4 ms·

"The modern differential in the ~warming~ temperature of the globe" is what "Global Warming" is.

delichon 2y ago
If the answer to the literal question is different than the answer to a colloquial interpretation, it may be a good question for judging colloquial interpretation but bad for judging scientific education.
- sanderjd 2y ago
  The question uses the literal words "global warming", which the parent commenter is saying is defined as "the modern differential in the warming of the globe". That is, they are not saying that is the colloquial definition, but rather is the definition of the term. And you seem to agree that the cause, by that definition, is not water vapor. So I think the only disagreement here is a definitional one. It's famously impossible to say what the single right definition of a term is. In this case, I'm not even totally sure which of your or parent's definition seems to me to be predominant... But I guess I do think it seems most reasonable to read an implicit "modern" or "contemporary" modifier of "global warming" into the question. If it weren't asking about the contemporary phenomenon, it would specify that.
  - delichon 2y ago
    > And you seem to agree that the cause, by that definition, is not water vapor. I'm agnostic. I agree that solar variation is not the consensus explanation, but that's less settled than the predominance of water vapor as a greenhouse gas and would substantially work through water vapor if true. But, sigh, claiming not to know is colloquially known as "climate denial".
    - sanderjd 2y ago
      > If the question is, what is the primary cause of the modern differential in the warming of the globe, there's a different answer. This seemed to imply that you aren't disputing the answer, based on that definition of global warming which, again, is what the comment you replied to asserts is the definition. But from this comment, it seems to me that you're smuggling a disagreement about the science into a more pedantic point about what "global warming" is defined to mean. For what it's worth, as someone who believes that it's as close to a certainty as science ever gets that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are causal, I am also uncomfortable with the certainty implied by the wording of the question. I would be happier if it were something like, "What is the consensus among climate scientists on which gas is the primary contributor to the warming climate we see today?".

If the answer to the literal question is different than the answer to a colloquial interpretation, it may be a good question for judging colloquial interpretation but bad for judging scientific education.

sanderjd 2y ago
The question uses the literal words "global warming", which the parent commenter is saying is defined as "the modern differential in the warming of the globe". That is, they are not saying that is the colloquial definition, but rather is the definition of the term. And you seem to agree that the cause, by that definition, is not water vapor. So I think the only disagreement here is a definitional one. It's famously impossible to say what the single right definition of a term is. In this case, I'm not even totally sure which of your or parent's definition seems to me to be predominant... But I guess I do think it seems most reasonable to read an implicit "modern" or "contemporary" modifier of "global warming" into the question. If it weren't asking about the contemporary phenomenon, it would specify that.
- delichon 2y ago
  > And you seem to agree that the cause, by that definition, is not water vapor. I'm agnostic. I agree that solar variation is not the consensus explanation, but that's less settled than the predominance of water vapor as a greenhouse gas and would substantially work through water vapor if true. But, sigh, claiming not to know is colloquially known as "climate denial".
  - sanderjd 2y ago
    > If the question is, what is the primary cause of the modern differential in the warming of the globe, there's a different answer. This seemed to imply that you aren't disputing the answer, based on that definition of global warming which, again, is what the comment you replied to asserts is the definition. But from this comment, it seems to me that you're smuggling a disagreement about the science into a more pedantic point about what "global warming" is defined to mean. For what it's worth, as someone who believes that it's as close to a certainty as science ever gets that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are causal, I am also uncomfortable with the certainty implied by the wording of the question. I would be happier if it were something like, "What is the consensus among climate scientists on which gas is the primary contributor to the warming climate we see today?".