New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

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?

Okay, now I believe you are incompetent, and I think you are a troll, and I question your stated qualifications because it is plain as day for you to read. Why don’t you actually read the whole paper? It is only a few pages. Do that, and then try to answer your own question.

Their model shows human emissions are causing global warming, while simultaneously showing past warming caused a rise in natural emissions. If that is confusing to you how that could be the case then please read the paper closer.

We use this technique to analyse the recently measured global mean surface air temperature anomalies (GMTA)36 and various reconstructed external forcings covering the period from 1850 to 2005 (156 years)37. To introduce the method we calculate the information flow (IF) in nat (natural unit of information) per unit time [nat/ut] from the 156 years annual time series of global CO2 concentration to GMTA as 0.348 ± 0.112 nat/ut and −0.006 ± 0.003 nat/ut in the reverse direction. Obviously, the former is significantly different from zero, while the latter, in comparison to the former, is negligible. This result unambiguously shows a one-way causality in the sense that the recent CO2 increase is causing the temperature increase, but not the other way around. The results prove to be robust against detrending the data (SI, Table SI2), selecting shorter time periods as e.g. using only the last 100 years, or against using decadal means only (results not shown).

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Okay, now I believe you are incompetent, and I think you are a troll, and I question your stated qualifications because it is plain as day for you to read. Why don’t you actually read the whole paper? It is only a few pages. Do that, and then try to answer your own question.

Their model shows human emissions are causing global warming, while simultaneously showing past warming caused a rise in natural emissions. If that is confusing to you how that could be the case then please read the paper closer.

In the next section he's talking about long-term temperatures.

Explain to me your logic why you accept finding A and reject finding B - both by the same author in the same paper.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

In the next section he's talking about long-term temperatures.

Explain to me your logic why you accept finding A and reject finding B - both by the same author in the same paper.

Man, you are struggling, and I don't know why. I'm not disagreeing with anything the author is saying. You are conflating two ideas and misrepresenting the findings, seemingly unintentionally.

They are saying that their model demonstrates that the anthropomorphic emissions are causing a rise in CO2, which is directly causing a rise in global temperatures. Their model excludes natural causes from being a possibility. This is exactly the type of paper you were requesting.

Their model also shows that the past changes in temperature proceeded a rise in CO2; ie, in the past 800,000 years, when the temperature would naturally rise (over a vast amount of time) this would lead to a subsequent rise in CO2, which is exactly the opposite of what their model showed is happening now, where CO2 is the driving force behind the rise in global temperatures (see below).

Further we apply this technique to analyse paleoclimatological air temperature (PAT)40 and CO2/CH4 data from the EPICA Dome C ice cores41,42 from the last 800,000 years. Both time series are interpolated on the same time steps of 1000 years using the AICC201243,44 chronology. As already known the two data set are highly correlated with a correlation coefficient of 0.842 ± 0. By calculating the IF in nat per unit time from the 1000 year interpolated PAT time series to CO2 concentration we get 0.123 ± 0.060 nat/ut and −0.054 ± 0.040 nat/ut in the reverse direction. Therefore we have on these long time scales a significant IF only from the temperature data to the CO2, but not in the other direction, exactly opposite to that seen in the data from the last 156 years.

This supports the hypothesis that on geological time scales air temperature changes are causing the subsequent changes in CO2 concentration. This was already hypothesized by46, who claimed that CO2 lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years, during a specific deglaciation event (Termination III ~ 240,000 years ago).

The causality analysis indicates that for the full 800,000 years time series PAT is indeed leading CO2 because of the significant IF from PAT to CO2.

Therefore the causal drive of temperature on the CH4 dynamics is even stronger than for CO2. This supports the expectation that on paleoclimatological time scales changing temperature could be held responsible for following changes in greenhouse gas (CO2/CH4) concentrations.

(Reposted link to paper for reference)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4761980/

Again, this isn't hard to follow if you read the paper or even a full paragraph. With a PhD, I would expect an easy comprehension of the above paragraph from you. I also would expect a lay person to understand that what is true over thousands or tens of thousands of years is not necessarily true over decades. Is that what you are struggling with?

The power of science is in its ability to make applications and to make models for prediction, so that when scientists go make observations, surprise surprise, they find what the model predicted. The model these scientists made corroborates the past, while explaining current events. Got it?

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Man, you are struggling, and I don't know why. I'm not disagreeing with anything the author is saying. You are conflating two ideas and misrepresenting the findings, seemingly unintentionally.

They are saying that their model demonstrates that the anthropomorphic emissions are causing a rise in CO2, which is directly causing a rise in global temperatures. Their model excludes natural causes from being a possibility. This is exactly the type of paper you were requesting.

Their model also shows that the past changes in temperature proceeded a rise in CO2; ie, in the past 800,000 years, when the temperature would naturally rise (over a vast amount of time) this would lead to a subsequent rise in CO2, which is exactly the opposite of what their model showed is happening now, where CO2 is the driving force behind the rise in global temperatures (see below).









(Reposted link to paper for reference)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4761980/

Again, this isn't hard to follow if you read the paper or even a full paragraph. With a PhD, I would expect an easy comprehension of the above paragraph from you. I also would expect a lay person to understand that what is true over thousands or tens of thousands of years is not necessarily true over decades. Is that what you are struggling with?

The power of science is in its ability to make applications and to make models for prediction, so that when scientists go make observations, surprise surprise, they find what the model predicted. The model these scientists made corroborates the past, while explaining current events. Got it?

I agree with the Irace's evaluation of the analysis and conclusions. The author explicitly states, multiple times, that the findings from the study indicate that greenhouse gasses in the last 156 years are the cause, not the result, of global warming. The author also states that the study indicates that this modern period shows a very different pattern than the thousands of years before it before it. From those two results it's quite straightforward to conclude that something (such as the industrial revolution) caused the pattern to change within the last few hundred years, much like the author did.

I'm sure the author would welcome open, transparent and public comments on their own interpretation of the data, but such a move risks the challenger appearing a fool if they don't actually understand the data.

[Spuds]

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.

About 2 lines below your highlighted line is the time period in question. It was in reference to an event over 200,000 years ago.

[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.

Bringing this back up, the only thing left to show after Irace's article that I can think of is proof that GHGs block infrared radiation and that GHGs are present in the atmosphere. Surely you already recognize those statements as fact at this point?

[ZDan]

@Irace86.2.0 and @Spuds have covered this already, my 0.02:
I am by no means a climate science expert, but even I know that over *geologic time scales* (10s of thousands to 10s-100s of millions of years) temp rise has preceded CO2 rise (which then further amplifies temp rise).

That is not what is happening now, now we have added and continue to add CO2 to the atmosphere, and that is resulting in the temperature rise we are currently experiencing. And the higher temps are increasing water vapor in the atmosphere which further adds to warming. But the root cause that we've increased CO2 from 280ppm to 420ppm.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Bringing this back up, the only thing left to show after Irace's article that I can think of is proof that GHGs block infrared radiation and that GHGs are present in the atmosphere. Surely you already recognize those statements as fact at this point?

His article proves him wrong on my point #4.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by ZDan

@Irace86.2.0 and @Spuds have covered this already, my 0.02:
I am by no means a climate science expert, but even I know that over *geologic time scales* (10s of thousands to 10s-100s of millions of years) temp rise has preceded CO2 rise (which then further amplifies temp rise).

That is not what is happening now, now we have added and continue to add CO2 to the atmosphere, and that is resulting in the temperature rise we are currently experiencing. And the higher temps are increasing water vapor in the atmosphere which further adds to warming. But the root cause that we've increased CO2 from 280ppm to 420ppm.

Historically, while we have 100s of 1000s of years of data to say that higher temperatures cause higher CO2 (not just proceeded, as Irace claims), somehow the correlation within the last 150+ years negates that? In the course of 800,000 years, 150 years is a blip. 799,850 years of causation (not just correlation, according to his own post), somehow pitted against 150+ years of causation. According to Irace's own standards of consensus, that's about 99.98%.

[chipmunk]

Do you agree with your article in its entirety?

You have said a lot of intellectual dishonesty/inability, ideological agenda, evidence denier, etc. Yet you fail or refuse to measure yourself by the same standards.

Here are some of your famous quotes so far:

said, "climate change can lead to an area getting colder or warmer in extremes or extremes in weather anomalies, even if the global averages are higher", yet didn't have an answer to the paper I linked.

talked about all the evidence and counter-evidence, but yet said, "Science doesn't prove. It shows, suggest or demonstrates. You should know that. Prove is a "four letter word" in science."

said, "This is far from debatable. This is established science that is only getting more and more refined", while you couldn't defend the 1 link you eventually posted.

said, "Hypothesis leads to studies (observations), which eventually lead to models to explain processes." Incorrect. An observation leads to questions, and then theories, and then design of an experiment that addresses the hypothesis.

accused me of cherry-picking, yet you are actively doing this yourself.

said, "They were just presenting the data from peer reviewed journals in a format that was digestible for politicians", and, "you are quoting an organization and appealing to evidence stemming from them", yet clinging to IPCC reports.

said, "I agree that providing evidence from the very papers used by chipmunk that he was citing as reliable is very reasonable and should be compelling to chipmunk if he is being intellectually honest", and "Why don’t you actually read the whole paper? It is only a few pages", yet you didn't even comprehend the abstract, nor do you understand what paleontological means.

besides veiled ad hominem, you committed basic logical fallacy of leading the question, and quoted, "the public has become polarized over fundamental questions such as human-caused global warming. Communication strategies to reduce polarization rarely address the underlying cause: ideologically-driven misinformation."

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Historically, while we have 100s of 1000s of years of data to say that higher temperatures cause higher CO2 (not just proceeded, as Irace claims), somehow the correlation within the last 150+ years negates that? In the course of 800,000 years, 150 years is a blip. 799,850 years of causation (not just correlation, according to his own post), somehow pitted against 150+ years of causation. According to Irace's own standards of consensus, that's about 99.98%.

*Groan*
You are still missing it.

In the past, in geologic history, prior to humans having any impact at all, temperature rise preceded, caused CO2 rise.
That does not mean that CO2 rise does not cause temperature rise. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is known to cause temperature rise.
It also does not mean that current CO2 levels are due to temperature rise. We know that CO2 rise we've seen since the industrial revolution is due to human activity.

The rapid increase in global temperatures over the past couple of decades is primarily due to the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to 420ppm. This is NOT negated by the fact that over the history of the earth, prior to humans, CO2 rise lagged temperature rise.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by ZDan

*Groan*
In the past, in geologic history, prior to humans having any impact at all, temperature rise preceded (possibly caused) CO2 rise.
That does not mean that CO2 rise does not cause temperature rise. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is known to cause temperature rise.
It also does not mean that current CO2 levels are due to temperature rise. We know that CO2 rise we've seen since the industrial revolution is due to human activity.

Tell me something: what is the cause, and what is the effect.
Claiming a phenomenon based on 150+ years to be a fact while you have 799850 years saying otherwise is an aberration at most.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Historically, while we have 100s of 1000s of years of data to say that higher temperatures cause higher CO2 (not just proceeded, as Irace claims), somehow the correlation within the last 150+ years negates that? In the course of 800,000 years, 150 years is a blip. 799,850 years of causation (not just correlation, according to his own post), somehow pitted against 150+ years of causation. According to Irace's own standards of consensus, that's about 99.98%.

You are looking at this differently than the rest of us, and in my opinion improperly based on context. Irace is not saying the data is at all contradictory. Think about it as if it were a data plot with time as the x axis and "delay between temperature and CO2 release" as the y axis.

-For hundreds of thousands of years, we have evidence and models indicating that, as you say, CO2 follows the temperature changes. The plot is always some value of positive. This is supported by other studies of known events.
-Using evidence from the last few hundred years the same models indicate that a very sharp change in CO2 is preceding a very sharp change in temperature. The plot has suddenly become negative for the modern values of x.

The logical conclusion of the author, and everyone else in this discussion, is that we are seeing some phenomenon unprecedented in the measurable span of Earth's history.


Your conclusion, that this is a blip and everything will take care of itself in the long run is flawed for a number of reasons. 1, that is not supported by direct observational evidence of the current phenomenon. 2, I am far less concerned about a data point 10,000 years in the future than I am 50, 100, 200 years in the future. If the Earth eventually goes back to normal after we all die off, then we have failed.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Spuds

You are looking at this differently than the rest of us, and in my opinion improperly based on context. Irace is not saying the data is at all contradictory. Think about it as if it were a data plot with time as the x axis and "delay between temperature and CO2 release" as the y axis.

-For hundreds of thousands of years, we have evidence and models indicating that, as you say, CO2 follows the temperature changes. The plot is always some value of positive. This is supported by other studies of known events.
-Using evidence from the last few hundred years the same models indicate that a very sharp change in CO2 is preceding a very sharp change in temperature. The plot has suddenly become negative for the modern values of x.

The logical conclusion of the author, and everyone else in this discussion, is that we are seeing some phenomenon unprecedented in the measurable span of Earth's history.


Your conclusion, that this is a blip and everything will take care of itself in the long run is flawed for a number of reasons. 1, that is not supported by direct observational evidence of the current phenomenon. 2, I am far less concerned about a data point 10,000 years in the future than I am 50, 100, 200 years in the future. If the Earth eventually goes back to normal after we all die off, then we have failed.

A 150 compared to ~800000 puts it in around 3 sigma SD.

Few other things:
1. A direct observation requires that we suddenly stop all modern activities, and go back to Renaissance times and measure the average temperatures.
2. Deduction is far greater than Induction. In Wall Street terms, current trends don't dictate future events.
3. CO2 makes up about 0.04% of the composition. Even if you assume that its contribution is 25% to GHG, while leaving water vapor alone, is in no way effective.