Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 2 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

I have no clue wtf I was talking about/thinking. The only thing I do know for a flat fact is that I have peanut butter sandwiched between two pieces of white bread with slats of banana between.

I respect your logic, but do not support it. If a person understands neutral to be something so narrow fielded as a disconnect from the propulsory circuit then nothing is gained. Neutral is nothing more then an equilibrium of push and pull, taught and loose.

Neutral SHOULD be understood when it comes to engines as neither in or out produces effect.

neutral should not be pigeon holed to conform to one standard, it is a variable word .

Your video, Robotic Smartphone Screen Test, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Congrats on the Bronze !

Your video, 5 Most Laughable O'Reilly Moments, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Congratulations on reaching new heights on VideoSift. You have earned yourself 25 stars, earning you status of Bronze Star member. You have been awarded 1 Power Point for achieving this level. Thanks for all your contributions.

Your video, Why math is dangerous..., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Your video, Manhattan-henge with Neil deGrasse Tyson, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Perfectly good explanation. Thanks for clarifying your stance for me.

In reply to this comment by Psychologic:
^ Posting a video is not an endorsement of its contents unless stated as such. This was posted as a point of discussion. I'm also not concerned with the methodologies of a particular video, but of those used to construct conclusions within the general realm of climate change.

The Cassiopeia Project contains a wealth of wonderful resources on various scientific subjects (physics, chemistry, evolution, etc), but this particular video struck me as unusual. Something about it doesn't sit right with me, but it isn't because of any specific data point it contains.

Here are some random reactions I have to the video:
-If most of the recent warming happened toward the end of the last hundred years then the "average increase per century" isn't very relevant.
-Focusing on "the last few years" in a statistical analysis is not all that useful.
-Regardless of the cause, the general trend has been one of warming. Saying it isn't something to worry about can, at best, only apply to increases up to this point.

My main questions:
-What is the mathematical relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature due to the greenhouse effect? Is it linear, logarithmic, or something else?
-What effect has water vapor concentration had on historical temperature trends? Does a large increase in water vapor continue trapping heat, or can it be offset due to more cloud formation?


I'm not advocating for any side of the debate. The problem is that my fascination with the subject far outstrips the available free time I have to invest in researching it.

When I look into this stuff I find mostly crap from people who start with a conclusion and then find evidence to support it... sorting through that becomes very time consuming. I know there are people on the Sift that have put far more time into researching this topic, so my hope is that I can benefit from their endeavors.

I also happen to enjoy controversial subjects, so this video seems to fit. =)


>> ^Stormsinger:

Then why are you promoting a video that says nothing about its methodology? If you want to understand the methodology shouldn't you actually be -looking- for methodologies?
Actions really do speak louder than words...and your actions and words aren't saying the same things.>

Your video, Double Slit Physics Experiment, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your video, Mapping leaf nutrient delivery with fluorescent dye, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.