New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[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...

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

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?

Originally Posted by chipmunk

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.

The model was predictive with a high confidence interval of predicting the past and the future, meaning, the pattern of changes seen then was indicative of warming causing a CO2 rise causing more warming, and then pattern today shows a CO2 rise causing a warming. Someday that may cause more rise in CO2 like the past, which may cause more warming, which is one reason scientists worry about a runaway greenhouse effect in the long term, but anthropomorphic CO2 is the driving force now, and we know that. Here is the breakdown:

https://www.newswise.com/factcheck/r...icle_id=772662

The paper I cited goes through the challenge of making a causal argument, which is why they said:

he more challenging problem is to ‘attribute’ this detected climate change to the most likely external causes within some defined level of confidence. As already noted in the Third Assessment Report11, unequivocal attribution would require controlled experimentation with the climate system. Since that is not possible, in practice attribution of anthropogenic climate change is understood to mean demonstration that a detected change is ‘consistent with the estimated responses to the given combination of anthropogenic and natural forcing’ and ‘not consistent with alternative, physically plausible explanations of recent climate change that exclude important elements of the given combination of forcings12. Therefore attribution analysis is mainly performed through the application of Global Circulation Models that allow testing for causal relationships between anthropogenic forcing, natural variability and temperature evolutions.

They go onto describe how their model is used to create correlation to the highest degree to estimate causation. Their model is predictive of the past and present, while demonstrating the relationship of the past and present. It is like there is a crime scene, and their model for interpreting data can determine if there was a theft, rape or murder. The data that feeds the past shows a causal relationship of temperature causing CO2 rise, but the model can't explain the rise in temperature now to be attributed to anything else other than anthropomorphic CO2 rise. It is pretty simple.

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

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Irregardless, none of this matters.

I think you mean "Regardless" here. Meaning without paying attention to the present situations.

Irregardless would be a double negative. Like Irregular means to be non-regular.

Pet peeve. Carry on.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Global averages.

Right. Do you see the end of this? Very stable, right? Do you think it is a coincidence that humans were able to flourish during the period of climate stabilization, no longer needing to migrate to find food and having the ability to create civilizations with predictable stock yields from farming? Much of earth's history is utterly inhospitable to the type of lifestyle that we know it today. The subsequent highs of CO2 and associated rising temperatures would require dramatic changes.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Spuds

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?

We are all in agreement that emissions have gone up, especially CO2 and CH4. The fact that the temperatures didn't follow them should make anyone question if something is missing in the equation. Right now we're debating over a 1 deg C rise in EPICA measurements over the average, but there were times when the temperatures were higher at much lower CO2 levels. Given how little CO2 is in the atmosphere, these correlations makes no sense. I'm gonna venture out on a limb here and make a conjecture - there is some element that has a larger effect. Probably water vapor? I don't know! But looking at CO2 as the only demon has very little data to support.
If people want to reduce pollutants like CO, NOx, etc., then yes, by all means! But even if we reduce CO2 to zero tonight, there's no guarantee that this would result in any change in temperatures.