Alone how the author tries to explain us that the TREND would be in two directions shows us how unscientific this show is. Of course a young child can see an upward trend.
But don't you worry. Climate denialists always work with confusion.
Alone how the author tries to explain us that the TREND would be in two directions shows us how unscientific this show is. Of course a young child can see an upward trend.
The 12 different reconstructions are all based on independent work. They may have, in some cases, used some of the same proxies, but they obtained their data independently and arrived at their conclusions using different methods.
Some of these works have been replicated by others working from the same raw data. That is how science works.
And the Vikings who were there called it Greenland to attract settlers. Most of it was still covered in massive glaciers.
Video begins by showing the effects of scales and then presents the early IPCC graph at an outrageous scale. It is also not a true graph but a schematic. It was not based on numerical data.
It then goes totally fraudulent by saying McIntyre And Mcitrick prove Mann wrong. M&M's work has been shown to be based upon incorrect data censoring and poor methods. M&M's work has been shown to be without statistical merit. Mann's work has stood up to scientific scrutiny. McIntyre's has not.
I love the use of the same 40 trees +2 others means a new study, or add another is a new study, there, thats 3 with almost the same data from only 43 trees..
...in 12000 metres per minute, which equals 720 000 metres per hour, this equals 720km/h.
Now I'm sure I don't have to tell you how high your chances are to survive such a crash. So in conlusion, we have to assume that things will be even harsher then they were back then - only on the global level. Ouch.
Even the possibility of such a risk would lead me to check at least whether the scientists could be right. After all, I did also trust the scientists when they came up with the car, right?
But about 7,300 years ago, again as a result of a change in the monsoonal cycle, the rain started to cease and over the next two thousand years until 5,500 years ago the Sahara desiccated.
Interesting, isn't it? Over two thousand years the temperatures changed by 5 degree celsius. This is what is expected to occur now in just a hundred years. That's a times 20 factor difference there. Well, is there a good example to show what this might mean? Surely, I have a neat one, hold onto your toes.
About 12,000 years ago, the only habitable place in the eastern Sahara Desert used to be the Nile Valley. But 10,500 years ago, monsoon rains, as a result of a change in their circulation, watered the region and transformed it into a habitable area.
The former desert turned into a region with ever growing vegetation, soon populated not only by animals who had migrated, but also humans from the Nile Valley who established settlements.
And this, of course, can turn out to be quite unpleasent. Imagine temperatures in the USA rising by 10 degree celsius. Aw, that's hot, isn't it?
And now check this out. We have a recent example of what happend when temperatures locally rose by 5 degree. Shall I tell you? I'm sure you'd like to, oh yes, can see it in your eyes.
Indeed your average car is not unable of heating, just because it's used for cooling in the summer, right?
And 5 degree celsius really don't seem like much. Certainly, just a bit hot on the summer, right? Well, it's 5 degree global.
It means the global trend, not the individual trend. So on global scale, it will "just" rise 5 degree celsius. But that means that on the local level, it may of course get 10-12 degree hotter, and somewhere else 5-12 degree colder.
"Temperature goes into the opposite direction of CO2 concentration."
As I posted under video 1, CO2 is part of a huge instrument that governs the temperatures. As such the single factors themselves have to be operatives into both directions.
For example in time contionus heat will create more clouds, which reflect more sunlight and cause a cooling.
Taking a look on one part on small scale and conclude that because there was cooling, it can't do heating is very, very dangerous.
Excellent video. Thanks for posting. Very Informative. No wonder GW liberals keep screaming "the debate is over". They fear people knowing the whole, real, truth...no matter how inconvenient.
Beautiful. You are my hero. You ever check out the government sites about GW? I saw one today that said
"Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere...There is no scientific debate on this point...The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years." - NOAA, National Climate Data Center website, 1/31/07
"The bottom line is that if greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase, a significant warming trend is expected to also continue. The ability to adapt will be crucial. Potential outcomes range from moderate and manageable to extreme and catastrophic, depending on a number of factors including location and type of effect, and amount of greenhouse gas emissions."
I mean how long did it take them to word this bullshit to perfectly that they can imply GW with no real evidence..
People forget that stored in all the ice is also CO2. Anyway, even 100% CO2 can only reflect only certain wavelegnths anyway not even most, as he said.
This was due to the medieval climate optimum. The Norse soon changed the vegetation by cutting down the trees to use as building material and for heating and by extensive sheep and goat grazing during summer and winter. The climate in Greenland was much warmer during the first centuries of settlement but became increasingly colder in the 14th and 15th centuries with the approaching period of colder weather known as the Little Ice Age.
1:48 to 2:00 is very misleading where the speaker undermines the oh so very strong correlation there is between co2 change and temperature over the past 100 years.
after seeing that picture...
just stating "as with the ice core data... co2 is not the only factor at work" is approaching a joke.
what you just said makes no sense. the co2 didn't rise until after the temperatures starting rising. the author is not disputing co2 possibly being at work, but saying that it's affect is grossly overexaggerated since it a)changes after temp starts to change, b)makes up so little of the atmosphere, and c)at some point actually loses it's effect on blocking greenhouse gases
At that time, the inner regions of the long fjords where the settlements were located were very different from today. Excavations show that there were considerable birch woods with birch trees up to 4 to 6 meters high in the area around the inner parts of the Tunuliarfik- and Aniaaq-fjords, the central area of the Eastern settlement, and the hills were grown with grass and willow brushes.
You shouldn't blindly believe anyone. You should do your own research. Most people are sheep. Coyote is obviously very intelligent and has done a lot of good research into the facts.
It's not a question of belief. As opposed to the vague and waffly beating of eco-sheep coyote presents actual scientific evidence and data sets, and allows us all to make our own minds up.
Fact is, I totally agree with Coyote. I was so happy to see his excellent video that I wigged OUT! I also notice that Al Gore's gutless zombies are decidedly ABSENT and/or don't have keyboards. Duh.
Problem with your video. Coyote, do you know the average global temperature of MARS? I would fall out of my chair if you did. Further, do you know the atmospheric composition of Mars? For example, is Mars warm, cool or FREEZING COLD? Does it have any CO2 in it's atmosphere? Some? A lot? A WHOLE LOT?
Listen to Mars, Coyote. A mute frozen planet smothered in CO2 can tell us a lot about our own planet!
Coyote, there is NO WAY that you could EVER equal the astonishing intellect of Al Gore. You need to get yourself educated in order to understand these complex issues. There is a re-education facility near your home. But if not, a similar result can be obtained through the excessive use of mind-altering drugs or by smashing one's head against a tree. Hope this helps! :P 5 stars, Dude!
Alone how the author tries to explain us that the TREND would be in two directions shows us how unscientific this show is. Of course a young child can see an upward trend.
But don't you worry. Climate denialists always work with confusion.
watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0
TheMrSirCharles 9 months ago
Alone how the author tries to explain us that the TREND would be in two directions shows us how unscientific this show is. Of course a young child can see an upward trend.
watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0
TheMrSirCharles 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Greenland is not "global", it's a REGION!
watch?v=c90nab5i-TQ
TheMrSirCharles 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
watch?v=c90nab5i-TQ
TheMrSirCharles 9 months ago
Same bullshit as NIST and 911 - computer models, fake science building on fake science. Obscurantism, etc.
misterkel10 1 year ago
You are NOT getting enough views for a video series of this quality!
pburto 1 year ago
The 12 different reconstructions are all based on independent work. They may have, in some cases, used some of the same proxies, but they obtained their data independently and arrived at their conclusions using different methods.
Some of these works have been replicated by others working from the same raw data. That is how science works.
And the Vikings who were there called it Greenland to attract settlers. Most of it was still covered in massive glaciers.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
Video begins by showing the effects of scales and then presents the early IPCC graph at an outrageous scale. It is also not a true graph but a schematic. It was not based on numerical data.
It then goes totally fraudulent by saying McIntyre And Mcitrick prove Mann wrong. M&M's work has been shown to be based upon incorrect data censoring and poor methods. M&M's work has been shown to be without statistical merit. Mann's work has stood up to scientific scrutiny. McIntyre's has not.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
I love the use of the same 40 trees +2 others means a new study, or add another is a new study, there, thats 3 with almost the same data from only 43 trees..
Brantoc 1 year ago
...in 12000 metres per minute, which equals 720 000 metres per hour, this equals 720km/h.
Now I'm sure I don't have to tell you how high your chances are to survive such a crash. So in conlusion, we have to assume that things will be even harsher then they were back then - only on the global level. Ouch.
Even the possibility of such a risk would lead me to check at least whether the scientists could be right. After all, I did also trust the scientists when they came up with the car, right?
sadaeus 2 years ago
Imagine we have a car on a 100 meter distance lane, and at the end, we have a wall.
Now the first go, the car drives the 100 metres in 10 seconds. That's 600 metres per minute and 36000 metres per hour.
= 36 km/h.
Now at that speed, the crash might be unpleasent, but if you're lucky, you'll be off quite well.
Now factor twenty means our car from 2000-2100 drives 20 times as fast, in a half second 100 metres which results...
sadaeus 2 years ago
But about 7,300 years ago, again as a result of a change in the monsoonal cycle, the rain started to cease and over the next two thousand years until 5,500 years ago the Sahara desiccated.
Interesting, isn't it? Over two thousand years the temperatures changed by 5 degree celsius. This is what is expected to occur now in just a hundred years. That's a times 20 factor difference there. Well, is there a good example to show what this might mean? Surely, I have a neat one, hold onto your toes.
sadaeus 2 years ago
About 12,000 years ago, the only habitable place in the eastern Sahara Desert used to be the Nile Valley. But 10,500 years ago, monsoon rains, as a result of a change in their circulation, watered the region and transformed it into a habitable area.
The former desert turned into a region with ever growing vegetation, soon populated not only by animals who had migrated, but also humans from the Nile Valley who established settlements.
sadaeus 2 years ago
And this, of course, can turn out to be quite unpleasent. Imagine temperatures in the USA rising by 10 degree celsius. Aw, that's hot, isn't it?
And now check this out. We have a recent example of what happend when temperatures locally rose by 5 degree. Shall I tell you? I'm sure you'd like to, oh yes, can see it in your eyes.
sadaeus 2 years ago
Indeed your average car is not unable of heating, just because it's used for cooling in the summer, right?
And 5 degree celsius really don't seem like much. Certainly, just a bit hot on the summer, right? Well, it's 5 degree global.
It means the global trend, not the individual trend. So on global scale, it will "just" rise 5 degree celsius. But that means that on the local level, it may of course get 10-12 degree hotter, and somewhere else 5-12 degree colder.
sadaeus 2 years ago
"Temperature goes into the opposite direction of CO2 concentration."
As I posted under video 1, CO2 is part of a huge instrument that governs the temperatures. As such the single factors themselves have to be operatives into both directions.
For example in time contionus heat will create more clouds, which reflect more sunlight and cause a cooling.
Taking a look on one part on small scale and conclude that because there was cooling, it can't do heating is very, very dangerous.
sadaeus 2 years ago
Excellent video. Thanks for posting. Very Informative. No wonder GW liberals keep screaming "the debate is over". They fear people knowing the whole, real, truth...no matter how inconvenient.
VerbumQuercus 3 years ago 2
Beautiful. You are my hero. You ever check out the government sites about GW? I saw one today that said
"Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere...There is no scientific debate on this point...The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years." - NOAA, National Climate Data Center website, 1/31/07
ROFLCOPTER
po3a8 3 years ago
"The bottom line is that if greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase, a significant warming trend is expected to also continue. The ability to adapt will be crucial. Potential outcomes range from moderate and manageable to extreme and catastrophic, depending on a number of factors including location and type of effect, and amount of greenhouse gas emissions."
I mean how long did it take them to word this bullshit to perfectly that they can imply GW with no real evidence..
po3a8 3 years ago
People forget that stored in all the ice is also CO2. Anyway, even 100% CO2 can only reflect only certain wavelegnths anyway not even most, as he said.
StevePlague 3 years ago
This was due to the medieval climate optimum. The Norse soon changed the vegetation by cutting down the trees to use as building material and for heating and by extensive sheep and goat grazing during summer and winter. The climate in Greenland was much warmer during the first centuries of settlement but became increasingly colder in the 14th and 15th centuries with the approaching period of colder weather known as the Little Ice Age.
slanguish 3 years ago
1:48 to 2:00 is very misleading where the speaker undermines the oh so very strong correlation there is between co2 change and temperature over the past 100 years.
after seeing that picture...
just stating "as with the ice core data... co2 is not the only factor at work" is approaching a joke.
co2 is obviously at work.
hermanningjaldsson 3 years ago
what you just said makes no sense. the co2 didn't rise until after the temperatures starting rising. the author is not disputing co2 possibly being at work, but saying that it's affect is grossly overexaggerated since it a)changes after temp starts to change, b)makes up so little of the atmosphere, and c)at some point actually loses it's effect on blocking greenhouse gases
slanguish 3 years ago
...................
hermanningjaldsson 2 years ago
2:40 to 2:56
i dont think anybody knows wether the temperature had gone up or down, had it not been for human intervention.
wikipedia disagrees with the author, says there was a natural warming taking place in the first half
of the 20th century, and a natural cooling in the latter.
A short explanation as to why anybody thinks they know nature is going this way or the other would be helpful.
hermanningjaldsson 3 years ago
Hermann. Good question.
I have often heard the claim that "all other explanations have been accounted for, the only thing left to explain very recent warming is CO2".
It is sometimes called attribution.
Surely this needs the assertion: "nature would have gone that way, had it not been for us".
guffpot 3 years ago
At that time, the inner regions of the long fjords where the settlements were located were very different from today. Excavations show that there were considerable birch woods with birch trees up to 4 to 6 meters high in the area around the inner parts of the Tunuliarfik- and Aniaaq-fjords, the central area of the Eastern settlement, and the hills were grown with grass and willow brushes.
slanguish 3 years ago
3:42
Greenland was not named Greenland because it was so green but because it was so cold that nobody wanted to go there.
Erik the red thought that by giving it a good name he could get a few to go with him.
hermanningjaldsson 3 years ago
There can be no "normal" - there can only be an "average"
thrufaithalone 4 years ago
It's also worth reading the Wegman report on Mann's "hockey stick" graph ... no wonder the IPCC dropped Mann's pivotal graph in Nov 2007.
sydneydoc 4 years ago
Just because you SOUND smart, why should we believe YOU?
opchidexio 4 years ago
You shouldn't blindly believe anyone. You should do your own research. Most people are sheep. Coyote is obviously very intelligent and has done a lot of good research into the facts.
sydneydoc 4 years ago 2
It's not a question of belief. As opposed to the vague and waffly beating of eco-sheep coyote presents actual scientific evidence and data sets, and allows us all to make our own minds up.
minilemur 4 years ago
Fact is, I totally agree with Coyote. I was so happy to see his excellent video that I wigged OUT! I also notice that Al Gore's gutless zombies are decidedly ABSENT and/or don't have keyboards. Duh.
opchidexio 4 years ago
Because junk generally doesn't receive much attention.
jffryfnt 4 years ago
Problem with your video. Two questions and a request, please.
1.) What is the "average global temp" of Mars?
a.) Warm b.) Chilly c.) Cold as a witch's tit (extremely cold)
What is the level of CO2 in its atmosphere? a.) Very slight(similar to Earth's)
b.) Moderate
c.) Sky-fcuking-HIGH, almost "off the charts!!" (over 90%)
Listen. Mars is telling us something.
opchidexio 4 years ago
Sorry. I posted the same questions TWO TIMES. (My mind is gone.)
opchidexio 4 years ago
Problem with your video. Coyote, do you know the average global temperature of MARS? I would fall out of my chair if you did. Further, do you know the atmospheric composition of Mars? For example, is Mars warm, cool or FREEZING COLD? Does it have any CO2 in it's atmosphere? Some? A lot? A WHOLE LOT?
Listen to Mars, Coyote. A mute frozen planet smothered in CO2 can tell us a lot about our own planet!
opchidexio 4 years ago
Coyote, there is NO WAY that you could EVER equal the astonishing intellect of Al Gore. You need to get yourself educated in order to understand these complex issues. There is a re-education facility near your home. But if not, a similar result can be obtained through the excessive use of mind-altering drugs or by smashing one's head against a tree. Hope this helps! :P 5 stars, Dude!
opchidexio 4 years ago