Originally Posted by chipmunk (Post 3544369)

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

Originally Posted by ZDan (Post 3544410)

You must be kidding... "Air temperatures in *Greenland*"? First of all, you cannot just look at LOCAL temperatures. Changing climate can be *very* different for different regions, and you can *cherry-pick* a location that magically suits your desired conclusions.

Quick search suggests this is "data" from denialist quacks "Carter, Spooner, et al". John Spooner is a *cartoonist*. and Bob Carter was a geologist specializing in palaeontology, stratigraphy, marine geology, and "environmental science" (right) (1942-2016).

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k (Post 3544404)

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.

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k (Post 3543456)

We're already witnessing a disaster first hand, almost entirely brought to you by the left leaning side of most "western" governments.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 (Post 3544415)

Or he will figure it out eventually. The timeline for ozone layer denial is playing out very similarly to global warming denial.

https://debunkingdenial.com/the-ozon...rsy-part-ii-2/

Originally Posted by chipmunk (Post 3544364)

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.

Originally Posted by ZDan (Post 3544410)

You must be kidding... "Air temperatures in *Greenland*"? First of all, you cannot just look at LOCAL temperatures. Changing climate can be *very* different for different regions, and you can *cherry-pick* a location that magically suits your desired conclusions.

Quick search suggests this is "data" from denialist quacks "Carter, Spooner, et al". John Spooner is a *cartoonist*. and Bob Carter was a geologist specializing in palaeontology, stratigraphy, marine geology, and "environmental science" (right) (1942-2016).

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 (Post 3544422)

So then stop wasting our time...

Maybe rising CO2 now won't cause the same temperature that correlated to the CO2 in the past, which is probably why the models are more conservative with their temperature estimates. Regardless, most people don't want to wait around to see what happens when CO2 levels get to 500+ and take a chance with what the temperature could be like.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 (Post 3544412)

Several of his links are from conspiracy theorists. I'm convinced he is going to some other dark hole on the internet and asking his QAnon friends about what he should say next here. Bla bla bla, deep state, bla, bla, bla, Gore and Gates, bla, bla, bla.

Originally Posted by chipmunk (Post 3544431)

Cherry picking... like selecting only the convenient 150-160 year window while the rest of it disproves the author?

The minute you say an author is a denialist quack, it immediately shows a prejudice and bias. You're putting everyone who disagrees with you under an umbrella term, and categorically rejecting everything they say. And somehow you claim that you're unbiased?

Originally Posted by chipmunk (Post 3544431)

Cherry picking... like selecting only the convenient 150-160 year window while the rest of it disproves the author?

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 (Post 3544437)

That isn’t enough to determine global temperatures or get a full picture of Greenland.]

Originally Posted by ZDan (Post 3544438)

Why are we specifically not allowed to look at this 150-160 year window?! Wow, I guess if we are only allowed to look at data from when human inputs were minimal, we'll find little to no human influence...

Originally Posted by chipmunk (Post 3544343)

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.

Originally Posted by chipmunk (Post 3544439)

Global averages.