New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[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.

[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.