact the climate, let’s see what Berner himself has published about the topic. In February of 2001, Berner published a paper in the American Journal of science titled “A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME” (1) in which he studied of effect of CO2 on average temperature, let’s see his conclusion: 'Results for GEOCARB III, as presented in the present paper, are compared to those for GEOCARB II in figure 13. As one can see the modeling has retained its overall trend, and the GEOCARB II curve falls within the error margins for GEOCARB III, based on the sensitivity analysis of the present paper. This means that there appears to have been very high early Paleozoic levels of CO2, followed by a large drop during the Devonian, and a rise to moderately high values during the Mesozoic, followed by a Fig. 12. Effect of global degassing on RCO2 vs time for the Mesozoic-Cenozic. fG(t) 5 1 and fC(t) 5 1 means no change in degassing rate over time. 200 R.A. Berner and Z. Kothavala-GEOCARB III: gradual decline through both the later Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.'"
"Now, how can the underlined conclusion be possible given that Figure 1. clearly shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature? Are climate scientists all in on some globalist conspiracy to set up a world government? Well no, it can be explained using basic science. To explain this, I will use the analogy of a cabin with a heater. If you were living in a cabin somewhere off in the middle of the woods, you would most likely have a heater. In the winter, your heater would most likely be at full blast to keep the temperature in the cabin stable. However come summer, you turn the heater down to keep the temperature in your cabin a normal temperature. If you were to graph the average temperature of the cabin vs the output from your heater, you would see no correlation between the two because how could it be possible that your heater is low in the summer yet temperature remains constant or even goes above what it normally does? Anyone should be able to tell you the answer, it’s because the temperature of the cabin is not only dependent on output from the heater, it is dependent on both the heater’s output and the weather outside (cabin analogy courtesy of potholer54). This same logic can be used when trying to see Earth’s climate, because the climate is not only dependent on CO2 emissions, but rather both CO2 and the sun; and one can have more of an effect on temperature than the other depending on the rate at which they are being radiated."
"Just because the sun plays a very important role in regulating the Earth’s temperature, it doesn’t mean that CO2 cannot also play a role. Throughout the history of the Earth, sometimes the sun has driven climate, and sometimes greenhouse gases like CO2 has driven the climate. Today however, the evidence shows us that CO2 is being the main driver of the climate due to the fact that solar output has been decreasing, yet global temperatures continue to rise."
I made a joke about the demon of reason coming back, dang
@@vexialhex3124
The guy is spamming comments, so I made him taste his own medicine.
@@spookyscarylamppost3431 Good job! Dont let people spread pseudoscience on the internet
HE’S BACK, MY BELOVED. THE DEMON OF REASON. THIS MAN HAS OPENED MY EYES TO MULTIPLE DIFFERENT SITUATIONS AND SOLUTIONS. MY LIFE HAD NO MEANING BEFORE I DISCOVERED THE DEMON OF REASON. I NEED THIS CONTENT, THE DEMON OF REASON IS MY PURPOSE AS A HUMAN.
All hail the Demon of Reason!
I did this theheraldofthedark.tumblr.com/post/647757090380742656/you-dont-get-context because of you, enjoy
@@TheVampireviolet SAVED. IT HAS BEEN SAVED TO MY PHOTOS.
You love to be lied to ?
@@ricktd6891
Source in order: Skeptical Science
CLIMATE DENIER ARGUMENTS #1: CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND CLIMATE
SS-"Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth.
Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165:
"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2."
On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low?
To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2.
Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally."
What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle.
Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.
In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions."
2nd -"This graph is from a seminar given by Christopher Monckton in 2006, who for those who don’t know is a leading climate skeptic blogger, and is based on the findings of Berner, who compiled a graph of CO2 levels, and Scotese, who compiled a graph of temperature. When put together, it does appear that there is no correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels; however there is a reason for this. Scotese did not do research into the correlation of CO2 and temperature, but lucky for us, Berner has. So since climate skeptics enjoy using Berner’s research to “disprove” the fact that CO2 levels do impact the climate, let’s see what Berner himself has published about the topic. In February of 2001, Berner published a paper in the American Journal of science titled “A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME” (1) in which he studied of effect of CO2 on average temperature, let’s see his conclusion: 'Results for GEOCARB III, as presented in the present paper, are compared to those for GEOCARB II in figure 13. As one can see the modeling has retained its overall trend, and the GEOCARB II curve falls within the error margins for GEOCARB III, based on the sensitivity analysis of the present paper. This means that there appears to have been very high early Paleozoic levels of CO2, followed by a large drop during the Devonian, and a rise to moderately high values during the Mesozoic, followed by a Fig. 12. Effect of global degassing on RCO2 vs time for the Mesozoic-Cenozic. fG(t) 5 1 and fC(t) 5 1 means no change in degassing rate over time. 200 R.A. Berner and Z. Kothavala-GEOCARB III: gradual decline through both the later Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.'"
"Now, how can the underlined conclusion be possible given that Figure 1. clearly shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature? Are climate scientists all in on some globalist conspiracy to set up a world government? Well no, it can be explained using basic science. To explain this, I will use the analogy of a cabin with a heater. If you were living in a cabin somewhere off in the middle of the woods, you would most likely have a heater. In the winter, your heater would most likely be at full blast to keep the temperature in the cabin stable. However come summer, you turn the heater down to keep the temperature in your cabin a normal temperature. If you were to graph the average temperature of the cabin vs the output from your heater, you would see no correlation between the two because how could it be possible that your heater is low in the summer yet temperature remains constant or even goes above what it normally does? Anyone should be able to tell you the answer, it’s because the temperature of the cabin is not only dependent on output from the heater, it is dependent on both the heater’s output and the weather outside (cabin analogy courtesy of potholer54). This same logic can be used when trying to see Earth’s climate, because the climate is not only dependent on CO2 emissions, but rather both CO2 and the sun; and one can have more of an effect on temperature than the other depending on the rate at which they are being radiated."
"Just because the sun plays a very important role in regulating the Earth’s temperature, it doesn’t mean that CO2 cannot also play a role. Throughout the history of the Earth, sometimes the sun has driven climate, and sometimes greenhouse gases like CO2 has driven the climate. Today however, the evidence shows us that CO2 is being the main driver of the climate due to the fact that solar output has been decreasing, yet global temperatures continue to rise."
We need more of this moody sarcastic demonic guy in future videos.
yes
wanted to comment that 2
at school teaches thing's and this demon teaches things so this is school
yes the demon of reason is the best!
100% agree!
Of course I love this guy alot
When the Walking Horned Eggplant starts Spitting Facts.
More like lies and fear mongering.
@@ricktd6891 what about this is lies? I'm sure some examples of Rising Heat over Time are Slightly Inaccurate but the Point is Real.
I'm just imagining an eggplant on white background with Morshu beatbox playing
@@ricktd6891
Source in order: Skeptical Science
CLIMATE DENIER ARGUMENTS #1: CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND CLIMATE
SS-"Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth.
Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165:
"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2."
On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low?
To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2.
Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally."
What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle.
Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.
In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions."
2nd -"This graph is from a seminar given by Christopher Monckton in 2006, who for those who don’t know is a leading climate skeptic blogger, and is based on the findings of Berner, who compiled a graph of CO2 levels, and Scotese, who compiled a graph of temperature. When put together, it does appear that there is no correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels; however there is a reason for this. Scotese did not do research into the correlation of CO2 and temperature, but lucky for us, Berner has. So since climate skeptics enjoy using Berner’s research to “disprove” the fact that CO2 levels do impact the climate, let’s see what Berner himself has published about the topic. In February of 2001, Berner published a paper in the American Journal of science titled “A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME” (1) in which he studied of effect of CO2 on average temperature, let’s see his conclusion: 'Results for GEOCARB III, as presented in the present paper, are compared to those for GEOCARB II in figure 13. As one can see the modeling has retained its overall trend, and the GEOCARB II curve falls within the error margins for GEOCARB III, based on the sensitivity analysis of the present paper. This means that there appears to have been very high early Paleozoic levels of CO2, followed by a large drop during the Devonian, and a rise to moderately high values during the Mesozoic, followed by a Fig. 12. Effect of global degassing on RCO2 vs time for the Mesozoic-Cenozic. fG(t) 5 1 and fC(t) 5 1 means no change in degassing rate over time. 200 R.A. Berner and Z. Kothavala-GEOCARB III: gradual decline through both the later Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.'"
"Now, how can the underlined conclusion be possible given that Figure 1. clearly shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature? Are climate scientists all in on some globalist conspiracy to set up a world government? Well no, it can be explained using basic science. To explain this, I will use the analogy of a cabin with a heater. If you were living in a cabin somewhere off in the middle of the woods, you would most likely have a heater. In the winter, your heater would most likely be at full blast to keep the temperature in the cabin stable. However come summer, you turn the heater down to keep the temperature in your cabin a normal temperature. If you were to graph the average temperature of the cabin vs the output from your heater, you would see no correlation between the two because how could it be possible that your heater is low in the summer yet temperature remains constant or even goes above what it normally does? Anyone should be able to tell you the answer, it’s because the temperature of the cabin is not only dependent on output from the heater, it is dependent on both the heater’s output and the weather outside (cabin analogy courtesy of potholer54). This same logic can be used when trying to see Earth’s climate, because the climate is not only dependent on CO2 emissions, but rather both CO2 and the sun; and one can have more of an effect on temperature than the other depending on the rate at which they are being radiated."
"Just because the sun plays a very important role in regulating the Earth’s temperature, it doesn’t mean that CO2 cannot also play a role. Throughout the history of the Earth, sometimes the sun has driven climate, and sometimes greenhouse gases like CO2 has driven the climate. Today however, the evidence shows us that CO2 is being the main driver of the climate due to the fact that solar output has been decreasing, yet global temperatures continue to rise."
@@ricktd6891 Projection, much? ;)
We need you to find a difference between those two pictures
2 degrees increse in 4 000 years
2 degrees increase in 40 years
Businessmen: they're the same picture
Demon of reason, watching on his tv: And I took that personally.
Its actually a single degree in hundreds of years they're saying now.
Which is also why nobody believes the global warming conspiracy. Because nobody in science can agree on anything regarding the subject
50 years of global warming claims that turned out to be false. Like Florida being underwater by 2010.
@@colelawton4901 BOOTLICKER!!!
@@juarka2 BOOTLICKER!!!
When a purple dragon talks more sense than most people...
But he’s a demon
He's a demon, not a dragon
@@NxVernxual lol yeah
SOCIETY
@@duo317 wE LiVe iN a SoCieTy
I watched the other videos with this character and I just realized that every time he gets transported through the tv he always has to take someone else’s clothes, that’s nice continuity right there lol
What about all the lies and fear mongering ? Are you ok with that ?
@@ricktd6891
Source in order: Skeptical Science
CLIMATE DENIER ARGUMENTS #1: CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND CLIMATE
SS-"Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth.
Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165:
"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2."
On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low?
To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2.
Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally."
What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle.
Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.
In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions."
2nd -"This graph is from a seminar given by Christopher Monckton in 2006, who for those who don’t know is a leading climate skeptic blogger, and is based on the findings of Berner, who compiled a graph of CO2 levels, and Scotese, who compiled a graph of temperature. When put together, it does appear that there is no correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels; however there is a reason for this. Scotese did not do research into the correlation of CO2 and temperature, but lucky for us, Berner has. So since climate skeptics enjoy using Berner’s research to “disprove” the fact that CO2 levels do impact the climate, let’s see what Berner himself has published about the topic. In February of 2001, Berner published a paper in the American Journal of science titled “A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME” (1) in which he studied of effect of CO2 on average temperature, let’s see his conclusion: 'Results for GEOCARB III, as presented in the present paper, are compared to those for GEOCARB II in figure 13. As one can see the modeling has retained its overall trend, and the GEOCARB II curve falls within the error margins for GEOCARB III, based on the sensitivity analysis of the present paper. This means that there appears to have been very high early Paleozoic levels of CO2, followed by a large drop during the Devonian, and a rise to moderately high values during the Mesozoic, followed by a Fig. 12. Effect of global degassing on RCO2 vs time for the Mesozoic-Cenozic. fG(t) 5 1 and fC(t) 5 1 means no change in degassing rate over time. 200 R.A. Berner and Z. Kothavala-GEOCARB III: gradual decline through both the later Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.'"
"Now, how can the underlined conclusion be possible given that Figure 1. clearly shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature? Are climate scientists all in on some globalist conspiracy to set up a world government? Well no, it can be explained using basic science. To explain this, I will use the analogy of a cabin with a heater. If you were living in a cabin somewhere off in the middle of the woods, you would most likely have a heater. In the winter, your heater would most likely be at full blast to keep the temperature in the cabin stable. However come summer, you turn the heater down to keep the temperature in your cabin a normal temperature. If you were to graph the average temperature of the cabin vs the output from your heater, you would see no correlation between the two because how could it be possible that your heater is low in the summer yet temperature remains constant or even goes above what it normally does? Anyone should be able to tell you the answer, it’s because the temperature of the cabin is not only dependent on output from the heater, it is dependent on both the heater’s output and the weather outside (cabin analogy courtesy of potholer54). This same logic can be used when trying to see Earth’s climate, because the climate is not only dependent on CO2 emissions, but rather both CO2 and the sun; and one can have more of an effect on temperature than the other depending on the rate at which they are being radiated."
"Just because the sun plays a very important role in regulating the Earth’s temperature, it doesn’t mean that CO2 cannot also play a role. Throughout the history of the Earth, sometimes the sun has driven climate, and sometimes greenhouse gases like CO2 has driven the climate. Today however, the evidence shows us that CO2 is being the main driver of the climate due to the fact that solar output has been decreasing, yet global temperatures continue to rise."
@@ricktd6891 Your perseverance is applaudable, if only you didn’t reply with ridiculous comments.
@@terrylap6132 What facts would you like ?
@@ricktd6891 Studies and research papers with proper citations from credible sources or authors. It would be a bonus if the research paper itself is from a well known climatologist or scientist specifying in any areas regarding climate change.
when a purple dude in underpants talk sense, suddenly all those bizarre things in the world seem less bizarre
Its a demon
Not a dude
@@oliviam.5754 its a demon dude
@@crazycoder2434 still just a demon
Sorry, that was fear mongering and lies.
@@ricktd6891 ?
"what are you looking at? We're all dressed" said the demon in a crowd of humans that just teleported into the room
10
Demon of Reason, You are my favourite character in Ted Ed.
Hands down.
Too bad he lied to you.
@@ricktd6891
Source in order: Skeptical Science
CLIMATE DENIER ARGUMENTS #1: CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND CLIMATE
SS-"Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth.
Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165:
"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2."
On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low?
To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2.
Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally."
What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle.
Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.
In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions."
2nd -"This graph is from a seminar given by Christopher Monckton in 2006, who for those who don’t know is a leading climate skeptic blogger, and is based on the findings of Berner, who compiled a graph of CO2 levels, and Scotese, who compiled a graph of temperature. When put together, it does appear that there is no correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels; however there is a reason for this. Scotese did not do research into the correlation of CO2 and temperature, but lucky for us, Berner has. So since climate skeptics enjoy using Berner’s research to “disprove” the fact that CO2 levels do impact the climate, let’s see what Berner himself has published about the topic. In February of 2001, Berner published a paper in the American Journal of science titled “A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME” (1) in which he studied of effect of CO2 on average temperature, let’s see his conclusion: 'Results for GEOCARB III, as presented in the present paper, are compared to those for GEOCARB II in figure 13. As one can see the modeling has retained its overall trend, and the GEOCARB II curve falls within the error margins for GEOCARB III, based on the sensitivity analysis of the present paper. This means that there appears to have been very high early Paleozoic levels of CO2, followed by a large drop during the Devonian, and a rise to moderately high values during the Mesozoic, followed by a Fig. 12. Effect of global degassing on RCO2 vs time for the Mesozoic-Cenozic. fG(t) 5 1 and fC(t) 5 1 means no change in degassing rate over time. 200 R.A. Berner and Z. Kothavala-GEOCARB III: gradual decline through both the later Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.'"
"Now, how can the underlined conclusion be possible given that Figure 1. clearly shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature? Are climate scientists all in on some globalist conspiracy to set up a world government? Well no, it can be explained using basic science. To explain this, I will use the analogy of a cabin with a heater. If you were living in a cabin somewhere off in the middle of the woods, you would most likely have a heater. In the winter, your heater would most likely be at full blast to keep the temperature in the cabin stable. However come summer, you turn the heater down to keep the temperature in your cabin a normal temperature. If you were to graph the average temperature of the cabin vs the output from your heater, you would see no correlation between the two because how could it be possible that your heater is low in the summer yet temperature remains constant or even goes above what it normally does? Anyone should be able to tell you the answer, it’s because the temperature of the cabin is not only dependent on output from the heater, it is dependent on both the heater’s output and the weather outside (cabin analogy courtesy of potholer54). This same logic can be used when trying to see Earth’s climate, because the climate is not only dependent on CO2 emissions, but rather both CO2 and the sun; and one can have more of an effect on temperature than the other depending on the rate at which they are being radiated."
"Just because the sun plays a very important role in regulating the Earth’s temperature, it doesn’t mean that CO2 cannot also play a role. Throughout the history of the Earth, sometimes the sun has driven climate, and sometimes greenhouse gases like CO2 has driven the climate. Today however, the evidence shows us that CO2 is being the main driver of the climate due to the fact that solar output has been decreasing, yet global temperatures continue to rise."
@@spookyscarylamppost3431 Damn that’s long.
@@ricktd6891 too bad nobody cares about your pseudoscience.
@@ricktd6891 bro are you alright you've replied to so many comments like this, no seriously are you good my g
The Demon of Reason now has 2 pets, proving just how popular and attractive he is among the Ted-Ed community.
He lied to you.
@@ricktd6891 The Demon of Reason wasn’t lying. Did you see him yawn at the end of the video and if so, do you feel sorry for the poor demon who constantly has to deal with being a surprisingly popular character and should we let him get some much needed rest and relaxation in the form of much needed sleep?
@@parkerjarrell1137 I'll explain further. The whole video is propaganda used to push the man-made catastrophic global warming scam. It's not even an original idea either. Search : The Washington Post - November 2, 1922 "Report on Global Warming." Same exact scare story a century ago.
@@ricktd6891 What do you mean it is a scam. We are feeling the effcts of it _now_ ! If your not feeling them, your either happen to live in a place where the effects are less or are very rich and can avoid that problems with money.
@@ricktd6891
Source in order: Skeptical Science
CLIMATE DENIER ARGUMENTS #1: CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND CLIMATE
SS-"Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth.
Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165:
"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2."
On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low?
To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2.
Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally."
What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle.
Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.
In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions."
2nd -"This graph is from a seminar given by Christopher Monckton in 2006, who for those who don’t know is a leading climate skeptic blogger, and is based on the findings of Berner, who compiled a graph of CO2 levels, and Scotese, who compiled a graph of temperature. When put together, it does appear that there is no correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels; however there is a reason for this. Scotese did not do research into the correlation of CO2 and temperature, but lucky for us, Berner has. So since climate skeptics enjoy using Berner’s research to “disprove” the fact that CO2 levels do impact the climate, let’s see what Berner himself has published about the topic. In February of 2001, Berner published a paper in the American Journal of science titled “A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME” (1) in which he studied of effect of CO2 on average temperature, let’s see his conclusion: 'Results for GEOCARB III, as presented in the present paper, are compared to those for GEOCARB II in figure 13. As one can see the modeling has retained its overall trend, and the GEOCARB II curve falls within the error margins for GEOCARB III, based on the sensitivity analysis of the present paper. This means that there appears to have been very high early Paleozoic levels of CO2, followed by a large drop during the Devonian, and a rise to moderately high values during the Mesozoic, followed by a Fig. 12. Effect of global degassing on RCO2 vs time for the Mesozoic-Cenozic. fG(t) 5 1 and fC(t) 5 1 means no change in degassing rate over time. 200 R.A. Berner and Z. Kothavala-GEOCARB III: gradual decline through both the later Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.'"
"Now, how can the underlined conclusion be possible given that Figure 1. clearly shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature? Are climate scientists all in on some globalist conspiracy to set up a world government? Well no, it can be explained using basic science. To explain this, I will use the analogy of a cabin with a heater. If you were living in a cabin somewhere off in the middle of the woods, you would most likely have a heater. In the winter, your heater would most likely be at full blast to keep the temperature in the cabin stable. However come summer, you turn the heater down to keep the temperature in your cabin a normal temperature. If you were to graph the average temperature of the cabin vs the output from your heater, you would see no correlation between the two because how could it be possible that your heater is low in the summer yet temperature remains constant or even goes above what it normally does? Anyone should be able to tell you the answer, it’s because the temperature of the cabin is not only dependent on output from the heater, it is dependent on both the heater’s output and the weather outside (cabin analogy courtesy of potholer54). This same logic can be used when trying to see Earth’s climate, because the climate is not only dependent on CO2 emissions, but rather both CO2 and the sun; and one can have more of an effect on temperature than the other depending on the rate at which they are being radiated."
"Just because the sun plays a very important role in regulating the Earth’s temperature, it doesn’t mean that CO2 cannot also play a role. Throughout the history of the Earth, sometimes the sun has driven climate, and sometimes greenhouse gases like CO2 has driven the climate. Today however, the evidence shows us that CO2 is being the main driver of the climate due to the fact that solar output has been decreasing, yet global temperatures continue to rise."
The Demon of reason is actually my favourite “character” I’m happy your still using him
1:48 I’m so happy to see the Demon of Reason finally getting married
Marrying the angel of ignorance...
You'd think their titles would be swapped...
Analogies can't be used to prove things, only to explain concepts.
Much like translating a claim from english to french doesn't validate it.
Amazing series, thanks TED and Elizabeth!
Due to my anxiety I make up a lot of problems in my head and this video made me realize it's due to apples and oranges fallacy. Thank you so much for making me realize that!
This format, I actually love it..we really need to teach more critical thinking…
In cases like this, I don't want to be the devil's advocate
I want him to be mine
CO2 caused catastrophic global warming is a scam used to push politics on us, nothing more.
@@ricktd6891
Source in order: Skeptical Science
CLIMATE DENIER ARGUMENTS #1: CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND CLIMATE
SS-"Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth.
Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165:
"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2."
On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low?
To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2.
Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally."
What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle.
Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.
In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions."
2nd -"This graph is from a seminar given by Christopher Monckton in 2006, who for those who don’t know is a leading climate skeptic blogger, and is based on the findings of Berner, who compiled a graph of CO2 levels, and Scotese, who compiled a graph of temperature. When put together, it does appear that there is no correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels; however there is a reason for this. Scotese did not do research into the correlation of CO2 and temperature, but lucky for us, Berner has. So since climate skeptics enjoy using Berner’s research to “disprove” the fact that CO2 levels do impact the climate, let’s see what Berner himself has published about the topic. In February of 2001, Berner published a paper in the American Journal of science titled “A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME” (1) in which he studied of effect of CO2 on average temperature, let’s see his conclusion: 'Results for GEOCARB III, as presented in the present paper, are compared to those for GEOCARB II in figure 13. As one can see the modeling has retained its overall trend, and the GEOCARB II curve falls within the error margins for GEOCARB III, based on the sensitivity analysis of the present paper. This means that there appears to have been very high early Paleozoic levels of CO2, followed by a large drop during the Devonian, and a rise to moderately high values during the Mesozoic, followed by a Fig. 12. Effect of global degassing on RCO2 vs time for the Mesozoic-Cenozic. fG(t) 5 1 and fC(t) 5 1 means no change in degassing rate over time. 200 R.A. Berner and Z. Kothavala-GEOCARB III: gradual decline through both the later Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.'"
"Now, how can the underlined conclusion be possible given that Figure 1. clearly shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature? Are climate scientists all in on some globalist conspiracy to set up a world government? Well no, it can be explained using basic science. To explain this, I will use the analogy of a cabin with a heater. If you were living in a cabin somewhere off in the middle of the woods, you would most likely have a heater. In the winter, your heater would most likely be at full blast to keep the temperature in the cabin stable. However come summer, you turn the heater down to keep the temperature in your cabin a normal temperature. If you were to graph the average temperature of the cabin vs the output from your heater, you would see no correlation between the two because how could it be possible that your heater is low in the summer yet temperature remains constant or even goes above what it normally does? Anyone should be able to tell you the answer, it’s because the temperature of the cabin is not only dependent on output from the heater, it is dependent on both the heater’s output and the weather outside (cabin analogy courtesy of potholer54). This same logic can be used when trying to see Earth’s climate, because the climate is not only dependent on CO2 emissions, but rather both CO2 and the sun; and one can have more of an effect on temperature than the other depending on the rate at which they are being radiated."
"Just because the sun plays a very important role in regulating the Earth’s temperature, it doesn’t mean that CO2 cannot also play a role. Throughout the history of the Earth, sometimes the sun has driven climate, and sometimes greenhouse gases like CO2 has driven the climate. Today however, the evidence shows us that CO2 is being the main driver of the climate due to the fact that solar output has been decreasing, yet global temperatures continue to rise."
@@spookyscarylamppost3431 in a nutshell:
haha CO2 go brrrrrrrrrrrr
not the humans
@@ricktd6891 oh please, you can’t even talk about the demon himself.
@@smt4090 Uuhhmm, humans release CO2.
Step 1: Confirm you have green eyes.
Step 2: Ask the Demon of Reason to please do more videos please?
Nice reference
lol
I like Hollow Knight
"It's like you said that Rhinos are unicorns, because both have a single horn on the head"
Actually we have reason to suspect Rhinos were what pliny the elder saw when he spoke of unicorns.
The demon of reason video series is honestly the best series you have running. I absolutely love it!
Other than riddles.
@@RGC_animation yeah, the riddles are obviously also great.
1:36 they took a BITE out of the ORANGE with the PEEL ON??? Truly this person was the real villain in this video.
Orange peel is edible
@@Owen_loves_Butterspaper is edible too but you don’t see me eating A4 sheets for breakfast
@@emeraldnickel Because paper doesn't have nutritional value and is indigestible
I love the Demon of Reason! He should become the mascot of Ted-Ed.
He lied to you.
@@ricktd6891
Source in order: Skeptical Science
CLIMATE DENIER ARGUMENTS #1: CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND CLIMATE
SS-"Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth.
Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165:
"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2."
On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low?
To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2.
Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally."
What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle.
Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.
In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions."
2nd -"This graph is from a seminar given by Christopher Monckton in 2006, who for those who don’t know is a leading climate skeptic blogger, and is based on the findings of Berner, who compiled a graph of CO2 levels, and Scotese, who compiled a graph of temperature. When put together, it does appear that there is no correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels; however there is a reason for this. Scotese did not do research into the correlation of CO2 and temperature, but lucky for us, Berner has. So since climate skeptics enjoy using Berner’s research to “disprove” the fact that CO2 levels do impact the climate, let’s see what Berner himself has published about the topic. In February of 2001, Berner published a paper in the American Journal of science titled “A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME” (1) in which he studied of effect of CO2 on average temperature, let’s see his conclusion: 'Results for GEOCARB III, as presented in the present paper, are compared to those for GEOCARB II in figure 13. As one can see the modeling has retained its overall trend, and the GEOCARB II curve falls within the error margins for GEOCARB III, based on the sensitivity analysis of the present paper. This means that there appears to have been very high early Paleozoic levels of CO2, followed by a large drop during the Devonian, and a rise to moderately high values during the Mesozoic, followed by a Fig. 12. Effect of global degassing on RCO2 vs time for the Mesozoic-Cenozic. fG(t) 5 1 and fC(t) 5 1 means no change in degassing rate over time. 200 R.A. Berner and Z. Kothavala-GEOCARB III: gradual decline through both the later Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.'"
"Now, how can the underlined conclusion be possible given that Figure 1. clearly shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature? Are climate scientists all in on some globalist conspiracy to set up a world government? Well no, it can be explained using basic science. To explain this, I will use the analogy of a cabin with a heater. If you were living in a cabin somewhere off in the middle of the woods, you would most likely have a heater. In the winter, your heater would most likely be at full blast to keep the temperature in the cabin stable. However come summer, you turn the heater down to keep the temperature in your cabin a normal temperature. If you were to graph the average temperature of the cabin vs the output from your heater, you would see no correlation between the two because how could it be possible that your heater is low in the summer yet temperature remains constant or even goes above what it normally does? Anyone should be able to tell you the answer, it’s because the temperature of the cabin is not only dependent on output from the heater, it is dependent on both the heater’s output and the weather outside (cabin analogy courtesy of potholer54). This same logic can be used when trying to see Earth’s climate, because the climate is not only dependent on CO2 emissions, but rather both CO2 and the sun; and one can have more of an effect on temperature than the other depending on the rate at which they are being radiated."
"Just because the sun plays a very important role in regulating the Earth’s temperature, it doesn’t mean that CO2 cannot also play a role. Throughout the history of the Earth, sometimes the sun has driven climate, and sometimes greenhouse gases like CO2 has driven the climate. Today however, the evidence shows us that CO2 is being the main driver of the climate due to the fact that solar output has been decreasing, yet global temperatures continue to rise."
@@spookyscarylamppost3431 Great research!
Not first, but still here within a minute of posting. Neato
And me, 2 minutes
early gang activity
“Correlation is different than causation” what a powerful statement!
Teacher : What is the difference between orange and apple?
Student : The color of orange is ORANGE, but the color of apple is not APPLE.
Ah, so oranges and olives are the same? Good to know.
This was funny 😂😂😂😂
The apples and oranges fallacy reminds me of one time when I was a kid when someone was trying to make out that Coke was the same as lemonade except for being a different colour, and as I didn't like Coke I therefore couldn't like lemonade either!
Pepsi and coke look the same so they taste the same. Then why do I like one better?
@@betka5791 the product name duh
Answer: probably not, but I'll still watch the video!
I feel like they missed the main point, usually the climate changes over periods of thousands or millions of years, not a few decades.
The analogy I’ll give is if you lost 10 pounds over the course of a year, vs if you lost it over the course of a week. One is WAY more troubling
Or, say, 2”
Oops, 20
True
Even if climate change takes millions of years to take horrible effects, it will take millions of years again to fix those horrible effects. Like how heating something that requires more time to increase the temperature, will in turn require more time for it to cool off.
Saying global warming isn't a problem because its temperature change is small is like being in a forest and saying "It's a small fire, it won't burn anything," as you watch the fire slowly grows and start consuming the forest.
Being in a class on conducting experiments I love watching the demon of reason. He reviews what I learned in class and shows the practical applications.
3:20
The crocodile on the left do be vibing 🐊
‘It’s just a fallacy!’
Where’s that’s from?
Bohemian (something) by Queen
‘Born in a landslide’
Are you making an Arrested Development reference?
@@tell-talehearts4462 Maeby
I would LOVE a video about "false dilemma fallacy" that has pervaded radical ideologies.
When the world needed him most,he came back.
We need him to lie to us ?
@@ricktd6891 dude the demon of reason is going to steal your cloths man
Look Ted-Ed...
You know I cannot outsmart it... but I still clicked.
Quality
1:47 *I was waiting for this*
```❤️ Demon of Reason```
It's awesome that you continue with this series, I hope you make it a regular thing.
My least favorite part of this series is that the demon of reason isn't real.
It's all lies.
@@ricktd6891
Source in order: Skeptical Science
CLIMATE DENIER ARGUMENTS #1: CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND CLIMATE
SS-"Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth.
Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165:
"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2."
On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low?
To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2.
Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally."
What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle.
Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.
In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions."
2nd -"This graph is from a seminar given by Christopher Monckton in 2006, who for those who don’t know is a leading climate skeptic blogger, and is based on the findings of Berner, who compiled a graph of CO2 levels, and Scotese, who compiled a graph of temperature. When put together, it does appear that there is no correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels; however there is a reason for this. Scotese did not do research into the correlation of CO2 and temperature, but lucky for us, Berner has. So since climate skeptics enjoy using Berner’s research to “disprove” the fact that CO2 levels do impact the climate, let’s see what Berner himself has published about the topic. In February of 2001, Berner published a paper in the American Journal of science titled “A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME” (1) in which he studied of effect of CO2 on average temperature, let’s see his conclusion: 'Results for GEOCARB III, as presented in the present paper, are compared to those for GEOCARB II in figure 13. As one can see the modeling has retained its overall trend, and the GEOCARB II curve falls within the error margins for GEOCARB III, based on the sensitivity analysis of the present paper. This means that there appears to have been very high early Paleozoic levels of CO2, followed by a large drop during the Devonian, and a rise to moderately high values during the Mesozoic, followed by a Fig. 12. Effect of global degassing on RCO2 vs time for the Mesozoic-Cenozic. fG(t) 5 1 and fC(t) 5 1 means no change in degassing rate over time. 200 R.A. Berner and Z. Kothavala-GEOCARB III: gradual decline through both the later Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.'"
"Now, how can the underlined conclusion be possible given that Figure 1. clearly shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature? Are climate scientists all in on some globalist conspiracy to set up a world government? Well no, it can be explained using basic science. To explain this, I will use the analogy of a cabin with a heater. If you were living in a cabin somewhere off in the middle of the woods, you would most likely have a heater. In the winter, your heater would most likely be at full blast to keep the temperature in the cabin stable. However come summer, you turn the heater down to keep the temperature in your cabin a normal temperature. If you were to graph the average temperature of the cabin vs the output from your heater, you would see no correlation between the two because how could it be possible that your heater is low in the summer yet temperature remains constant or even goes above what it normally does? Anyone should be able to tell you the answer, it’s because the temperature of the cabin is not only dependent on output from the heater, it is dependent on both the heater’s output and the weather outside (cabin analogy courtesy of potholer54). This same logic can be used when trying to see Earth’s climate, because the climate is not only dependent on CO2 emissions, but rather both CO2 and the sun; and one can have more of an effect on temperature than the other depending on the rate at which they are being radiated."
"Just because the sun plays a very important role in regulating the Earth’s temperature, it doesn’t mean that CO2 cannot also play a role. Throughout the history of the Earth, sometimes the sun has driven climate, and sometimes greenhouse gases like CO2 has driven the climate. Today however, the evidence shows us that CO2 is being the main driver of the climate due to the fact that solar output has been decreasing, yet global temperatures continue to rise."
@@ricktd6891 nobody cares. cry a river.
@@spookyscarylamppost3431 I agree but like, I ain't reading all of that
I would love to do another fallacy video, because my dad is really into debate, and my aunts a lawyer, so I know a bunch of fallacies.
By any chance are you also related to a highschool teacher that teaches in grade 10 history as well as the law courses?
This is an important topic yet somehow some people still refuse to believe global warming is a thing and even some news channels blatantly deny it which adds to the rejection. Its not a political thing, its a real danger.
Demon of Reason is the best thing about this great channel
Just like people still somehow believe the Earth is flat.
@@RGC_animationat least believing that the earth is flat is pretty harmless
This is one of the best knowledgeable and entairtainin channels here. They put soo much work in animation, editing and research that videos become fascinating.
It this channel ever goes down, I will be disheartened.
I am soooo happy they returned to this series again I absolutely love this guy!!!
I absolutely love this series, it's both entertaining to watch and I actually am retaining information. Keep up the good work!
Last time I was this early, human still believed the cause of global warming was a natural one
It's still natural but you can't control everything and everyone on Earth with "CO2 regulations" unless you lie and tell them it's not natural.
@@ricktd6891
Source in order: Skeptical Science
CLIMATE DENIER ARGUMENTS #1: CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND CLIMATE
SS-"Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth.
Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165:
"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2."
On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low?
To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2.
Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally."
What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle.
Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.
In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions."
2nd -"This graph is from a seminar given by Christopher Monckton in 2006, who for those who don’t know is a leading climate skeptic blogger, and is based on the findings of Berner, who compiled a graph of CO2 levels, and Scotese, who compiled a graph of temperature. When put together, it does appear that there is no correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels; however there is a reason for this. Scotese did not do research into the correlation of CO2 and temperature, but lucky for us, Berner has. So since climate skeptics enjoy using Berner’s research to “disprove” the fact that CO2 levels do impact the climate, let’s see what Berner himself has published about the topic. In February of 2001, Berner published a paper in the American Journal of science titled “A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME” (1) in which he studied of effect of CO2 on average temperature, let’s see his conclusion: 'Results for GEOCARB III, as presented in the present paper, are compared to those for GEOCARB II in figure 13. As one can see the modeling has retained its overall trend, and the GEOCARB II curve falls within the error margins for GEOCARB III, based on the sensitivity analysis of the present paper. This means that there appears to have been very high early Paleozoic levels of CO2, followed by a large drop during the Devonian, and a rise to moderately high values during the Mesozoic, followed by a Fig. 12. Effect of global degassing on RCO2 vs time for the Mesozoic-Cenozic. fG(t) 5 1 and fC(t) 5 1 means no change in degassing rate over time. 200 R.A. Berner and Z. Kothavala-GEOCARB III: gradual decline through both the later Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.'"
"Now, how can the underlined conclusion be possible given that Figure 1. clearly shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature? Are climate scientists all in on some globalist conspiracy to set up a world government? Well no, it can be explained using basic science. To explain this, I will use the analogy of a cabin with a heater. If you were living in a cabin somewhere off in the middle of the woods, you would most likely have a heater. In the winter, your heater would most likely be at full blast to keep the temperature in the cabin stable. However come summer, you turn the heater down to keep the temperature in your cabin a normal temperature. If you were to graph the average temperature of the cabin vs the output from your heater, you would see no correlation between the two because how could it be possible that your heater is low in the summer yet temperature remains constant or even goes above what it normally does? Anyone should be able to tell you the answer, it’s because the temperature of the cabin is not only dependent on output from the heater, it is dependent on both the heater’s output and the weather outside (cabin analogy courtesy of potholer54). This same logic can be used when trying to see Earth’s climate, because the climate is not only dependent on CO2 emissions, but rather both CO2 and the sun; and one can have more of an effect on temperature than the other depending on the rate at which they are being radiated."
"Just because the sun plays a very important role in regulating the Earth’s temperature, it doesn’t mean that CO2 cannot also play a role. Throughout the history of the Earth, sometimes the sun has driven climate, and sometimes greenhouse gases like CO2 has driven the climate. Today however, the evidence shows us that CO2 is being the main driver of the climate due to the fact that solar output has been decreasing, yet global temperatures continue to rise."
I love this sarcastic purple dragon guy so much 😂
We need more of the Demon of Reason. He is amazingly sarcastic but reasonable that it's hilarious.
I literally JUST HEARD someone use this fallacy, I know what to tell them now. thanks
Once again, one of the best animations I've ever seen.
Oh Ted Ed always providing us with great quality videos,and the best part is that's it's free.Keep up the good work.👍👍👍
Quality, free of cost, frequent uploads, intriguing topics, best animators in the world, (demon of reason ;) .....
Ted Ed - CZcams's golden side
ted ed this is my favourite character
This is one of my greatest life achievements
I am a simple guy, I see Ted ed I click 😌
👍👍👍
same
@@oliverelfenbaum7119 I won't
Then you get propagandized.
@@ricktd6891
Source in order: Skeptical Science
CLIMATE DENIER ARGUMENTS #1: CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND CLIMATE
SS-"Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth.
Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165:
"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2."
On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low?
To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2.
Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally."
What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle.
Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.
In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions."
2nd -"This graph is from a seminar given by Christopher Monckton in 2006, who for those who don’t know is a leading climate skeptic blogger, and is based on the findings of Berner, who compiled a graph of CO2 levels, and Scotese, who compiled a graph of temperature. When put together, it does appear that there is no correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels; however there is a reason for this. Scotese did not do research into the correlation of CO2 and temperature, but lucky for us, Berner has. So since climate skeptics enjoy using Berner’s research to “disprove” the fact that CO2 levels do impact the climate, let’s see what Berner himself has published about the topic. In February of 2001, Berner published a paper in the American Journal of science titled “A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME” (1) in which he studied of effect of CO2 on average temperature, let’s see his conclusion: 'Results for GEOCARB III, as presented in the present paper, are compared to those for GEOCARB II in figure 13. As one can see the modeling has retained its overall trend, and the GEOCARB II curve falls within the error margins for GEOCARB III, based on the sensitivity analysis of the present paper. This means that there appears to have been very high early Paleozoic levels of CO2, followed by a large drop during the Devonian, and a rise to moderately high values during the Mesozoic, followed by a Fig. 12. Effect of global degassing on RCO2 vs time for the Mesozoic-Cenozic. fG(t) 5 1 and fC(t) 5 1 means no change in degassing rate over time. 200 R.A. Berner and Z. Kothavala-GEOCARB III: gradual decline through both the later Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.'"
"Now, how can the underlined conclusion be possible given that Figure 1. clearly shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature? Are climate scientists all in on some globalist conspiracy to set up a world government? Well no, it can be explained using basic science. To explain this, I will use the analogy of a cabin with a heater. If you were living in a cabin somewhere off in the middle of the woods, you would most likely have a heater. In the winter, your heater would most likely be at full blast to keep the temperature in the cabin stable. However come summer, you turn the heater down to keep the temperature in your cabin a normal temperature. If you were to graph the average temperature of the cabin vs the output from your heater, you would see no correlation between the two because how could it be possible that your heater is low in the summer yet temperature remains constant or even goes above what it normally does? Anyone should be able to tell you the answer, it’s because the temperature of the cabin is not only dependent on output from the heater, it is dependent on both the heater’s output and the weather outside (cabin analogy courtesy of potholer54). This same logic can be used when trying to see Earth’s climate, because the climate is not only dependent on CO2 emissions, but rather both CO2 and the sun; and one can have more of an effect on temperature than the other depending on the rate at which they are being radiated."
"Just because the sun plays a very important role in regulating the Earth’s temperature, it doesn’t mean that CO2 cannot also play a role. Throughout the history of the Earth, sometimes the sun has driven climate, and sometimes greenhouse gases like CO2 has driven the climate. Today however, the evidence shows us that CO2 is being the main driver of the climate due to the fact that solar output has been decreasing, yet global temperatures continue to rise."
Very nice video. Straightforward and to the point yet insightful
The argument of “the same vs similar” is something I argue with people about all the time lol now I’m going to just send them this video
Good decision but chances are they are not going to watch or "believe" anyway.
Why would you send a video full of lies and fear mongering ?
@@hakimdiwan5101 I tend not to believe lies.
@@ricktd6891
Source in order: Skeptical Science
CLIMATE DENIER ARGUMENTS #1: CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND CLIMATE
SS-"Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth.
Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165:
"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2."
On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low?
To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2.
Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally."
What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle.
Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.
In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions."
2nd -"This graph is from a seminar given by Christopher Monckton in 2006, who for those who don’t know is a leading climate skeptic blogger, and is based on the findings of Berner, who compiled a graph of CO2 levels, and Scotese, who compiled a graph of temperature. When put together, it does appear that there is no correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels; however there is a reason for this. Scotese did not do research into the correlation of CO2 and temperature, but lucky for us, Berner has. So since climate skeptics enjoy using Berner’s research to “disprove” the fact that CO2 levels do impact the climate, let’s see what Berner himself has published about the topic. In February of 2001, Berner published a paper in the American Journal of science titled “A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME” (1) in which he studied of effect of CO2 on average temperature, let’s see his conclusion: 'Results for GEOCARB III, as presented in the present paper, are compared to those for GEOCARB II in figure 13. As one can see the modeling has retained its overall trend, and the GEOCARB II curve falls within the error margins for GEOCARB III, based on the sensitivity analysis of the present paper. This means that there appears to have been very high early Paleozoic levels of CO2, followed by a large drop during the Devonian, and a rise to moderately high values during the Mesozoic, followed by a Fig. 12. Effect of global degassing on RCO2 vs time for the Mesozoic-Cenozic. fG(t) 5 1 and fC(t) 5 1 means no change in degassing rate over time. 200 R.A. Berner and Z. Kothavala-GEOCARB III: gradual decline through both the later Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.'"
"Now, how can the underlined conclusion be possible given that Figure 1. clearly shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature? Are climate scientists all in on some globalist conspiracy to set up a world government? Well no, it can be explained using basic science. To explain this, I will use the analogy of a cabin with a heater. If you were living in a cabin somewhere off in the middle of the woods, you would most likely have a heater. In the winter, your heater would most likely be at full blast to keep the temperature in the cabin stable. However come summer, you turn the heater down to keep the temperature in your cabin a normal temperature. If you were to graph the average temperature of the cabin vs the output from your heater, you would see no correlation between the two because how could it be possible that your heater is low in the summer yet temperature remains constant or even goes above what it normally does? Anyone should be able to tell you the answer, it’s because the temperature of the cabin is not only dependent on output from the heater, it is dependent on both the heater’s output and the weather outside (cabin analogy courtesy of potholer54). This same logic can be used when trying to see Earth’s climate, because the climate is not only dependent on CO2 emissions, but rather both CO2 and the sun; and one can have more of an effect on temperature than the other depending on the rate at which they are being radiated."
"Just because the sun plays a very important role in regulating the Earth’s temperature, it doesn’t mean that CO2 cannot also play a role. Throughout the history of the Earth, sometimes the sun has driven climate, and sometimes greenhouse gases like CO2 has driven the climate. Today however, the evidence shows us that CO2 is being the main driver of the climate due to the fact that solar output has been decreasing, yet global temperatures continue to rise."
3:50 -- 3:59
This is a fallacy too!
He is assuminng that, just because similar events share different causes, therefore this event that's happening now must have a totally different cause too. And he just straight out states it's human action without even given any argument to support this.
This actually changed my mind on the subject
Congratulations. We have cookies.
How so? I gotta say, I like the purple demon but the explanation in this video is drastically over simplified. It's true that we shouldn't draw false comparisons, but this video doesn't take into account how deeply politicized the subject has become, making it hard to distinguish science from rhetoric. Personally I feel like we should be directing our focus more towards how human pollution and emissions are affecting the ocean. Carbon dioxide is a heavy gas that sinks in the atmosphere and the ocean absorbs it. this is resulting in the carbon levels in the ocean to rise dramatically. This change is one of the many reasons we have been seeing massive populations of fish dying. This is in part due to the acidification of our oceans creating an environment certain species of fish can't live in. Not to mention the amount of plastics in the oceon have grown so much that now we're seeing microplastics in everything we eat. One last point that is overlooked in this video. The greatest factor in the warning of the planet is the sun itself. This is not to say that greenhouse gasses don't exists or have an effect on global temperature. However we should also be looking at how much heat is being given off by the sun year over year because it is not always exactly the same. I believe that is a logical fallacy of its own for the demon ;)
@@Delsto5 Yes we have calculated how much sunlight the earth over years its called the Milankovitch cycles which predicts ice ages through by looking at long term trends of planetary movements of earth ( eccentricity, obliquity and precession),fossils and atmospheric composition(found through ice cores from poles). We are supposed to be in an ice age right now but we are not due to the agricultural revolution 9000bc humans cleared forests and released lots of co2 but this was gradual the climate variation we are seeing now is more rapid.
@@Delsto5 to answer your original question, my personal opinion on the subject was not very strong one way or the other, but I subscribed to the idea that the temperature of the earth fluctuated in the past and so it's just doing so again. I also have seen news headlines from a few decades ago about how the earth was entering another ice age, and since we're seeing the opposite headlines now, that it's mostly just panic. Again, that was all what I thought before watching the video. The video just outlined that while the temperature is fluctuating, the biggest commonality among all the warm periods is the atmosphere, and since we're altering the atmosphere (by how much is still up for debate btw), we should be wary of the possible long term effects.
As for your point about the sun, my understanding is that the energy given off by the sun that actually makes it to earth is in the form of electromagnetic radiation (radio waves, visible light, x-rays, gamma rays, etc), and when it comes in contact with the atmosphere and the planet's surface, some of the radiation is converted to heat, and some bounces off. Some gases allow this electromagnetic energy to pass through them but are good heat insulators. So while the sun does vary in how much radiation it gives off at any time, the variation is not uniform (it mostly happens around the uv and x-ray parts of the spectrum, but I might have one of those wrong), and the variations are only around 3.3% throughout the year, and that variations is due to the earth's distance from the sun not being uniform.
I'm not sure what about the video prompted you to mention the oceans, but I don't think we have much to worry about there. I'm with you on the microplastics, but that seems much more widespread than the oceans. As for the CO2 being absorbed into the ocean, my understanding is that the phytoplankton in the water convert that CO2 into oxygen (which is good) and use the carbon to keep living, and other sea creatures eat them so they can keep living. So (again, as I understand it) it seems like CO2 is a good thing for the oceans.
Really love both the character and the narration. The logical reasoning in these videos is some of the best I've seen, keep it up guys!
Awesome introductory format👍 Good job
I love this style of videos, keep it up!
The demon of reason is so cool, just like the series of outsmarting fallacies. Can't wait for more!
The Demon of Reason is the perfect combination of writing, animation, and voice acting.
i love this character so much, whoever designed them is really talented!
YEAH, HE'S BACK BOI! Riddles and the "Demon of reason" are my fav TED-Ed videos! 🤩
I'm yoinking this to show mom, who _loves_ using the "The earth has warmed in the past" argument.
I wish to attend the Demon of Reason's class if he's ever teaching. He's my dream professor.
He would steal your clothes
@@blakechow8294 A small price to pay for knowledge.
He lied to you.
@@Alleis you don't get knowledge from him, you get lies, propaganda and fear mongering.
@@blakechow8294 And lie to you too.
Yeah Teded! Thank you for more of this guy!!!💯
Love this format.
I love the demon of reason. He's smart and funny at the same time. 😂
I am a simple man, I see the demon of reasoning in my notification I click
PLEASE KEEP THIS SERIES GOING. 🙏🙏🙏
Omg i was just seeing those other two demon of reason videos recommended CZcams rn and just as i finish them this is uploaded!!✨😳
Ohhhhhhh I’ll procrastinate if it means I get to watch my favourite Demon steal someone’s clothes.
TED-Ed makes me feel like I couldn't outsmart an apple if I tried, which is why I love it
this came out on my birthday!! thank you ted ed :D
We need more videos from this series!
It's funny how the rivals of the demon in this video sound like ducks.
That's what all human sounds like.
This is the best character ever created. He must be protected at all costs
He doesn’t need anyone’s protection he’s a chad
@@zayk7095 Fax
This series is amazing!
I remember learning about this in science class. It was something like correlation does not equal causation? I can't quite remember...
No, that's actually a different fallacy. Here's the episode about correlation is not causation:
czcams.com/video/8HLtFv_KqoE/video.html&ab_channel=TED-Ed
1:09 Even the cat can’t believe what it’s hearing.
I like that funny demon :) For some reason, he shares the same energy as Radicles from OK KO. And the video is amazing too, the animation greatly supports what the words try to bring to us :)
I would love if a network/streaming service picked up this show, it's really fun!
You brought him back. They really did it.
more of this, please ♥
First time on Ted-Ed. Fantastic stuff!
This video is really amazing and well made :D
0:42 "Commercials. Could anything be more insufferable?"
I like to think that's the Demon of Reason (and TED-Ed in general) taking a jab at CZcams ads.
When Aku chooses a life of reasoning instead of conquest against Samurai Jack.
I love this guy. Now I want to see him tackle the hasty generalization and either-or fallacies.
I loved the animation ❤️script, theme, that dragon and everything😂
I really needed the demon of reason as a teacher when I was at school.
@Ted Ed
Thanks for impersonating, I shall report your channel.