New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

What's the source of your 2nd graph? I see a different trend:

You must be kidding... "Air temperatures in *Greenland*"? First of all, you cannot just look at LOCAL temperatures. Changing climate can be *very* different for different regions, and you can *cherry-pick* a location that magically suits your desired conclusions.

Quick search suggests this is "data" from denialist quacks "Carter, Spooner, et al". John Spooner is a *cartoonist*. and Bob Carter was a geologist specializing in palaeontology, stratigraphy, marine geology, and "environmental science" (right) (1942-2016).

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by ZDan

You must be kidding... "Air temperatures in *Greenland*"? First of all, you cannot just look at LOCAL temperatures. Changing climate can be *very* different for different regions, and you can *cherry-pick* a location that magically suits your desired conclusions.

Quick search suggests this is "data" from denialist quacks "Carter, Spooner, et al". John Spooner is a *cartoonist*. and Bob Carter was a geologist specializing in palaeontology, stratigraphy, marine geology, and "environmental science" (right) (1942-2016).

Several of his links are from conspiracy theorists. I'm convinced he is going to some other dark hole on the internet and asking his QAnon friends about what he should say next here. Bla bla bla, deep state, bla, bla, bla, Gore and Gates, bla, bla, bla.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

chipmunk, just let it go. You won't convince them. Let them continue to think the sky is falling; they'll figure it out eventually.

Or he will figure it out eventually. The timeline for ozone layer denial is playing out very similarly to global warming denial.

https://debunkingdenial.com/the-ozon...rsy-part-ii-2/

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

We're already witnessing a disaster first hand, almost entirely brought to you by the left leaning side of most "western" governments.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Or he will figure it out eventually. The timeline for ozone layer denial is playing out very similarly to global warming denial.

https://debunkingdenial.com/the-ozon...rsy-part-ii-2/

Wasting your breath on that one as well.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

I will summarize: taking a 150-160 year sample data in light of thousands of years of data is extremely short-sighted. It's borderline manipulative, especially because the previous thousands of years didn't just not have a correlation, but had the reverse causation.

So then stop wasting our time if there is no amount of evidence that can demonstrate a causal relationship because, for you, enough time has not passed. Why even get into a debate if 150 years is too short of a timeline to show a causal relationship?

Well, if we were dumping 1000x the amount of GHGs and the temperature was going up 5 degrees each year then that might shorten your timeline, but for you, the changes are too slow and the GHGs are too few to matter on a 150 year timeline. Okay, then just say that and begone with the debate instead of stringing everyone along on a pointless exercise with no end in sight. This is why Spuds was trying to tease out your standards and why asked what was your timeline for your long-term criteria because we both knew that we would be wasting our time with pointless errands fetching data when the data doesn't exist because the event has been too brief for your criteria.

The last time the CO2 was 420+ppm, the world was 8-10+ degrees F warmer than it is today. At 1000ppm, the earth was 25+ degrees warmer. That is the average, and the extremes are worse. Maybe rising CO2 now won't cause the same temperature that correlated to the CO2 in the past, which is probably why the models are more conservative with their temperature estimates. Regardless, most people don't want to wait around to see what happens when CO2 levels get to 500+ and take a chance with what the temperature could be like. We use to add 1ppm/year, but it is at 2.37ppm/year. That rate is rising too. Even if the rate stayed flat, in fifty years we would be around 550ppm. In 200 years we would be at 1000ppm, assuming this didn't kick off a feedforward effect.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by ZDan

You must be kidding... "Air temperatures in *Greenland*"? First of all, you cannot just look at LOCAL temperatures. Changing climate can be *very* different for different regions, and you can *cherry-pick* a location that magically suits your desired conclusions.

Quick search suggests this is "data" from denialist quacks "Carter, Spooner, et al". John Spooner is a *cartoonist*. and Bob Carter was a geologist specializing in palaeontology, stratigraphy, marine geology, and "environmental science" (right) (1942-2016).

Where's your graph from? Antarctica?
Cherry picking... like selecting only the convenient 150-160 year window while the rest of it disproves the author?

The minute you say an author is a denialist quack, it immediately shows a prejudice and bias. You're putting everyone who disagrees with you under an umbrella term, and categorically rejecting everything they say. And somehow you claim that you're unbiased?

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

So then stop wasting our time...

Maybe rising CO2 now won't cause the same temperature that correlated to the CO2 in the past, which is probably why the models are more conservative with their temperature estimates. Regardless, most people don't want to wait around to see what happens when CO2 levels get to 500+ and take a chance with what the temperature could be like.

I'm not wasting your time. I'm not here to convince you of anything. I have been defending my position regardless of whatever you believe, because you're tagging me and critiquing my posts.

Why is the present CO2 not causing the same temp rise as in the past, despite the depletion of O3 and elevated Methane levels?

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Several of his links are from conspiracy theorists. I'm convinced he is going to some other dark hole on the internet and asking his QAnon friends about what he should say next here. Bla bla bla, deep state, bla, bla, bla, Gore and Gates, bla, bla, bla.

Your own link that says causation is true in the last 150+ years is the same one that says it's opposite overall. Somehow the temperature causes CO2 increase in the 100s of 1000s of years, but yet it contradicts itself within the last 150+?? Something is off - either the test methodology, or inferences.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Cherry picking... like selecting only the convenient 150-160 year window while the rest of it disproves the author?

The minute you say an author is a denialist quack, it immediately shows a prejudice and bias. You're putting everyone who disagrees with you under an umbrella term, and categorically rejecting everything they say. And somehow you claim that you're unbiased?

Disproves what author? Nothing you have posted disproves anything, especially the Greenland data. ZDan is right. That is data points from one country and from one location. That isn’t enough to determine global temperatures or get a full picture of Greenland. Subsequent studies examining multiple site in just Greenland resulted in this graph. The old graph has continued to be propagated by bad actors who know better than to spread outdated misinformation and from people like yourself who are ignorant and unwilling to research your sources (see link below).




https://www.carbonbrief.org/factchec...limate-change/

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Cherry picking... like selecting only the convenient 150-160 year window while the rest of it disproves the author?

Why are we specifically not allowed to look at this 150-160 year window?! Wow, I guess if we are only allowed to look at data from when human inputs were minimal, we'll find little to no human influence...

I am certainly not *discarding* data from other eras! Of course they provide great *context* for what is happening now.

The minute you say an author is a denialist quack, it immediately shows a prejudice and bias.

Literally, a *cartoonist*, and a *geologist*. Neither is a climate scientist, and they are funded by right-wing think-tanks and fossil fuel $$$. There is NO reason anyone should take them seriously on climate science.

You're putting everyone who disagrees with you under an umbrella term, and categorically rejecting everything they say. And somehow you claim that you're unbiased?

No I am not, show me data from climate scientists, peer-reviewed by other climate scientists.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

That isn’t enough to determine global temperatures or get a full picture of Greenland.]

Global averages.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Why are we specifically not allowed to look at this 150-160 year window?! Wow, I guess if we are only allowed to look at data from when human inputs were minimal, we'll find little to no human influence...

If you're focusing only on the time when human inputs are maximum while ignoring the big picture. That is very narrow-sighted. And you can't explain the temp rises of the past when there was no nuclears nor industrial revolutions.

Seriously, where is your data from?

[Spuds]

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.

As you say, for every single heating event over the 450k years, minus this current one, the average temperature has preceded an increase in greenhouse gasses by a measurable amount. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that statement.

However, the data shows that within the last few hundred years we are currently experiencing an event where the 'dry' greenhouse gasses (CO2 and CH4) are going through the roof without temperature preceding it. I believe we all agree on that as well?

So the question is 'why has the pattern changed'. What makes the last few hundred years different than the last half-million? As you said, any other 160 year period would show different results than the last 160 years. Why do you think that is? What prediction can you make about the next 160 years from this data? 1000 years?

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Global averages.

Humans have only been around for a tiny sliver of that graph you know...