So what greenhouse gases vibrate a little faster when heated thats all, they bump into cold non greenhouse gases and the heat is lost. I repeat it is the density of the atmosphere and not the composition. Meanwhile the Planet cools abruptly as the Sun enters a grand minimum. Co2 is irelevant to the climate as it accounts for next to nothing of the density of the atmosphere.
@david222444 The density only depends on temperature. The problem is that greenhouse gasses reflect infrared ratiation and capture it within the atmosphere. The infrared radiation is the reason why the temperature raises. If there is more infrared radiation, more of it can convert to heat, and therefore the temperature raises more. You are presenting belief, not evidence. You believe the additional greenhouse gasses are not responsible. Climate science says otherwise.
@Orbitusx Do not be so stupid, the density depends on gravity and not on temperature, gasses expand when heated . That is why greenhouse gases pass the radiation to non greenhouse gasses. Science does not say otherwise. Do you have a repeatable scientific experiment for your hairbrained theory?
@david222444 Density depens on temperature since the gravitation, and therefore preassure is constant. I certainly did not write any papers on this, but others did. I'm PMing you one reference since you need to study this further. Consentration of CO2 is increasing, partly due to human activity, because we add gasses to the atmosphere that were kept underground before. Perhaps you should ask yourself the same question you asked me?
@Orbitusx good luck buddy. david here has been sayng the same crap in here for a couple of years now. I'm pretty sure if you could track down all his comments you might find many are repeated word for word. he won't read your reference but if he does he'll just discard it ifit disagrees with his point of view.
@david222444 Oh btw, not only the distance increases, but also the relationship between greenhouse gasses and other gasses change, so that there are more greenhouse gasses all together in the atmosphere now than before. I find it ironic how you call yourself climate realist.
Does the owner always have to walk in the same direction or can he decide to return to his origin or maybe go off on a detour. Maybe he forgot to lite his coal fire at home and has to return. A wrong turning brought me here.
@david222444 I want a reply not some fn propaganda video to fit your brainwashing agenda. The question was Do you have a repeatable scientific experiment to prove that co2 drives the climate?
@david222444 It doesn't take much more than high school science education to logically reach the conclution that we are adding more CO2 into the atmosphere with our current energy source, oil. Now imagine what happens with all the other reserved greenhouse gasses under the ice, if the temperature of the earth raises. Obviously the climate will change, and even climate science supports this. It is more than 90 % certain that global warming is manmade. You are the one with propaganda.
@Orbitusx Look son you must understand that no global warming is man made and that you have been duped. Try to think logically for yourself if that is possible. It is the density of air and not the composition that matters. Anyway the Planet is now cooling as the Sun enters a Grand minimum. Co2 is quite irrelevant.
@david222444 Air has a given density at a given temperature. Now, what happens if we add more gass? The volume increases, but the density remains unchanged. This means that the distance from the surface, to the end of the atmosphere increases. The distance, d, for a photon to travel is longer if there is more volume. What does this mean? Well, it means that the photon is much more likely to collide with a greenhouse gass and be reflected, because the distance increases.
@david222444 You can even try this out at home. Find a bucket and fill it with water. Then, stick a ruler in it. Then add a little more water and stick the ruler in it again. As you can see, the distance has increased.
@david222444 the CO2 content is very relevant. how do you come to the conclusion that it is irrelevant? got any scientific publications that would support your claim?
@Aanthanur Try reading the ideal gas laws and the laws of thermodynamics for starters, I am sure you will find if you apply some thought to the subject, that these laws support my claim. Please do not parrot the usual propaganda that everyone is now sick of hearing about. Welcome to the world of abrupt and deep ocean and atmospheric cooling as the Sun enters a Grand Minimum.
We have just published a "Teacher support sheet" in italian with the script and translation in italian of the text. This could helps italian teachers to use this resource for their lectures.
The only thing we know is where the dog is, yes. And in about 30 years we will be able to see where the owner is going right now. Nobody knows it right now and those who claimed they know it in the past were already proven wrong.
The problem from a scientific view is that the movie assumes cotrending between the man and the dog. The scientic issues to be investigated with reference to climate are i) is the man and the dog co-trending and ii) if they co-trend who is pushing who? Is it the man driving the dog, is it the dog driving the man,or are both driving each other? This video is just bad propaganda that assumes the one time series drives another time series because they apppear to growing together in the long run.
@MrRobertLake The real problem from the scientific view is that people don't understand what they're looking at and say really dumb things. The trend is derived from the data. Period. There isn't any driving, there isn't any conspiracy, it's a simple calculation, a simple fact. It's beyond ridiculous to call a video that accurately explains a simple fact "propaganda" simply because they don't understand what it is they're looking at.
The real question is, is the data the predictions are based on correct? Make them public so others can test the model. Further, is the model correctly formulated, or are conclusions based on it faulty?
If laymen don't understand, whose fault is that? There are a lot of questions.
@Polymathes The data *are* available and the models *are* available. That's why it's called science, it's reproducible. The models are the best thing available for understanding the mechanisms. No science is perfect but with so many converging lines of evidence it's extremely likely to be correct - most consider it > 90%. It's > 99.99% chance that the data won't do laymen any good, any more than handing them a particle accelerator will help them understand quantum theory.
The allegory is weakened because in this case the owner is moving in a straight line regardless of the dog's efforts. The variations in a real trend line will change the trend if the variation are of significant amplitude and direction.
@20HzBASS Your stupid, it is universally agreed that global warming exists, it's just a matter of whether it is our emissions heating up the earth or the earth heating up naturally.
Indeed very well done... especially these and other crucial topics such as the basics of logic are not taught in school anymore... both crucial to any sort of clear thinking
Can you do some on the basics of logic pleeeze.
I notice RT is doing 'word of the day' on economics and banking scam terms...
EXACTLY why one should always and ONLY vote for political candidates who are closest to your political views: e.g. Ralph Nader, and NOT do this BULLSHIT "strategic" voting, which turns out NOT to be strategic. The long-term trend when one pushes for liberal or radical positions is that more liberal or radical laws get created.
@oxygon Only four times does the dog take a sharp downward swing, but it does not go as far down as it goes up. It is like the fact that temperature records for the coldest day (for that date, month, year, etc.) still occur, but increasingly LESS often than high temperatures, because greenhouse gases keep the warmth in (like cloudy nights are warmer) reducing radiation to space while making it easier for temperatures to rise in sunshine.
I especially like the way the beginning illustrates the problem with getting too close to the problem - the paradox of expertise (weather reporters, please note!)
This has been flagged as spam show
final nail in the coffin
watch?v=tXLRHBwxDUY&feature=g-hist&context=G2d8f489AHTzjmLwAEAA
bernzeppi 2 weeks ago
So what greenhouse gases vibrate a little faster when heated thats all, they bump into cold non greenhouse gases and the heat is lost. I repeat it is the density of the atmosphere and not the composition. Meanwhile the Planet cools abruptly as the Sun enters a grand minimum. Co2 is irelevant to the climate as it accounts for next to nothing of the density of the atmosphere.
david222444 2 weeks ago
@david222444 The density only depends on temperature. The problem is that greenhouse gasses reflect infrared ratiation and capture it within the atmosphere. The infrared radiation is the reason why the temperature raises. If there is more infrared radiation, more of it can convert to heat, and therefore the temperature raises more. You are presenting belief, not evidence. You believe the additional greenhouse gasses are not responsible. Climate science says otherwise.
Orbitusx 2 weeks ago
@Orbitusx Do not be so stupid, the density depends on gravity and not on temperature, gasses expand when heated . That is why greenhouse gases pass the radiation to non greenhouse gasses. Science does not say otherwise. Do you have a repeatable scientific experiment for your hairbrained theory?
david222444 2 weeks ago
@david222444 Density depens on temperature since the gravitation, and therefore preassure is constant. I certainly did not write any papers on this, but others did. I'm PMing you one reference since you need to study this further. Consentration of CO2 is increasing, partly due to human activity, because we add gasses to the atmosphere that were kept underground before. Perhaps you should ask yourself the same question you asked me?
Orbitusx 2 weeks ago
@Orbitusx good luck buddy. david here has been sayng the same crap in here for a couple of years now. I'm pretty sure if you could track down all his comments you might find many are repeated word for word. he won't read your reference but if he does he'll just discard it ifit disagrees with his point of view.
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense At least he has shut up for three days now lol. People like him really get on my nerves.
Orbitusx 1 week ago
@david222444 Wrong. The heat is not lost, it is transferred and that is the reason why the temperature increases. Learn what the terms mean.
Aviatorsmith 1 week ago
Look like this Norwegian dog needs to lift a rear leg , the tree is one hundred yards to the right lol
david222444 2 weeks ago
@david222444 Oh btw, not only the distance increases, but also the relationship between greenhouse gasses and other gasses change, so that there are more greenhouse gasses all together in the atmosphere now than before. I find it ironic how you call yourself climate realist.
Orbitusx 2 weeks ago
Does the owner always have to walk in the same direction or can he decide to return to his origin or maybe go off on a detour. Maybe he forgot to lite his coal fire at home and has to return. A wrong turning brought me here.
david222444 2 weeks ago
@david222444 I want a reply not some fn propaganda video to fit your brainwashing agenda. The question was Do you have a repeatable scientific experiment to prove that co2 drives the climate?
david222444 2 weeks ago
@david222444 propaganda? LOL you are paranoid, so you think AGW is a huge world wide conspiracy?
Aanthanur 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@david222444 propaganda? LOL you are paranoid, so you think AGW is a huge world wide conspiracy?
Aanthanur 2 weeks ago
@david222444 It doesn't take much more than high school science education to logically reach the conclution that we are adding more CO2 into the atmosphere with our current energy source, oil. Now imagine what happens with all the other reserved greenhouse gasses under the ice, if the temperature of the earth raises. Obviously the climate will change, and even climate science supports this. It is more than 90 % certain that global warming is manmade. You are the one with propaganda.
Orbitusx 2 weeks ago
@Orbitusx Look son you must understand that no global warming is man made and that you have been duped. Try to think logically for yourself if that is possible. It is the density of air and not the composition that matters. Anyway the Planet is now cooling as the Sun enters a Grand minimum. Co2 is quite irrelevant.
david222444 2 weeks ago
@david222444 Air has a given density at a given temperature. Now, what happens if we add more gass? The volume increases, but the density remains unchanged. This means that the distance from the surface, to the end of the atmosphere increases. The distance, d, for a photon to travel is longer if there is more volume. What does this mean? Well, it means that the photon is much more likely to collide with a greenhouse gass and be reflected, because the distance increases.
Orbitusx 2 weeks ago
@david222444 You can even try this out at home. Find a bucket and fill it with water. Then, stick a ruler in it. Then add a little more water and stick the ruler in it again. As you can see, the distance has increased.
Orbitusx 2 weeks ago
@david222444 Did I say high school? I meant mid school. They should teach this stuff there too.
Orbitusx 2 weeks ago
@Orbitusx Are you still at school then son?
david222444 2 weeks ago
It is the density of the atmosphere that retains the warmth, the composition of the atmosphere ( co2 content ) is irrelevent.
david222444 2 weeks ago
@david222444 the CO2 content is very relevant. how do you come to the conclusion that it is irrelevant? got any scientific publications that would support your claim?
Aanthanur 2 weeks ago
@Aanthanur Try reading the ideal gas laws and the laws of thermodynamics for starters, I am sure you will find if you apply some thought to the subject, that these laws support my claim. Please do not parrot the usual propaganda that everyone is now sick of hearing about. Welcome to the world of abrupt and deep ocean and atmospheric cooling as the Sun enters a Grand Minimum.
david222444 2 weeks ago
@david222444 somehting like this maybe?
rst gsfc nasa gov/Sect14/Sect14_1a html
Aanthanur 2 weeks ago
@Aanthanur Do you have a repeatable scientific experiment to prove the relevance of co2 to the warming of the atmosphere?
david222444 2 weeks ago
@david222444 watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo for example.
Aanthanur 2 weeks ago
If you are so certain CO2 drives climate, show us where CO2 drives weather.
fractalnomics 2 weeks ago
@fractalnomics so you don't know the difference between climate and waether? amazing.
Aanthanur 2 weeks ago
i have not the slightest clue what you are talking about !!!!!
jero528 2 weeks ago
Bull shit climate change video.
myrdale 3 weeks ago
Nice job indeed
We have just published a "Teacher support sheet" in italian with the script and translation in italian of the text. This could helps italian teachers to use this resource for their lectures.
Google the term "icleen"
shishakatta 1 month ago
realclimate *dot* org brought me here
floundericiousWA 1 month ago
If anyone's curious about where fake lord Monckton gets his numbers from; it's where the dog is trending down to the right.
rusty57 1 month ago
@rusty57 I thought Monckton followed the dog with a small shovel and a plastic bag to get his numbers? I learn something new every day.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@kasuha We have hundreds of years of records for the dog, and thousands for the owner. Take off your blinkers and go read the science.
@MrRobertLake The weather is obviously driven by the climate. To suggest that the reverse is a possibility just shows you are being silly.
NiceWithoutGod 1 month ago 2
The only thing we know is where the dog is, yes. And in about 30 years we will be able to see where the owner is going right now. Nobody knows it right now and those who claimed they know it in the past were already proven wrong.
kasuha 1 month ago
The problem from a scientific view is that the movie assumes cotrending between the man and the dog. The scientic issues to be investigated with reference to climate are i) is the man and the dog co-trending and ii) if they co-trend who is pushing who? Is it the man driving the dog, is it the dog driving the man,or are both driving each other? This video is just bad propaganda that assumes the one time series drives another time series because they apppear to growing together in the long run.
MrRobertLake 1 month ago
@MrRobertLake THIS.
EPICPokerTV4 1 month ago
@MrRobertLake
Clearly you either don't understand, or you don't want to understand.
pseudotruth 1 month ago
@MrRobertLake The real problem from the scientific view is that people don't understand what they're looking at and say really dumb things. The trend is derived from the data. Period. There isn't any driving, there isn't any conspiracy, it's a simple calculation, a simple fact. It's beyond ridiculous to call a video that accurately explains a simple fact "propaganda" simply because they don't understand what it is they're looking at.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@ExperienceCounts2
The real question is, is the data the predictions are based on correct? Make them public so others can test the model. Further, is the model correctly formulated, or are conclusions based on it faulty?
If laymen don't understand, whose fault is that? There are a lot of questions.
Polymathes 1 month ago
@Polymathes The data *are* available and the models *are* available. That's why it's called science, it's reproducible. The models are the best thing available for understanding the mechanisms. No science is perfect but with so many converging lines of evidence it's extremely likely to be correct - most consider it > 90%. It's > 99.99% chance that the data won't do laymen any good, any more than handing them a particle accelerator will help them understand quantum theory.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago 2
Brilliant!
TorontoGeorge 1 month ago
Great example, I will have to remember that one.
DraRed73 1 month ago
Concise and best simplified explanation I've ever heard. Well done!
SheldonCooperM 1 month ago
wow this video is quiet, I'll put my headphones on and turn them all the w- TEDDY
thombob1 1 month ago 11
thumbs up if your norweagian
trymr56 1 month ago
@trymr56
norweagian? What's one of those?
pseudotruth 1 month ago
Nice video. Still, it makes me sad that the general public is so illiterate in terms of science and math that we need such videos.
virtualsurrealism1 1 month ago 4
Concise synopsis.
gthomson777 1 month ago
well the guy wasnt a constant cause he stopped, so this is missing 1 variable, which is time.
Typho0n86 1 month ago
Tight!
ConscienciaEterea 1 month ago
I AM NOW SUPERHUMAN@@
wahdyr 1 month ago
sehr schön
1onewayonly 1 month ago
@1onewayonly Kommst du von Deutschland? Ich komme aus Norwegen, und ich bin sechzehn Jahre alt. Mit freundlichen grüsen Håkon :P
TheExtractor1 1 month ago
Interesting.
xGanchanx 1 month ago
this relates to variance in poker I might add
longjohnw86 1 month ago
curved swords
djapicmilos 1 month ago
The allegory is weakened because in this case the owner is moving in a straight line regardless of the dog's efforts. The variations in a real trend line will change the trend if the variation are of significant amplitude and direction.
spurcross 1 month ago
nicely done.
fusedchromosome 1 month ago
awesome!!
madhupramod 1 month ago
thats how you explain things with images and stuff they can relate to.
and people will actually memorize the example and the topic forever.
BagooVV3 1 month ago
This video was full of win. Man, man's best friend, and statistics! Lol
ZombieVampirez 1 month ago
We norwegians are fucking VIKINGS!
MrOlaGal 1 month ago
Is the owner drunk?
Poseidon11121 1 month ago
MinutePhysics brought me here
Sandi315Productions 1 month ago 545
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this is stupid considering there is no such thing as global warming, its just stupid scientists
20HzBASS 1 month ago
@20HzBASS I have lost all faith in humanity reading that comment...
Sandi315Productions 1 month ago
@20HzBASS Retard...
Riiiter 1 month ago
@20HzBASS Your stupid, it is universally agreed that global warming exists, it's just a matter of whether it is our emissions heating up the earth or the earth heating up naturally.
knightaj6 1 month ago
@knightaj6 I think people who insult others by saying "your stupid" manage to capture an immense irony, which obviously escapes them.
Norwification 1 month ago 19
@Norwification Funny seeing as I was using sarcasm, mimicking the fact that you called every scientist who believes in global warming stupid...
knightaj6 1 month ago
@knightaj6: You are = you're. Possessive pronoun = your.
Quit doing sciencists any favors...it's just not working out very well.
spurcross 1 month ago
@spurcross >sciencists
what the hell?
TheSithOverlord666 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spurcross
Quit doing sciencists any favors
sciencists any favors
sciencists
dciple12 1 month ago
@Norwification your comment should be framed and hung up on a wall somewhere
Donut117 1 month ago
Comment removed
P4R4C0 1 month ago
@20HzBASS I was gonna complain but just fuck you
P4R4C0 1 month ago
@20HzBASS Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.
IanBuettner 1 month ago 2
The problem is that we really see only the dog so the owner is presumed from the movements of the dog.
KosmoAntoninus 1 month ago
the person who rejected Hawking twice! brought me here.
TheRightNeutrino 1 month ago
omg, will those environmentalist bullshit scammers ever stop?
RancheroBFT 1 month ago
Indeed very well done... especially these and other crucial topics such as the basics of logic are not taught in school anymore... both crucial to any sort of clear thinking
Can you do some on the basics of logic pleeeze.
I notice RT is doing 'word of the day' on economics and banking scam terms...
cori800888 1 month ago
EXACTLY why one should always and ONLY vote for political candidates who are closest to your political views: e.g. Ralph Nader, and NOT do this BULLSHIT "strategic" voting, which turns out NOT to be strategic. The long-term trend when one pushes for liberal or radical positions is that more liberal or radical laws get created.
mphello 1 month ago
Yeah nice bias video jerk, like the dog NEVER takes a sudden swing down, EVER.
oxygon 1 month ago
are you deliberately trying to be obtuse?
treeplanter99 1 month ago 2
@oxygon The dog does, that's the point.
thinkingguy87 1 month ago
@oxygon Only four times does the dog take a sharp downward swing, but it does not go as far down as it goes up. It is like the fact that temperature records for the coldest day (for that date, month, year, etc.) still occur, but increasingly LESS often than high temperatures, because greenhouse gases keep the warmth in (like cloudy nights are warmer) reducing radiation to space while making it easier for temperatures to rise in sunshine.
DonB41 1 month ago 3
Superb.
I especially like the way the beginning illustrates the problem with getting too close to the problem - the paradox of expertise (weather reporters, please note!)
pendantry 1 month ago 4
Brilliant metaphor.
Cerberus889 1 month ago 4
Very well done!
Alteredstory 1 month ago 44