Categorical error. Logic does not translate.

In response to all 3 of you:

1. I have been digging up some info on the Information Flow method and causality. Please come to your own conclusions on its robustness with linear and non-linear systems.

2. For academics sake, let's submit to the IF robustness. From around 10000 BC until now, the temperatures have remained almost flat while methane and CO2 significantly ramped up compared to historic levels. But the temperatures were much higher at every peak within the last ~450,000 years. By the author's own admission, there is a reverse causation in the overall bigger picture. Now you can pick any 160 year window during the history of the data and do an IF causality study, and you'd come up with a completely different results. And retrospectively, I can pick any point in history and extrapolate it to say today's temperature should have been +10 deg C higher. The correlation completely broke within the last 10k years. But somehow we still have to look at 160 years as the basis for extrapolation? If I really wanna troll, I'd say that if you bring the CO2 and CH4 levels to historic averages, then the avg temperatures would fall significantly into another little ice age.

Irace, here are 2 more of your famous quotes:
"the abstract isn’t written by the authors often". You have been questioning my qualifications (which is fine), but do you understand how it looks on you for making such claims and refusing/unable to answer any of my questions? Forget about PhD, this is middle-school tautology that you're fumbling at.

"The body of evidence in thousands of papers does that, but you seem to continue to reject that verifiable fact", yet "Science doesn't prove"

The standards I set are clear: those 4 points I mentioned to Spuds. Your link clearly disproves you on #4. That is the author's own admission.

Oh STFU already!!!

No it is you that can't read the article. You read abstracts multiple times without reading the entirety of the papers. The abstracts are often written by people with PhDs who try their best to summarize key points and findings, but often make statements that are confusing out of context. Spuds and I have pointed to a number of your statements that are refuted in the body of your own quoted articles because you clearly are just reading abstracts, even from papers with a full article.

Irregardless, none of this matters. You have admitted that the paper I provided that modeled the paleontological record with the last 150 years is not adequate, essentially because the long-term (paleontological) and short-term (150 years is apparently short term for you) relationship isn't identical. If this is the case then we will never satisfy your long-term requirements of #4, which is why I asked in another post what you considered long-term. If this is the case then there is no point in continuing to demonstrate the data to you because it isn't on a timeline that is long enough to be significant to you.

Meanwhile, the world saw a rapid change in the destruction of the ozone layer due to certain emissions of products that the world unanimously banned. I'm saying it as an example of what devastation can happen from human activity on a short timescale. There are other examples to give, but the point is made that the trends of the last 150 years show anthropomorphic global warming through robust data and models. It may not meet your standards, but it is meeting the rest of the world's standards.

Look, I know you are SLOW, but here it is again:

It is possible for a change in one factor to both a *cause* of and an *effect* of change in another factor.

Over geologic time scales, with no human inputs, rising temperatures led to increases in CO2 in the atmosphere (which helped further increased warming). Temperature rise caused CO2 rise (which caused further temp rise).

About 150 years ago, humans began emitting a lot of CO2, then about 70 years ago started emitting at an even faster rate. Atmospheric CO2 hangs around so the result has been an increase from ~280ppm circa 1870, up to ~310ppm circa 1950, and up to ~420ppm today. CO2 levels were below 300ppm for *hundreds of thousands of years* prior to this.

The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has caused temperatures to go up, as predicted.

CO2 has risen *dramatically* since ~150 years ago and even more dramatically since 1950. It's not like it's been gradually rising at the same rate since 10,000 BCE...
https://climate.nasa.gov/rails/activ...ion=attachment

Current massive temperature spike (see far right end of plot):
https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Ar...00104-g001.jpg

Hmmm, a very significant spike in temperature over an *extremely* short time scale...

That's the biggest difference between historical changes in CO2 and temperature vs. now. It's the rate of change. BIG increase in CO2 levels over a short time, corresponding spike in temperature.

Have there been larger temperature fluctuations over *hundreds of thousands of years* prior to human influence, due to factors in addition to or other than CO2 levels? Yes. That doesn't mean you should conclude the current temperature rise is "small" and can't be related to anthropogenic CO2 (and methane) emissions which have drastically risen recently.

I would have, but these guys kept dragging it!

I will summarize: taking a 150-160 year sample data in light of thousands of years of data is extremely short-sighted. It's borderline manipulative, especially because the previous thousands of years didn't just not have a correlation, but had the reverse causation.

This would result in a spiraling out of control. In your words, a chicken laying an egg, and it becomes into a chicken, which lays another egg, which becomes another chicken, eventually there are millions of chickens and eggs.

The temperatures are no where at historical highs, and yet the emissions are.

What's the source of your 2nd graph? I see a different trend:

No it is not. Show me another 150-160 year sample where factors have changed so rapidly. You can't just throw this data away because you don't like it.

Believe it or not, the SCIENTISTS who study climate, are WAY tf ahead of you. You may or may not be as smart as they are (I'm guessing the latter), but they have the advantage of having studied closely all of the effects that you have mentioned *and countless other factors*. They aren't pulling these conclusions out of their arses... Those who do, lose their credibility very quickly...

Can same thing be said about scientists with counter evidences and counter arguments?

This is the song that never eeeennnnddddssss.

Not "slow" but certainly has an agenda and will make shit fit that agenda no matter how illogical it is.

I think that I have figured it out though!

He has stumbled onto the truth and global warming is all a scam by big business and the combined world governments! The science is all fake or wrong and anybody that try's to say otherwise is just dumb (hey we can't all be PHDs) or are deliberately hiding the truth.

Irace, Spuds, and everybody else are obviously minions of the government and private jet flyers that just lurk around car forums ready to pounce on anybody that finds and try's to expose the truth!

https://media.makeameme.org/created/...44af8dee82.jpg

My private jet has a prop and only seats two, do I still qualify?

Whatever floats your boat, man! Strawmanning is a great way to end the discussion after all.

chipmunk, just let it go. You won't convince them. Let them continue to think the sky is falling; they'll figure it out eventually.