So natural warming to which humans are also contributing. Could be that humans are just speeding up a natural warming cycle.
I like this guy's style. Non-confrontational, just telling about the science.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"So natural warming to which humans are also contributing."
If you mean the larger factor to global warming is "natural", this is not what he was saying, it is probably more like want everyone would like to hear.
The climate models and simulations are quite accurate and reflect what is happening, what is described in this video may be an additional accelerator as far as I understand it.
The whole phenomenon needs to be better understood and requires more research, though.
Educational videos on this topic are usually not confrontational. Why would they be?
Videos debunking idiotic claims of "deniers", however, very well may be.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
My question has always been would we be able to effectively differentiate between natural and manmade warming IF both were happening? We see "effect" but do we see all the causes? As he says, there's still much we don't know (and we don't know how much we don't know) so the models are only as good as our understanding of the system.
"Videos debunking idiotic claims of "deniers", however, very well may be."
Yes. I don't think that's really the most effective way to convey science. Tends to create polarization and the actual science takes a backseat in the discussion.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"My question has always been would we be able to effectively differentiate between natural and manmade warming IF both were happening?"
That has been addressed over and over again, the simple answer is "yes, to a sufficiently large extent".
The first studies have been carried out about 100 years ago, the basic principles haven't changed, current models just have become more accurate. Potholer put together a very interesting and complete series of videos on climate change, including links to relevant peer reviewed scientific papers.
This video is not denying the human influence, btw.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"That has been addressed over and over again, the simple answer is "yes, to a sufficiently large extent"
Well yes assuming there are no major unknown natural contributors to warming. As I understand this is a recent discovery that nature is pumping vast amounts of methane (a potent greenhouse gas) that could have
been previously contributed to anthropogenic global warming.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
like I said, wishful thinking.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
I like to call it "allowing the possibility"
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
We always have to (and of course scientists do, that is what science is after all, hence this hasn't been swept under the rug), however, with you it is bias confirmation, simple as that, your "conclusion" in the first reply is proof of it.
Soon you will hear the likes of beanyhat, crowder, shapiro and other far right activists or conspiracy theorists come tot he conclusion "there is no man made portion of climate change", lol
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
So we essentially agree how science should ideally operate, but not when I say it.
Are you sure youre checking your own biases?
Man is warming the planet and nature plays its part too. I think the ratio between the two will change as we learn more. Its just my guess. You dont have to agree with it.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
yesterday i was thinking that enough ice caps and glaciers melt, making the ocean rise, means salt water is not only going to overtake out rivers and lakes but also intrude into ground water
Comments
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
So natural warming to which humans are also contributing. Could be that humans are just speeding up a natural warming cycle.
I like this guy's style. Non-confrontational, just telling about the science.
(Old Spike)
"So natural warming to which humans are also contributing."
If you mean the larger factor to global warming is "natural", this is not what he was saying, it is probably more like want everyone would like to hear.
The climate models and simulations are quite accurate and reflect what is happening, what is described in this video may be an additional accelerator as far as I understand it.
The whole phenomenon needs to be better understood and requires more research, though.
Educational videos on this topic are usually not confrontational. Why would they be?
Videos debunking idiotic claims of "deniers", however, very well may be.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
My question has always been would we be able to effectively differentiate between natural and manmade warming IF both were happening? We see "effect" but do we see all the causes? As he says, there's still much we don't know (and we don't know how much we don't know) so the models are only as good as our understanding of the system.
"Videos debunking idiotic claims of "deniers", however, very well may be."
Yes. I don't think that's really the most effective way to convey science. Tends to create polarization and the actual science takes a backseat in the discussion.
(Old Spike)
"My question has always been would we be able to effectively differentiate between natural and manmade warming IF both were happening?"
That has been addressed over and over again, the simple answer is "yes, to a sufficiently large extent".
The first studies have been carried out about 100 years ago, the basic principles haven't changed, current models just have become more accurate. Potholer put together a very interesting and complete series of videos on climate change, including links to relevant peer reviewed scientific papers.
This video is not denying the human influence, btw.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"That has been addressed over and over again, the simple answer is "yes, to a sufficiently large extent"
Well yes assuming there are no major unknown natural contributors to warming. As I understand this is a recent discovery that nature is pumping vast amounts of methane (a potent greenhouse gas) that could have
been previously contributed to anthropogenic global warming.
(Old Spike)
like I said, wishful thinking.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
I like to call it "allowing the possibility"
(Old Spike)
We always have to (and of course scientists do, that is what science is after all, hence this hasn't been swept under the rug), however, with you it is bias confirmation, simple as that, your "conclusion" in the first reply is proof of it.
Soon you will hear the likes of beanyhat, crowder, shapiro and other far right activists or conspiracy theorists come tot he conclusion "there is no man made portion of climate change", lol
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
So we essentially agree how science should ideally operate, but not when I say it.
Are you sure youre checking your own biases?
Man is warming the planet and nature plays its part too. I think the ratio between the two will change as we learn more. Its just my guess. You dont have to agree with it.
(Long Spike)
yesterday i was thinking that enough ice caps and glaciers melt, making the ocean rise, means salt water is not only going to overtake out rivers and lakes but also intrude into ground water