New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

And until you prove me otherwise, I will stick to that.

As I said in my follow up nobody will ever "prove" anything to you as you will simply disregard, ignore, reverse or counter with an even more obscure twist.

[Sasquachulator]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

As I said in my follow up nobody will ever "prove" anything to you as you will simply disregard, ignore, reverse or counter with an even more obscure twist.

The M. Night Shamalyan of internet arguments?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Depends on how many you want

Again, 97% of scientific papers are coming to the conclusion that the changes are anthropomorphic (See previous post).

You can post dozens or hundreds, but the conclusions of a few are heavily outweighed by the conclusions of the many. This can happen if their data set is too narrow, or they used an imperfect process for measurement, or they failed to properly analyze their data to account for confounding variables, or they failed to find true significance in their data sets. Scientists not only do studies, but they also analyze studies and respond to poor studies that passed the review process. Irregardless, you say you are not playing a numbers game, and that you are going for quality over quantity, but then you post a few more studies. Why don't you start with demonstrating why 97% of articles affirm that global warming is caused by humans. Why are those studies not quality studies?

Originally Posted by chipmunk

First a proper definition of what's all included under GHG umbrella.
Next, all the causes of temp rise
Next, contribution of each of the causes to the overall rise
Then, historical changes to these contributions and whether long-term correlation & causation can be established within the historical data time period we have.

My area is Solid Mechanics. But the analysis techniques are similar for all PhD disciplines

You want all of this to be in one study? Scientists do specialize and build on the work of themselves and others. There might be a scientists dealing with methane emissions from industry and another on just geologic sources and another on agriculture, for instance. What you are asking is for a body of evidence for A leading to a body of evidence for B leading to a body of evidence for C, thus A equals C, and then you want that in a single study encompassing everything and not in the format of IPCC report. I'm sorry, but this is not realistic, and you should know better.

It is people with this level of skepticism that I often ask if they hold the same level of skepticism for everything in their life, and I often find, when I know the individual, that it is either the case that they are highly cynical, or it is apparent they are special pleading that something they ideologically disagree with requires higher levels of scrutiny than other things they adopt with far less or no scrutiny.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

And until you prove me otherwise, I will stick to that.

Science doesn't prove. It shows, suggest or demonstrates. You should know that. Prove is a "four letter word" in science.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

It is people with this level of skepticism that I often ask if they hold the same level of skepticism for everything in their life, and I often find, when I know the individual, that it is either the case that they are highly cynical, or it is apparent they are special pleading that something they ideologically disagree with requires higher levels of scrutiny than other things they adopt with far less or no scrutiny.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Bachelors was the broader Mechanical. Both MS and PhD in Solid Mechanics.

1. Definitions are prone to change from person to person, so let's see: CO2 and water vapor seem to be the biggest contributors. Not sure how many of these GHG umbrellas include vapor on its lists.
2. List of all causes, regardless of % contributions. In one of the articles I posted to Irace, there is graphical data showing significant correlation to sun activity. This is often ignored in most outlets. Same with water vapor.
3. Individual contributions. This is where it gets tricky. I have only seen short-term correlation studies, nothing causative. A non-correlation often always means non-causation, but a correlation does not necesarily mean causation.
4. Long-term correlation and causation. This is the meat and potatoes.

Interesting, is that mechanical engineering, physics, or mathematics?

1. From the NASA article I linked: "The greenhouse gases in the dry air in Earth’s atmosphere include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons." I think we will consolidate those as "dry GHG" we can add water vapor to this list as a "wet GHG". I agree we can limit the scope of our discussion to CO2 and water vapor for the most part, just wanting to be complete.
2. So the list is currently GHG (both wet and dry) and solar intensity? Anything else you want to include? I would suggest changes in Earth's surface absorption/reflection ratio might play a role, but haven't looked into it very much.

If we agree on 1 and 2 we can start getting into more details for 3 and 4 (later, I have to do work)

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Interesting, is that mechanical engineering, physics, or mathematics?

It's Applied Mechanics with quite a bit differential calculus; Physics is basically limited to atomic- & lattice-levels.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

It is people with this level of skepticism that I often ask if they hold the same level of skepticism for everything in their life, and I often find, when I know the individual, that it is either the case that they are highly cynical, or it is apparent they are special pleading that something they ideologically disagree with requires higher levels of scrutiny than other things they adopt with far less or no scrutiny.

My point exactly!

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Bachelors was the broader Mechanical. Both MS and PhD in Solid Mechanics.

1. Definitions are prone to change from person to person, so let's see: CO2 and water vapor seem to be the biggest contributors. Not sure how many of these GHG umbrellas include vapor on its lists.
2. List of all causes, regardless of % contributions. In one of the articles I posted to Irace, there is graphical data showing significant correlation to sun activity. This is often ignored in most outlets. Same with water vapor.
3. Individual contributions. This is where it gets tricky. I have only seen short-term correlation studies, nothing causative. A non-correlation often always means non-causation, but a correlation does not necesarily mean causation.
4. Long-term correlation and causation. This is the meat and potatoes.

1. You missed methane. Methane has a greater greenhouse effect than CO2 by 25:1, and I believe up to 80:1 in the first 20 years it is in the atmosphere. It has a shorter duration in the atmosphere. Methane has doubled in the atmosphere over the last few centuries, a lot of which, is from anthropomorphic causes. With that said, methane concentrations are 200x less than CO2 and lasts decades instead of centuries.
2. Again, one study will likely fail to encompass everything when these scientists do much to specialize.
3. Here is a study, but it isn't alone obviously:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4761980/
4. Even double blind studies are correlation studies with just a really high possibility of causation. Nothing in science is 100%. We aren't exactly going to do a double-blind study on the planet. We can simulate, but we only have observational data and correlation. Long-term correlation is better than short-term correlation, but what is long term to you?

--------------------------------------

97% consensus on climate change? More like 99.94%, study finds

But in 2017, James Powell published an even larger meta-analysis of 54,195 peer-reviewed papers, finding a 99.94% consensus about human-caused climate change. Again, more recent papers seem to back the idea up even more overwhelmingly.

https://www.zmescience.com/science/n...nsus-07042018/

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

My point exactly!

Again, you are the one disagreeing with the findings of 97%+ of the literature on anthropomorphic global warming. I took the null hypothesis until I saw the validity and overwhelming volume of evidence affirming the scientific consensus. At a certain point, the level of skepticism approaches on the irrational like the flat earthers who claim to have a position, but who also claim to be unbiased and that they are only accepting a null hypothesis until they have proof. They become evidence deniers and lose credibility, special pleading.

On other issues, I was born Catholic, was an alter-boy, CCD, the works, but I found the arguments for religion and theology lacking. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the evidence is overwhelmingly lacking, despite the extraordinary claims and popularity of religion.

I'm also entirely capable of changing my mind in light of solid/mounting evidence, as was the case with the COVID vaccination, as it pertains to preventing the spread of COVID. All the evidence shows the vaccine does an overwhelmingly great job at preventing serious complications and death for those who would respond poorly to COVID infection, but it does little to nothing to prevent transmission, so I changed my position in light of the evidence that vaccination status should influence social distancing.

Based on some of your links to questionable sources (JFK assassination conspiracies), and on your poor reading and statements of the studies you post, it seems like you could be an evidence denier and not genuinely curious and skeptical. That is just how it is looking so far.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4761980/

Yea forgot about methane!

Anyway, the temperatures are apparently the cause and the CO2 is the effect, not the other way around.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

97%+

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...h=c5f0c32485dd


Listen, it's easy for both of us to say, "I'm the one being fair, the other guy is biased and unwilling to be open-minded". We're both accusing each other of the same. At this point, we're both hitting a wall pretty hard. I don't see much fruit in continuing, as this is gonna go on forever

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Yea forgot about methane!

Anyway, the temperatures are apparently the cause and the CO2 is the effect, not the other way around.

You are cherrypicking from the author, while taking the statement out of context. Again, the only conclusion I can draw from this type of recurrent analysis from you is that you are either being disingenuous or are incompetent. I'll assume the former, but eventually that will start to change.

Their model demonstrates a causative correlation of human produced GHG and the increase in global temperatures, while also showing that there is an inverse relationship throughout the geologic record, where naturally rising temperatures lead to an increase in CO2/methane emissions. Again, this is very clear, so what are you confused about?

The values in Table 1 clearly confirm that the total greenhouse gases (GHG), especially the CO2, are the main drivers of the changing global surface air temperature. The radiative forcing caused by aerosols and aerosol-cloud interactions is also important, but significantly smaller (0.2 vs. 0.3 nat/ut). Neither solar irradiance nor volcanic forcing contributes in a significant manner to the long-term GMTA evolution.

Using the IF concept we were able to confirm the inherent one-way causality between human activities and global warming, as during the last 150 years the increasing anthropogenic radiative forcing is driving the increasing global temperature, a result that cannot be inferred from traditional time delayed correlation or ordinary least square regression analysis. Natural forcing (solar forcing and volcanic activities) contributes only marginally to the global temperature dynamics during the last 150 years. Human influence, especially via CO2 radiative forcing, has been detected to be significant since about the 1960s.

However on very long time scales (800,000 years) the IF is only significant in the direction from air temperature to CO2. This supports the idea that the feedback of GHGs to temperature changes seems to be much slower than the fast response of temperature to changes in GHGs48.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

You are cherrypicking from the author, while taking the statement out of context. Again, the only conclusion I can draw from this type of recurrent analysis from you is that you are either being disingenuous or are incompetent. I'll assume the former, but eventually that will start to change.

Their model demonstrates a causative correlation of human produced GHG and the increase in global temperatures, while also showing that there is an inverse relationship throughout the geologic record, where naturally rising temperatures lead to an increase in CO2/methane emissions. Again, this is very clear, so what are you confused about?

And the authors' conclusions, after the whole analysis was the negative causation. I didn't quote them quoting someone else. How can there be a self-contradictory statement from the paper. The question is, in the grand scenario, what's the cause and what's the effect?