Its not as flashy as some videos I’ve seen, but its not bad. I thought the discussion about CO2 levels and the ice age was very curious. Mostly because I’d be surprised if their methods for determining the exact temperatures and CO2 levels did not come with huge margins of error as well. Makes any quantitative discussions difficult I’d suppose.
Yep error bars get bigger as one goes further back in time. And this does make quantitative discussions more difficult. But not impossible. Statistical significance is what matters.
It is also worth noting that for some discussions one doesn’t need absolute values. Relative values can be sufficient, though not always.
One needs to go to the primary literature to determine if the uncertainties undermine the conclusions.
Absolutely, qualitative discussions can be equally useful, and they certainly do a good job of it here. Also, for their purposes, an exact value isn’t needed to justify their conclusions.
Its not as flashy as some videos I’ve seen, but its not bad. I thought the discussion about CO2 levels and the ice age was very curious. Mostly because I’d be surprised if their methods for determining the exact temperatures and CO2 levels did not come with huge margins of error as well. Makes any quantitative discussions difficult I’d suppose.
Yep error bars get bigger as one goes further back in time. And this does make quantitative discussions more difficult. But not impossible. Statistical significance is what matters.
It is also worth noting that for some discussions one doesn’t need absolute values. Relative values can be sufficient, though not always.
One needs to go to the primary literature to determine if the uncertainties undermine the conclusions.
Absolutely, qualitative discussions can be equally useful, and they certainly do a good job of it here. Also, for their purposes, an exact value isn’t needed to justify their conclusions.