New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

I did change my mind once on this topic. It's not hard to do it again if enough data is presented. All I'm doing is trying to counter what you guys are presenting, so far I haven't found any strong defense.

All we have gone back and forth on is co2 absorbing IR. What’s your main argument?

To answer your other post. That demonstration is just on co2 absorbing IR. I’d imagine if you were showing the increase in temperature you would want a control as well to show there is a change.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Spuds

I don't. But you can certainly ask NASA.

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-cl...nhouse-effect/

According to NASA...
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fe...r_warming.html

Watervapor (including clouds) is attributed to anywhere between 65-80% of temperature increase.

Further reading:
https://globalchange.mit.edu/news-me...-vapor-and-you
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...t-the-co2.html
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/greenhouse-effect-101

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

According to NASA...
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fe...r_warming.html

Watervapor (including clouds) is attributed to anywhere between 65-80% of temperature increase.

Further reading:
https://globalchange.mit.edu/news-me...-vapor-and-you
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...t-the-co2.html
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/greenhouse-effect-101

Here is a climate report by the IPCC that was released recently. Below is the 40 page paper for policy makers, but there is a 3k page paper in the link below if you want to get deep into the data.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/d...licymakers.pdf

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/


The warmer the environment and the more we create heat from the byproducts of combustion the more water vapor will be in the air, so yes, water vapor is bad and worse than CO2. Methane is far worse than CO2 too, but CO2 stays in the air much longer too. The rise in average global temperatures are from all forms of greenhouse gases related to HUMAN ACTIVITY. All the evidence in the report above is that we are causing these changes. Even if we weren't causing all of the warming trend, we don't want to be exacerbating those trends.

I think you would agree that we can't burn fossil fuels indefinitely, nor can we continue to add CO2 to the air indefinitely. When would you suggest we transition to renewables? What's the problem with doing it now?

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

All we have gone back and forth on is co2 absorbing IR. What’s your main argument?

To answer your other post. That demonstration is just on co2 absorbing IR. I’d imagine if you were showing the increase in temperature you would want a control as well to show there is a change.

I may not be good at articulating well, since English is my 3rd language. This professor is better at explaining it. You should be able to view the article through most public universities.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2974452?origin=crossref

More...
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.co....1002/joc.1651
https://journals.ametsoc.org/configurable/content/journals$002fbams$002f86$002f11$002fbams-86-11-1571.xml?t:ac=journals%24002fbams%24002f86%24002f1 1%24002fbams-86-11-1571.xml
http://web.archive.org/web/200903290...rature/#sciref

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Here is a climate report by the IPCC that was released recently. Below is the 40 page paper for policy makers, but there is a 3k page paper in the link below if you want to get deep into the data.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/d...licymakers.pdf

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/


The warmer the environment and the more we create heat from the byproducts of combustion the more water vapor will be in the air, so yes, water vapor is bad and worse than CO2. Methane is far worse than CO2 too, but CO2 stays in the air much longer too. The rise in average global temperatures are from all forms of greenhouse gases related to HUMAN ACTIVITY. All the evidence in the report above is that we are causing these changes. Even if we weren't causing all of the warming trend, we don't want to be exacerbating those trends.

I think you would agree that we can't burn fossil fuels indefinitely, nor can we continue to add CO2 to the air indefinitely. When would you suggest we transition to renewables? What's the problem with doing it now?

Like I said earlier, point me to the underlying scientific studies. IPCC is not a scientific community like ASME or ASC, etc. IPCC is no better than a UN or NATO.
Have you seen my links from earlier?

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

According to NASA...
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fe...r_warming.html

Watervapor (including clouds) is attributed to anywhere between 65-80% of temperature increase.

Further reading:
https://globalchange.mit.edu/news-me...-vapor-and-you
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...t-the-co2.html
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/greenhouse-effect-101

That NASA article is from 2008. Even a disclaimer at the top.

Disclaimer: This material is being kept online for historical purposes. Though accurate at the time of publication, it is no longer being updated. The page may contain broken links or outdated information, and parts may not function in current web browsers. Visit NASA.gov for current information

From one of your other articles (note, this is in response to random readers):

Reilly warns, however, that scientists don’t blame water vapor or clouds for global warming.
“Concerns about global warming are about how human beings are altering the radiative balance,” says Reilly. “While some of the things we do change water vapor directly, they are insignificant. Increasing ghg's [greenhouse gases] through warming will increase water vapor and that is a big positive feedback [meaning: the more greenhouse gases, the more water vapor, the higher the temperature]. But the root cause are ghg's. So in talking about what is changing the climate, changes in water vapor are not a root cause.”

For reference:

John Reilly, professor at MIT and co-director of the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Center for Environmental Policy Research

The other two articles seem to agree that non-water greenhouse gasses are the primary cause of global warming.

Not sure where you are getting your conclusions from...

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Like I said earlier, point me to the underlying scientific studies. IPCC is not a scientific community like ASME or ASC, etc. IPCC is no better than a UN or NATO.
Have you seen my links from earlier?

They didn't pull the data from their ass, right? They were just presenting the data from peer reviewed journals in a format that was digestible for politicians. Read the 3k page paper because I'm sure there will be plenty of references for you to research the topics further that will satisfy all your questions. You are asking for the papers, but they are there, so until you can point to something there that you have issue with then I'm assuming you are being lazy with your research.

If you need something more immediately abbreviated, here are a few nice discussion with some papers and data sets linked:

http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temp...Annual2021.pdf
https://www.cia-ica.ca/docs/default-...15/215068e.pdf

You can research for yourself. It isn't hidden. Have you seen my links from earlier and my arguments?

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Like I said earlier, point me to the underlying scientific studies. IPCC is not a scientific community like ASME or ASC, etc. IPCC is no better than a UN or NATO.
Have you seen my links from earlier?

ASME is the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, not really "scientific community" in the sense of doing hard *science*. They primarily develop engineering standards (I'm using their pressure vessel code for design and analysis of a vacuum chamber for a spectrograph). There's no reason to expect ASME to be a source for science on the effects of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But anyway here's something from their site you may find interesting: https://www.asme.org/topics-resource...global-warming

IPCC gathers information and science regarding climate change and assess impacts of anthropogenic factors. If anything they are quite *conservative* in their projections. But they don't sponsor the science, they gather it and report on its implications.

But anyway, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is pretty well established scientific fact, outside of any IPCC documents and YouTube experiments, so if those are not sufficient for you as adequate "proof", that is irrelevant to the conversation. You can feel free to offer up science "debunking" CO2 as a greenhouse gas and I'm sure there is stuff out there just as there are "scientific" studies supporting a flat earth...

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Spuds

That NASA article is from 2008. Even a disclaimer at the top.

From one of your other articles (note, this is in response to random readers):


For reference:
The other two articles seem to agree that non-water greenhouse gasses are the primary cause of global warming.

Not sure where you are getting your conclusions from...

So are you discarding every study prior to 2008 to be outdated and no longer seen as valid?

In stead of responding to each of the posts, I'll offer all you guys one thing:
Although not exhaustive, I did link some studies in my earlier posts. Using the same levels of standard of reason and logic that you'd use in all other topics, please critique and refute them. There are probably about 8-12 paper altogether.
I'm not here to change your minds, but I will defend my position. If you care, go ahead and take a look at them. But if you don't want to entertain any other ideas and stick to your own no matter what, you might as well save your time and mine, since it won't go anywhere.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by ZDan

ASME is the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, not really "scientific community" in the sense of doing hard *science*. They primarily develop engineering standards (I'm using their pressure vessel code for design and analysis of a vacuum chamber for a spectrograph).

Trying publishing a paper on ASME or AIAA, etc. As for the link you mentioned, what would you say about the papers I linked, although not ASME, they're still peer reviewed journals.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

They didn't pull the data from their ass, right?

Those studies have detailed explanation of the data, metadata, methods, and analysis in their studies. Do you use the same level of skepticism while reading pro-global warming articles too?

I did read about half of the links you guys sent, not all of them. Anyway, I can't keep tagging everyone to respond to each separately. Please refer to my response to Spuds.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

So are you discarding every study prior to 2008 to be outdated and no longer seen as valid?

In stead of responding to each of the posts, I'll offer all you guys one thing:
Although not exhaustive, I did link some studies in my earlier posts. Using the same levels of standard of reason and logic that you'd use in all other topics, please critique and refute them. There are probably about 8-12 paper altogether.
I'm not here to change your minds, but I will defend my position. If you care, go ahead and take a look at them. But if you don't want to entertain any other ideas and stick to your own no matter what, you might as well save your time and mine, since it won't go anywhere.

All data, analysis, and conclusions from the papers you posted explicitly and unequivocally support the idea that human activity-sourced greenhouse gasses such as CO2 are the primary drivers of the modern increase in global temperature. Every single one I've looked at explicitly states the conclusion that man-made greenhouse causes abnormal heat retention, that extra heat causes more water vapor, which in turn causes more heat retention.

Your conclusions that CO2 has an insignificant effect on global heat retention are directly counter to the analysis and conclusions of the people who actually did the study.

I mentioned the paper from 2008 being outdated because newer papers with better data from better instruments are likely to have superseded that as state-of-the-art in the last 14 years. When the publishing source declares a paper out of date, you should seek out the latest information. More extreme example: I am sure there is a publication concluding blood letting was the cure for influenza from 1748 or something. Can you imagine a modern doctor citing that document as a reason to try it on a patient?

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

I may not be good at articulating well, since English is my 3rd language. This professor is better at explaining it. You should be able to view the article through most public universities.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2974452?origin=crossref

More...
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.co....1002/joc.1651
https://journals.ametsoc.org/configurable/content/journals$002fbams$002f86$002f11$002fbams-86-11-1571.xml?t:ac=journals%24002fbams%24002f86%24002f1 1%24002fbams-86-11-1571.xml
http://web.archive.org/web/200903290...rature/#sciref

I’ll try to comb through these Monday at work. Reading them from my phone is going to give me a headache.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Spuds

All data, analysis, and conclusions from the papers you posted explicitly and unequivocally support the idea that human activity-sourced greenhouse gasses such as CO2 are the primary drivers of the modern increase in global temperature. Every single one I've looked at explicitly states the conclusion that man-made greenhouse causes abnormal heat retention, that extra heat causes more water vapor, which in turn causes more heat retention.

Your conclusions that CO2 has an insignificant effect on global heat retention are directly counter to the analysis and conclusions of the people who actually did the study.

How sure how you understood that, but I'll leave you off with this Spuds. I'm not gonna dig into every article I posted, so this is just one.
Trying to respond properly to 3 different people requires about 3 times my time. My only request is your diligence to understand the counter arguments without a preconceived bias. One can't disagree with something one doesn't fully know.

But hey, if any of you are in Detroit area, I could use an extra set of hands tearing down a deck.