Can you outsmart the apples and oranges fallacy?

@defryingpan4290 3 жыл бұрын

Everyone instantly drops what they’re doing to watch the demon of reason.

@markimbing8018 3 жыл бұрын

Like Minecraft

@Alkalus 3 жыл бұрын

Even us.

@mixmastermike2128 3 жыл бұрын

didnt even read the comments till i was done with the video! who does that?

@thatcoconut2642 3 жыл бұрын

I was having a test due in 5 minutes

@enzoqueijao 3 жыл бұрын

@@mixmastermike2128 Seeing the comments can make you reach a conclusion before watching the video, you're just being affected by the demon of reason ;)

@1.4142 3 жыл бұрын

The thing about fallacies is that even if you know what they are, you still fall for them subconsciously.

@roguishpaladin 3 жыл бұрын

That's how cognitive bias works. We can never stop it, we can only work to mitigate its effect upon our thinking.

@Freaksoftheinternet 3 жыл бұрын

It takes constant practice and seeing more examples to be able to spot fallacies on the spot

@ricktd6891 3 жыл бұрын

Like the CO2 caused man-made catastrophic global warming fallacy ?

@user-qt8pi4fq5h 3 жыл бұрын

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.

@spookyscarylamppost3431 3 жыл бұрын

@@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."

@georgplaz 3 жыл бұрын

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

@EmotionsNeverLie 2 жыл бұрын

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.

@TheToledoTrumpton 2 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@sweetlittledumpling9534 2 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@tawandanyirongo1478 2 жыл бұрын

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.

@willliam1420 Жыл бұрын

It's still slow enough for life to adapt. Imagine Africa becoming a blooming fertile land ...

@kingcorporeal 3 жыл бұрын

"Babe, wake up, new Demon of Reason video dropped"

@fariesz6786 3 жыл бұрын

"It must be just as good as the others"

@ricktd6891 3 жыл бұрын

Wake up, it's all lies.

@spookyscarylamppost3431 3 жыл бұрын

@@ricktd6891 Wake up, it's someone who needs to go to school to get educated.

@byjamirephraim9264 3 жыл бұрын

@@ricktd6891 Cough, how is it a lie?

@ricktd6891 3 жыл бұрын

@@spookyscarylamppost3431 Good to see you finally stopped pasting propaganda. When you have proof of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming caused by CO2, let me know.

@alissamariavallana1714 3 жыл бұрын

Yes, I’m so happy you decided to continue with this character!

@dafanoffandoms8414 3 жыл бұрын

love ur pfp.

@alissamariavallana1714 3 жыл бұрын

@@dafanoffandoms8414 Tysm

@danyelhaskins6210 3 жыл бұрын

I MISSED THE DEMON OF REASON TOOO!!!

@mohammadazad8350 3 жыл бұрын

4:20 Minecraft villager sounds

@LegoCookieDoggie 3 жыл бұрын

i want more

@patricksarama4963 3 жыл бұрын

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*

@ricktd6891 3 жыл бұрын

And he lied to you because CO2 doesn't control the temperature of Earth. Go do some research.

@quannguyentu6613 3 жыл бұрын

@@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".

@Kislay11 3 жыл бұрын

@@ricktd6891 oh so what does? You have some theories of your own? Something that can contradict majority of research in past decades

@devine9018 3 жыл бұрын

@@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

@t-bonethediscospider5157 3 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@docette2015 3 жыл бұрын

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.

@endermeap6488 2 жыл бұрын

and the public

@ETXAlienRobot201 2 жыл бұрын

@@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?

@Entias 3 жыл бұрын

"Red are the roses Curved is my spine Your logic is flawed And your clothes are now mine."

@ricktd6891 3 жыл бұрын

The CO2 global warming hypothesis is flawed, as in totally wrong.

@argyldeathbrand6192 3 жыл бұрын

@@ricktd6891 I’m curious, as you see it, what is the flaw in the CO2 argument?

@spookyscarylamppost3431 3 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@ricktd6891 3 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@bobjordan888 3 жыл бұрын

@@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

@TNIBall 3 жыл бұрын

I wish a random purple mythical speaking purple dragon that could talk with 150 iq appears in 1997

@mice2188 3 жыл бұрын

300iq*

@TNIBall 3 жыл бұрын

@Merodi Extensions he looks more like a dragon tho

@cubelet007 3 жыл бұрын

@@TNIBall demon of reason though

@RustyhairedAlp9575 3 жыл бұрын

it's a fiend

@Pingwn 3 жыл бұрын

The demon of reason has 666 IQ

@Oliisawesome 3 жыл бұрын

I’m a simple man I see the demon of reason I click

@robertsnider9880 3 жыл бұрын

The demon of reason is laughing at you, there is no treason, you do as you're programmed to.

@ricktd6891 3 жыл бұрын

He lied to you.

@Sumirevins 3 жыл бұрын

Ah, a man of Culture I see

@Sumirevins 3 жыл бұрын

@@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

@spookyscarylamppost3431 3 жыл бұрын

@@ricktd6891 Nah, you're the one who's spreading lies mate.

@cookiebombcasualemail5284 3 жыл бұрын

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.

@vexialhex3124 3 жыл бұрын

Ted-ed: alright here's our new video- commenters: HES BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!!!!!!!!!!!

@ricktd6891 3 жыл бұрын

He's Lyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyying to you.

@spookyscarylamppost3431 3 жыл бұрын

@@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."

@vexialhex3124 3 жыл бұрын

I made a joke about the demon of reason coming back, dang

@spookyscarylamppost3431 3 жыл бұрын

@@vexialhex3124 The guy is spamming comments, so I made him taste his own medicine.

@vexialhex3124 3 жыл бұрын

@@spookyscarylamppost3431 Good job! Dont let people spread pseudoscience on the internet

@rohanfernando21 3 жыл бұрын

We need more of this moody sarcastic demonic guy in future videos.

@mariofan1983 3 жыл бұрын

yes

@kleedje305 3 жыл бұрын

wanted to comment that 2 at school teaches thing's and this demon teaches things so this is school

@angiekalas-caldwell8825 3 жыл бұрын

yes the demon of reason is the best!

@hypervaniac 3 жыл бұрын

100% agree!

@godoftempest5692 3 жыл бұрын

Of course I love this guy alot

@KellyCalKelsey 3 жыл бұрын

When the Walking Horned Eggplant starts Spitting Facts.

@ricktd6891 3 жыл бұрын

More like lies and fear mongering.

@KellyCalKelsey 3 жыл бұрын

@@ricktd6891 what about this is lies? I'm sure some examples of Rising Heat over Time are Slightly Inaccurate but the Point is Real.

@s_gren9981 3 жыл бұрын

I'm just imagining an eggplant on white background with Morshu beatbox playing

@spookyscarylamppost3431 3 жыл бұрын

@@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."

@thoughtfuldevil6069 3 жыл бұрын

@@ricktd6891 Projection, much? ;)

@user-cd4bx6uq1y 3 жыл бұрын

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

@scrapsthebunny6946 3 жыл бұрын

Demon of reason, watching on his tv: And I took that personally.

@colelawton4901 2 жыл бұрын

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

@juarka2 2 жыл бұрын

50 years of global warming claims that turned out to be false. Like Florida being underwater by 2010.

@politicalpolitics7139 2 жыл бұрын

@@colelawton4901 BOOTLICKER!!!

@politicalpolitics7139 2 жыл бұрын

@@juarka2 BOOTLICKER!!!

@spartida3850 3 жыл бұрын

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

@ricktd6891 3 жыл бұрын

What about all the lies and fear mongering ? Are you ok with that ?

@spookyscarylamppost3431 3 жыл бұрын

@@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."

@terrylap6132 3 жыл бұрын

@@ricktd6891 Your perseverance is applaudable, if only you didn’t reply with ridiculous comments.

@ricktd6891 3 жыл бұрын

@@terrylap6132 What facts would you like ?

@terrylap6132 3 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@hourofberries 3 жыл бұрын

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.

@jessicareutercastrogiovann5796 3 жыл бұрын

All hail the Demon of Reason!

@TheVampireviolet 3 жыл бұрын

I did this theheraldofthedark.tumblr.com/post/647757090380742656/you-dont-get-context because of you, enjoy

@hourofberries 3 жыл бұрын

@@TheVampireviolet SAVED. IT HAS BEEN SAVED TO MY PHOTOS.

@ricktd6891 3 жыл бұрын

You love to be lied to ?

@spookyscarylamppost3431 3 жыл бұрын

@@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."

@93roadrunner 3 жыл бұрын

When a purple dragon talks more sense than most people...

@KINFIN123 3 жыл бұрын

But he’s a demon

@NxVernxual 3 жыл бұрын

He's a demon, not a dragon

@isaiahb7496 3 жыл бұрын

@@NxVernxual lol yeah

@duo317 3 жыл бұрын

SOCIETY

@maeve4747 3 жыл бұрын

@@duo317 wE LiVe iN a SoCieTy

@clairehua7545 3 жыл бұрын

when a purple dude in underpants talk sense, suddenly all those bizarre things in the world seem less bizarre

@oliviam.5754 3 жыл бұрын

Its a demon Not a dude

@crazycoder2434 3 жыл бұрын

@@oliviam.5754 its a demon dude

@oliviam.5754 3 жыл бұрын

@@crazycoder2434 still just a demon

@ricktd6891 3 жыл бұрын

Sorry, that was fear mongering and lies.

@oliviam.5754 3 жыл бұрын

@@ricktd6891 ?

@wolfstar1253 3 жыл бұрын

1:48 I’m so happy to see the Demon of Reason finally getting married

@vozamaraktv-art5595 3 жыл бұрын

Marrying the angel of ignorance...

@DrRank 3 жыл бұрын

You'd think their titles would be swapped...

@nothinghere7585 3 жыл бұрын

The Demon of reason is actually my favourite “character” I’m happy your still using him

@parkerjarrell1137 3 жыл бұрын

The Demon of Reason now has 2 pets, proving just how popular and attractive he is among the Ted-Ed community.

@ricktd6891 3 жыл бұрын

He lied to you.

@parkerjarrell1137 3 жыл бұрын

@@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?

@ricktd6891 3 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@macaroon_nuggets8008 3 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@spookyscarylamppost3431 3 жыл бұрын

@@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."

@chilly2126 3 жыл бұрын

"what are you looking at? We're all dressed" said the demon in a crowd of humans that just teleported into the room

@sheer9203 3 жыл бұрын

10

@anammmmmmmmmm 3 жыл бұрын

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!

@janicedsilva16 3 жыл бұрын

Demon of Reason, You are my favourite character in Ted Ed. Hands down.

@ricktd6891 3 жыл бұрын

Too bad he lied to you.

@spookyscarylamppost3431 3 жыл бұрын

@@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."

@janicedsilva16 3 жыл бұрын

@@spookyscarylamppost3431 Damn that’s long.

@janeking8065 3 жыл бұрын

@@ricktd6891 too bad nobody cares about your pseudoscience.

@regrettispaghetti2517 3 жыл бұрын

@@ricktd6891 bro are you alright you've replied to so many comments like this, no seriously are you good my g

@WereWolf-ry3yv 3 жыл бұрын

In cases like this, I don't want to be the devil's advocate I want him to be mine

@ricktd6891 3 жыл бұрын

CO2 caused catastrophic global warming is a scam used to push politics on us, nothing more.

@spookyscarylamppost3431 3 жыл бұрын

@@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."

@smt4090 3 жыл бұрын

@@spookyscarylamppost3431 in a nutshell: haha CO2 go brrrrrrrrrrrr not the humans

@janeking8065 3 жыл бұрын

@@ricktd6891 oh please, you can’t even talk about the demon himself.

@terrylap6132 2 жыл бұрын

@@smt4090 Uuhhmm, humans release CO2.

@kosnk 3 жыл бұрын

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!

@HeVn7LaO 2 жыл бұрын

This format, I actually love it..we really need to teach more critical thinking…

@paleoph6168 3 жыл бұрын

3:20 The crocodile on the left do be vibing 🐊

@Inkyminkyzizwoz 3 жыл бұрын

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!

@betka5791 2 жыл бұрын

Pepsi and coke look the same so they taste the same. Then why do I like one better?

@forgottenetremembered Жыл бұрын

@@betka5791 the product name duh

@smorcrux426 3 жыл бұрын

The demon of reason video series is honestly the best series you have running. I absolutely love it!

@RGC_animation 2 жыл бұрын

Other than riddles.

@smorcrux426 2 жыл бұрын

@@RGC_animation yeah, the riddles are obviously also great.

@DreamerVic 2 жыл бұрын

“Correlation is different than causation” what a powerful statement!

@aidanrogers4438 3 жыл бұрын

‘It’s just a fallacy!’ Where’s that’s from?

@Hessonite_Dragon_Helen 3 жыл бұрын

Bohemian (something) by Queen ‘Born in a landslide’

@tell-talehearts4462 3 жыл бұрын

Are you making an Arrested Development reference?

@aidanrogers4438 3 жыл бұрын

@@tell-talehearts4462 Maeby

@hollowknight470 3 жыл бұрын

Step 1: Confirm you have green eyes. Step 2: Ask the Demon of Reason to please do more videos please?

@firenzarfrenzy4985 3 жыл бұрын

Nice reference

@jtiumproductions7629 3 жыл бұрын

lol

@gaganzanwar 2 жыл бұрын

I like Hollow Knight

@Pedrosa2541 3 жыл бұрын

"It's like you said that Rhinos are unicorns, because both have a single horn on the head"

@daniele7989 3 жыл бұрын

Actually we have reason to suspect Rhinos were what pliny the elder saw when he spoke of unicorns.

@graciepie6641 3 жыл бұрын

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.

@TheMysticStrider 3 жыл бұрын

Not first, but still here within a minute of posting. Neato

@Raveress_Moss 3 жыл бұрын

And me, 2 minutes

@unholycrusader69 3 жыл бұрын

early gang activity

@tedtolliver572 3 жыл бұрын

I love the Demon of Reason! He should become the mascot of Ted-Ed.

@ricktd6891 3 жыл бұрын

He lied to you.

@spookyscarylamppost3431 3 жыл бұрын

@@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."

@tedtolliver572 3 жыл бұрын

@@spookyscarylamppost3431 Great research!

@JustGabe 3 жыл бұрын

I would LOVE a video about "false dilemma fallacy" that has pervaded radical ideologies.

@uselesspie5403 3 жыл бұрын

My least favorite part of this series is that the demon of reason isn't real.

@ricktd6891 3 жыл бұрын

It's all lies.

@spookyscarylamppost3431 3 жыл бұрын

@@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."

@taliyaalmeida3221 2 жыл бұрын

@@ricktd6891 nobody cares. cry a river.

@randominternettoaster7859 Жыл бұрын

@@spookyscarylamppost3431 I agree but like, I ain't reading all of that

@claradipaolo571 3 жыл бұрын

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.

@ToastGreeting 2 жыл бұрын

By any chance are you also related to a highschool teacher that teaches in grade 10 history as well as the law courses?

@ra0333 3 жыл бұрын

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

@samuelding7854 3 жыл бұрын

Or, say, 2”

@samuelding7854 3 жыл бұрын

Oops, 20

@opinionatortv6457 3 жыл бұрын

True

@spookyscarylamppost3431 3 жыл бұрын

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.

@nanami_akumudeadchannel7115 3 жыл бұрын

When the world needed him most,he came back.

@ricktd6891 3 жыл бұрын

We need him to lie to us ?

@jtiumproductions7629 3 жыл бұрын

@@ricktd6891 dude the demon of reason is going to steal your cloths man

@emeraldnickel 2 жыл бұрын

1:36 they took a BITE out of the ORANGE with the PEEL ON??? Truly this person was the real villain in this video.

@Owen_loves_Butters 11 ай бұрын

Orange peel is edible

@emeraldnickel 11 ай бұрын

@@Owen_loves_Butterspaper is edible too but you don’t see me eating A4 sheets for breakfast

@Owen_loves_Butters 11 ай бұрын

@@emeraldnickel Because paper doesn't have nutritional value and is indigestible

@aaryanrs5795 3 жыл бұрын

1:47 *I was waiting for this* ```❤️ Demon of Reason```

@KindestofWinds 3 жыл бұрын

I literally JUST HEARD someone use this fallacy, I know what to tell them now. thanks

@secretofsecrets2858 3 жыл бұрын

Teacher : What is the difference between orange and apple? Student : The color of orange is ORANGE, but the color of apple is not APPLE.

@calvinbarbanell2449 3 жыл бұрын

Ah, so oranges and olives are the same? Good to know.

@driheart 3 жыл бұрын

This was funny 😂😂😂😂

@gaodargon 3 жыл бұрын

It's awesome that you continue with this series, I hope you make it a regular thing.

@parthgoel1084 3 жыл бұрын

Look Ted-Ed... You know I cannot outsmart it... but I still clicked. Quality

@riogaming3183 3 жыл бұрын

I am a simple guy, I see Ted ed I click 😌

@MasterCivilEngineering 3 жыл бұрын

👍👍👍

@deshmkh5014 3 жыл бұрын

same

@stoicalsatrn2403 3 жыл бұрын

@@oliverelfenbaum7119 I won't

@ricktd6891 3 жыл бұрын

Then you get propagandized.

@spookyscarylamppost3431 3 жыл бұрын

@@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."

@shanggosteen9804 3 жыл бұрын

I am soooo happy they returned to this series again I absolutely love this guy!!!

@user-bp7vh5gc5n 3 жыл бұрын

I love this sarcastic purple dragon guy so much 😂

@llfn1718 3 жыл бұрын

Answer: probably not, but I'll still watch the video!

@Rodiacreed 3 жыл бұрын

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

@RGC_animation 2 жыл бұрын

Just like people still somehow believe the Earth is flat.

@jedisalsohere 10 ай бұрын

@@RGC_animationat least believing that the earth is flat is pretty harmless

@EricxCire777 3 жыл бұрын

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

@hakimdiwan5101 3 жыл бұрын

Good decision but chances are they are not going to watch or "believe" anyway.

@ricktd6891 3 жыл бұрын

Why would you send a video full of lies and fear mongering ?

@ricktd6891 3 жыл бұрын

@@hakimdiwan5101 I tend not to believe lies.

@spookyscarylamppost3431 3 жыл бұрын

@@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."

@ultrasonico5709 2 жыл бұрын

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.

@oliviastewart601 2 жыл бұрын

We need more of the Demon of Reason. He is amazingly sarcastic but reasonable that it's hilarious.

@legs9086 3 жыл бұрын

Last time I was this early, human still believed the cause of global warming was a natural one

@ricktd6891 3 жыл бұрын

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.

@spookyscarylamppost3431 3 жыл бұрын

@@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."

@katiexu7785 3 жыл бұрын

I absolutely love this series, it's both entertaining to watch and I actually am retaining information. Keep up the good work!

@randomgoose3704 3 жыл бұрын

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.

@BallotBoxer 3 жыл бұрын

The Demon of Reason is the perfect combination of writing, animation, and voice acting.

@arushimishra1236 3 жыл бұрын

Once again, one of the best animations I've ever seen.

@andverse9413 3 жыл бұрын

ted ed this is my favourite character

@andverse9413 3 жыл бұрын

This is one of my greatest life achievements

@pranavswarupkumar7358 3 жыл бұрын

Quality, free of cost, frequent uploads, intriguing topics, best animators in the world, (demon of reason ;) ..... Ted Ed - KZbin's golden side

@dontdrinktapwater6194 3 жыл бұрын

I wish to attend the Demon of Reason's class if he's ever teaching. He's my dream professor.

@blakechow8294 3 жыл бұрын

He would steal your clothes

@Alleis 3 жыл бұрын

@@blakechow8294 A small price to pay for knowledge.

@ricktd6891 3 жыл бұрын

He lied to you.

@ricktd6891 3 жыл бұрын

@@Alleis you don't get knowledge from him, you get lies, propaganda and fear mongering.

@ricktd6891 3 жыл бұрын

@@blakechow8294 And lie to you too.

@Galaxy29608 3 жыл бұрын

I love the demon of reason. He's smart and funny at the same time. 😂

@nuclearduck13 3 жыл бұрын

This actually changed my mind on the subject

@jovindsouza3407 3 жыл бұрын

Congratulations. We have cookies.

@Delsto5 3 жыл бұрын

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 ;)

@clovebeans713 3 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@nuclearduck13 3 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@annaarkless5822 2 жыл бұрын

i love this character so much, whoever designed them is really talented!

@Aiba271 3 жыл бұрын

PLEASE KEEP THIS SERIES GOING. 🙏🙏🙏

@HuviOnTheEdge 3 жыл бұрын

The demon of reason is so cool, just like the series of outsmarting fallacies. Can't wait for more!

@shreeyamittal1771 3 жыл бұрын

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!

@votecthulhu9378 3 жыл бұрын

Very nice video. Straightforward and to the point yet insightful

@FikAb 3 жыл бұрын

Awesome introductory format👍 Good job

@arunasuresh3174 3 жыл бұрын

TED-Ed makes me feel like I couldn't outsmart an apple if I tried, which is why I love it

@friendsfreak 2 жыл бұрын

1:09 Even the cat can’t believe what it’s hearing.

@user-id3fc8qs7y 5 ай бұрын

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 :)

@ibrahimalowonle9106 3 жыл бұрын

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.👍👍👍

@hazelbasil4989 3 жыл бұрын

I remember learning about this in science class. It was something like correlation does not equal causation? I can't quite remember...

@vincemarenger7122 3 жыл бұрын

No, that's actually a different fallacy. Here's the episode about correlation is not causation: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bnmvpXmslLCkpac&ab_channel=TED-Ed

@edeworabraham2761 3 жыл бұрын

I am a simple man, I see the demon of reasoning in my notification I click

@isabelladebrisac3055 3 жыл бұрын

I love this style of videos, keep it up!

@Ubrzani 3 жыл бұрын

YEAH, HE'S BACK BOI! Riddles and the "Demon of reason" are my fav TED-Ed videos! 🤩

@TotalllyUseless 3 жыл бұрын

You brought him back. They really did it.

@treehugger0241 3 жыл бұрын

I'm yoinking this to show mom, who _loves_ using the "The earth has warmed in the past" argument.

@theblackantonio 3 жыл бұрын

We need more videos from this series!

@ryhol5417 2 жыл бұрын

Love this format.

@mastamelon 3 жыл бұрын

When Aku chooses a life of reasoning instead of conquest against Samurai Jack.

@williamburns6103 3 жыл бұрын

This is the best character ever created. He must be protected at all costs

@zayk7095 3 жыл бұрын

He doesn’t need anyone’s protection he’s a chad

@williamburns6103 3 жыл бұрын

@@zayk7095 Fax

@samuelb-1406 3 жыл бұрын

I would love if a network/streaming service picked up this show, it's really fun!

@POLICESTARBODYCAMS 5 ай бұрын

That thing left out the most important part. It's the rate of change that makes it different from the past. There was time for living things to adapt in the past.

@jeconiahjoelmichaelsiregar7917 3 жыл бұрын

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 KZbin ads.

@houssembenabdallah6599 3 жыл бұрын

I really needed the demon of reason as a teacher when I was at school.

@spookyscarylamppost3431 3 жыл бұрын

@Ted Ed Thanks for impersonating, I shall report your channel.

@innitheotaku3883 3 жыл бұрын

Just watched the first demon of reason video and then searched for a solid 5 minutes for another only to be pleasantly surprised when I saw that they did indeed make a series out of it

@Snakemasterepic 3 жыл бұрын

I love this guy. Now I want to see him tackle the hasty generalization and either-or fallacies.

@ritikakela 3 жыл бұрын

more of this, please ♥

@justanotherdamnerd4434 3 жыл бұрын

Ohhhhhhh I’ll procrastinate if it means I get to watch my favourite Demon steal someone’s clothes.

@TerrySloan29 3 жыл бұрын

Of all of the characters Ted ed has shown this guy is my favorite

@iamjabby3688 3 жыл бұрын

This series is amazing!

@attilastarwar 3 жыл бұрын

The demon of reason is without any doubt my favorite fictional character of all time

@ricktd6891 3 жыл бұрын

Too bad he lied to you.

@spookyscarylamppost3431 3 жыл бұрын

@@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."

@apb8813 3 жыл бұрын

A video suggestion- 'The Demon of Reason' vs 'The Imp called Intuition ' or the epic battle of 'The Demon of Reason' and the 'Emotion Elf'. After all, they're ruling the world. If only the Demon of Reason always won.