New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

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.

I assume you know what an inflection point is, and that they occur in nature all the time. Basic strength of materials stuff, for example. The stress/strain curve is linear for some period until suddenly it's not when the material yields or fractures.

The evidence is pointing to the last few hundred years of human activity as being after an inflection point.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Spuds

I assume you know what an inflection point is, and that they occur in nature all the time. Basic strength of materials stuff, for example. The stress/strain curve is linear for some period until suddenly it's not when the material yields or fractures.

The evidence is pointing to the last few hundred years of human activity as being after an inflection point.

Categorical error. The reasoning doesn't translate.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Categorical error. The reasoning doesn't translate.

It's an analogy to get the point across. The point being that the macro result of complex patterns can and will show inflection points when certain limits are reached. Do you agree with that statement at least?

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Spuds

It's an analogy to get the point across. The point being that the macro result of complex patterns can and will show inflection points when certain limits are reached. Do you agree with that statement at least?

The statement that there is a rise in the observed temperatures in the recent history? Yes, I agree with that.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

The statement that there is a rise in the observed temperatures in the recent history? Yes, I agree with that.

I'm talking simpler. Do you agree that, in the real world, there can be inflection points in complex patterns when certain input thresholds are crossed?

Prominent examples include yield/ultimate strength of materials and coefficient of drag across the sound barrier

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Spuds

I'm talking simpler. Do you agree that, in the real world, there can be inflection points in complex patterns when certain input thresholds are crossed?

Prominent examples include yield/ultimate strength of materials and coefficient of drag across the sound barrier

That phenomenon exists, yes.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

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.

You do know it is possible for an egg to be the "cause" of a chicken, and for a chicken to also be the "cause" of an egg, right?

That in geologic history temp rise *caused* CO2 rise does NOT mean that CO2 rise does not or cannot *cause* temperature rise.

It is well established that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is also well known that recent rise in CO2 levels is due to human activity.

The whole "150 year 'blip'" thing you bring up is *all the more reason* to conclude that current temperature rise is in fact due to humans very rapidly increasing CO2 levels from 280ppm to 420ppm over a very short period of time.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

That phenomenon exists, yes.

Great! Now for the part we are having trouble with. The author clearly states the conclusion that one of these inflection points must have occurred in the Temperature/CO2 relationship within the last few hundred years.

-Do you disagree with the author's conclusion?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by 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."

You still don’t understand the paper, which clearly demonstrates your ideological filter or ineptitude. You are coming off as a troll and not someone with a PhD. The abstract and the paper are super clear, but the abstract isn’t written by the authors often. It is buy another person paid to paraphrase, and often they cherrypick quotes out of context to present findings, which is why you got confused because you clearly didn’t read the paper, which is plain as day in its findings.

You are getting defensive in light of getting shown a paper that meets your requirements. You set that standard. Not me. You demanded this type of evidence and now that I present it, you are throwing my words back at me because I agree that this study is not enough to sway anyone because one paper can’t do that. The body of evidence in thousands of papers does that, but you seem to continue to reject that verifiable fact.

Everyone here is trying to explain it to you, but you seem to be struggling with the very basics of reading comprehension. Maybe you need to argued less and research more with a more open mind and see what you find. Type global warming into a scholarly database and read papers.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

You still don’t understand the paper, which clearly demonstrates your ideological filter or ineptitude. You are coming off as a troll and not someone with a PhD.

To be fair, in my experience none of these things are mutually exclusive.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by ZDan

You do know it is possible for an egg to be the "cause" of a chicken, and for a chicken to also be the "cause" of an egg, right?

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.

[weederr33]

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.

Oh STFU already!!!

[Irace86.2.0]

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.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Categorical error. Logic does not translate.

Look, I know you are SLOW, but here it is again:

It is possible for a change in one factor to both a *cause* of and an *effect* of change in another factor.

Over geologic time scales, with no human inputs, rising temperatures led to increases in CO2 in the atmosphere (which helped further increased warming). Temperature rise caused CO2 rise (which caused further temp rise).

About 150 years ago, humans began emitting a lot of CO2, then about 70 years ago started emitting at an even faster rate. Atmospheric CO2 hangs around so the result has been an increase from ~280ppm circa 1870, up to ~310ppm circa 1950, and up to ~420ppm today. CO2 levels were below 300ppm for *hundreds of thousands of years* prior to this.

The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has caused temperatures to go up, as predicted.

From around 10000 BC until now, the temperatures have remained almost flat while methane and CO2 significantly ramped up compared to historic levels.

CO2 has risen *dramatically* since ~150 years ago and even more dramatically since 1950. It's not like it's been gradually rising at the same rate since 10,000 BCE...


Current massive temperature spike (see far right end of plot):


Hmmm, a very significant spike in temperature over an *extremely* short time scale...

That's the biggest difference between historical changes in CO2 and temperature vs. now. It's the rate of change. BIG increase in CO2 levels over a short time, corresponding spike in temperature.

Have there been larger temperature fluctuations over *hundreds of thousands of years* prior to human influence, due to factors in addition to or other than CO2 levels? Yes. That doesn't mean you should conclude the current temperature rise is "small" and can't be related to anthropogenic CO2 (and methane) emissions which have drastically risen recently.