Quote:
Originally Posted by chipmunk
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.
|
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.