5 ms·

Climate models take this into account [0], contrary to what some people here seem to imply. It is also very likely that this is part of, but not the major facto

by zith 3y ago

Climate models take this into account [0], contrary to what some people here seem to imply. It is also very likely that this is part of, but not the major factor of recent warming. [1] I would like to point out that this is not something we're just figuring out "this week" as Hank Green seems to want to frame it. There's no need to sensationalize. There is no conspiracy here. This is well known. It's good to educate people, but it sucks that even good educators have to crawl in the click-bait mud to reach people. [0] https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1444679408573419520 https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1444679408573419520 [1] https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping-rules-are-affecting-global-warming/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shippin...

jjallen 3y ago
yeah unfortunately if some people are click-baity it makes it where basically everyone has to be if they want to maximize their views/revenue on YouTube.
- shawnz 3y ago
  We all have a responsibility to be the strongest possible advocates of our own opinions
  - adamesque 3y ago
    We absolutely do not. We have a responsibility to seek out the truth and act in the interest of the common good. Quite often this means NOT strongly or blindly advocating our own opinions when our knowledge is incomplete or motivated by self-interest. Many times our responsibility is to advocate someone else’s opinion or present multiple options. I have many many opinions and very few of them would benefit from my strongest advocacy.
    - shawnz 3y ago
      Why would you hold opinions that you don't think would benefit from your strongest advocacy? Why believe things yourself that you don't think other people should believe? To be clear, I'm not saying that you should strongly advocate for other people to strongly believe things that you only weakly believe. But you should strongly advocate for other people to weakly believe those things. Furthermore, I don't think strong advocacy implies closing your mind to differing opinions. You can be a strong advocate for your current viewpoint while also being willing to change your mind.
      - nobody9999 3y ago
        >Why would you hold opinions that you don't think would benefit from your strongest advocacy? Why believe things yourself that you don't think other people should believe? I am an atheist. As such, I strongly believe that there is no "omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent 'creator'." However, regardless of how strongly I hold that opinion (especially as it, in almost every respect, reflects our understanding of the universe and how it works), I don't do any atheism "advocacy," nor do I proselytize an atheistic viewpoint -- despite the fact that I see belief systems that include such a creator, all of them not just the Abrahamic religions, to be demonstrably false. Another strongly held opinion of mine is that it's not my responsibility to disabuse others of their misconceptions in that respect. Based on your statement, it seems that you would claim (incorrectly) that I don't hold my views as to the (non-)existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator, as well as my aversion to attempting to force such views down the throats of others. strongly at all. Is that the case, or am I misunderstanding your point? Edit: Fixed typo.
        shawnz 3y ago
        No, I'm not saying you don't hold your views strongly. What I am saying is that I disagree that it's not your responsibility to convince others of your point of view. It is your responsibility and you owe it to your peers to do your best job of making sure that your reasoning and the perspective which led to that reasoning is fully understood by them. Consider for example how your own opinion was formed based on reasoning that was at least in part put forward by people who came before you. If they had all kept to themselves and you never had access to the ideas/thinking of past atheists to help you make an informed decision, don't you think they would have effectively been doing you a disservice? Note that I'm not necessarily saying hardcore proselytizing is the right approach to achieve that. In fact hardcore proselytizing can in some cases turn people away from your opinions, so it could actually be worse than doing nothing.
- indigochill 3y ago
  > ...if they want to maximize their views/revenue on YouTube. Thankfully YouTube is not the only way of educating people.
zagrebian 3y ago
If Hank was less excited about it, the video would not reach nearly as many viewers, so from an educational perspective, he’s succeeding at educating many more people about this topic. It matters less when we “figured this out”. The educational value is in the details.
- H8crilA 3y ago
  And there absolutely is a need to sensationalize. This is a big problem and requires serious political will, whether to pull off mass cloud seeding, make more sun/nuclear energy or reduce the usage of something important like air travel or heating.
- gregoriol 3y ago
  It's good that he presents it in a way that is interesting to many; but it would be better if he was more accurate in saying that it is interesting but not something new we just found out though
BurningFrog 3y ago
It's well known among scientists. But global warming is a very major political issue, and those who determine what will be done about it - voters and politicians - have on average zero clues about it.
zeroonetwothree 3y ago
It’s reasonable to be skeptical since past climate models (eg from 20 years ago) didn’t do great over the subsequent period. It could be that current ones are much better (but we won’t know for a while).
- SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
  What has changed in 20 years? Realistically. When we’re the ClimateGate emails? Do you think the industry got itself together after that?
  - notmypenguin 3y ago
    That’s a bunch of FUD. Climate science is and has been solid, but fossil fuel industry lobbies have tried to add doubt to what is certain and known. I see your tactics and I call you out on them.
    - SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
      Are you saying those emails weren’t real?
  - melagonster 3y ago
    science is getting better. most of government hired people to research it, if they can can't promote anything, it is weird.
- jshen 3y ago
  Can you link to these models from 20 years ago?
- conception 3y ago
  I don’t think this is the case at all - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-models-have-been-impressively-accurate-for-decades-study-geophysical-research-letters/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-models-have-been-impres...
- sdfignaionio 3y ago
akira2501 3y ago
The same climate models that predict a "missing" volcanic eruption? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1808_mystery_eruption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1808_mystery_eruption
- superb_dev 3y ago
  These volcanic eruptions haven’t been predicted, we found evidence of them in ice cores
  - akira2501 3y ago
    They've found evidence of periods of apparent high atmospheric SO2 in some ice cores. There are multiple reasons, outside of volcanoes, this could have occurred. The fact that vulcanologists have no evidence of this eruption doesn't seem to trouble anyone on the "climate science" side. So much so, they _insist_ the volcanologists are just "missing" it. They also need it to exist, because it is their only explanation for widespread temperature anomalies around this time period. Whenever the model fails to predict something, they go searching for a volcano, seemingly. It helps because it has high levels of atmospheric distribution, other sources of SO2, obviously, do not. And, on the back of this wholly incomplete work, they would like to purposefully put high levels of man made SO2 in the atmosphere to try to interfere with the climate. We should do our best to positively impact the climate. I have strong doubts about all of these radical SO2 ideas.
- imtringued 3y ago
  Ah, yes global cooling. The thing that has been predicted for at least thirty years by now. The most common argument is that solar activity is declining. Tough luck. CO2 is rising faster than the sun can become colder. We are in a solar minimum and yet we somehow break temperature records? https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/2953/there-is-no-impending-mini-ice-age/ https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/2953/there...
  - akira2501 3y ago
    > Ah, yes global cooling. No.. just bad climate science all around. > CO2 is rising faster than the sun can become colder. You are, at this point, just shadowboxing. > We are in a solar minimum and yet we somehow break temperature records? We broke records everywhere on earth simultaneously? We did nothing to change our measurement strategy or equipment in the past 150 years? What annoys me is everyone finds their favorite justification for austerity and then just runs with it. It's not serious and it's not particularly good science.
animal_spirits 3y ago
I don’t think he ever claimed that it’s only just been figured out but that it is under reported in a time where many other topics are over reported

by zith 3y ago

jjallen 3y ago

yeah unfortunately if some people are click-baity it makes it where basically everyone has to be if they want to maximize their views/revenue on YouTube.

shawnz 3y ago
We all have a responsibility to be the strongest possible advocates of our own opinions
- adamesque 3y ago
  We absolutely do not. We have a responsibility to seek out the truth and act in the interest of the common good. Quite often this means NOT strongly or blindly advocating our own opinions when our knowledge is incomplete or motivated by self-interest. Many times our responsibility is to advocate someone else’s opinion or present multiple options. I have many many opinions and very few of them would benefit from my strongest advocacy.
  - shawnz 3y ago
    Why would you hold opinions that you don't think would benefit from your strongest advocacy? Why believe things yourself that you don't think other people should believe? To be clear, I'm not saying that you should strongly advocate for other people to strongly believe things that you only weakly believe. But you should strongly advocate for other people to weakly believe those things. Furthermore, I don't think strong advocacy implies closing your mind to differing opinions. You can be a strong advocate for your current viewpoint while also being willing to change your mind.
    - nobody9999 3y ago
      >Why would you hold opinions that you don't think would benefit from your strongest advocacy? Why believe things yourself that you don't think other people should believe? I am an atheist. As such, I strongly believe that there is no "omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent 'creator'." However, regardless of how strongly I hold that opinion (especially as it, in almost every respect, reflects our understanding of the universe and how it works), I don't do any atheism "advocacy," nor do I proselytize an atheistic viewpoint -- despite the fact that I see belief systems that include such a creator, all of them not just the Abrahamic religions, to be demonstrably false. Another strongly held opinion of mine is that it's not my responsibility to disabuse others of their misconceptions in that respect. Based on your statement, it seems that you would claim (incorrectly) that I don't hold my views as to the (non-)existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator, as well as my aversion to attempting to force such views down the throats of others. strongly at all. Is that the case, or am I misunderstanding your point? Edit: Fixed typo.
      - shawnz 3y ago
        No, I'm not saying you don't hold your views strongly. What I am saying is that I disagree that it's not your responsibility to convince others of your point of view. It is your responsibility and you owe it to your peers to do your best job of making sure that your reasoning and the perspective which led to that reasoning is fully understood by them. Consider for example how your own opinion was formed based on reasoning that was at least in part put forward by people who came before you. If they had all kept to themselves and you never had access to the ideas/thinking of past atheists to help you make an informed decision, don't you think they would have effectively been doing you a disservice? Note that I'm not necessarily saying hardcore proselytizing is the right approach to achieve that. In fact hardcore proselytizing can in some cases turn people away from your opinions, so it could actually be worse than doing nothing.
indigochill 3y ago
> ...if they want to maximize their views/revenue on YouTube. Thankfully YouTube is not the only way of educating people.

zagrebian 3y ago

If Hank was less excited about it, the video would not reach nearly as many viewers, so from an educational perspective, he’s succeeding at educating many more people about this topic. It matters less when we “figured this out”. The educational value is in the details.

H8crilA 3y ago
And there absolutely is a need to sensationalize. This is a big problem and requires serious political will, whether to pull off mass cloud seeding, make more sun/nuclear energy or reduce the usage of something important like air travel or heating.
gregoriol 3y ago
It's good that he presents it in a way that is interesting to many; but it would be better if he was more accurate in saying that it is interesting but not something new we just found out though

BurningFrog 3y ago

It's well known among scientists. But global warming is a very major political issue, and those who determine what will be done about it - voters and politicians - have on average zero clues about it.

zeroonetwothree 3y ago

It’s reasonable to be skeptical since past climate models (eg from 20 years ago) didn’t do great over the subsequent period. It could be that current ones are much better (but we won’t know for a while).

SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
What has changed in 20 years? Realistically. When we’re the ClimateGate emails? Do you think the industry got itself together after that?
- notmypenguin 3y ago
  That’s a bunch of FUD. Climate science is and has been solid, but fossil fuel industry lobbies have tried to add doubt to what is certain and known. I see your tactics and I call you out on them.
  - SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
    Are you saying those emails weren’t real?
- melagonster 3y ago
  science is getting better. most of government hired people to research it, if they can can't promote anything, it is weird.
jshen 3y ago
Can you link to these models from 20 years ago?
conception 3y ago
I don’t think this is the case at all - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-models-have-been-impressively-accurate-for-decades-study-geophysical-research-letters/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-models-have-been-impres...
sdfignaionio 3y ago

akira2501 3y ago

The same climate models that predict a "missing" volcanic eruption? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1808_mystery_eruption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1808_mystery_eruption

superb_dev 3y ago
These volcanic eruptions haven’t been predicted, we found evidence of them in ice cores
- akira2501 3y ago
  They've found evidence of periods of apparent high atmospheric SO2 in some ice cores. There are multiple reasons, outside of volcanoes, this could have occurred. The fact that vulcanologists have no evidence of this eruption doesn't seem to trouble anyone on the "climate science" side. So much so, they _insist_ the volcanologists are just "missing" it. They also need it to exist, because it is their only explanation for widespread temperature anomalies around this time period. Whenever the model fails to predict something, they go searching for a volcano, seemingly. It helps because it has high levels of atmospheric distribution, other sources of SO2, obviously, do not. And, on the back of this wholly incomplete work, they would like to purposefully put high levels of man made SO2 in the atmosphere to try to interfere with the climate. We should do our best to positively impact the climate. I have strong doubts about all of these radical SO2 ideas.
imtringued 3y ago
Ah, yes global cooling. The thing that has been predicted for at least thirty years by now. The most common argument is that solar activity is declining. Tough luck. CO2 is rising faster than the sun can become colder. We are in a solar minimum and yet we somehow break temperature records? https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/2953/there-is-no-impending-mini-ice-age/ https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/2953/there...
- akira2501 3y ago
  > Ah, yes global cooling. No.. just bad climate science all around. > CO2 is rising faster than the sun can become colder. You are, at this point, just shadowboxing. > We are in a solar minimum and yet we somehow break temperature records? We broke records everywhere on earth simultaneously? We did nothing to change our measurement strategy or equipment in the past 150 years? What annoys me is everyone finds their favorite justification for austerity and then just runs with it. It's not serious and it's not particularly good science.

animal_spirits 3y ago

I don’t think he ever claimed that it’s only just been figured out but that it is under reported in a time where many other topics are over reported