New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Some (most) people don't realize that they're being played. The same crowd that has convinced them of EVs are the same ones flying private jets around.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I like your line of thinking, but he doesn't want to be intellectually honest by first describing what would be convincing because if you then showed him exactly what would be demonstrable to him then he would need to adopt a different position. Either that, or he genuinely doesn't know what would be convincing, so he is unequipped to say would would be convincing, and this is problematic because it means he can't discern what is compelling or not from the literature, and it means he would be easily persuade by "evidence" from climate deniers. This is how we have flat earthers, besides having conspiracy theories that make them suspicious of evidence outside of their circle or just being closed-minded deniers.

He played the "most people" card and showed his hand early in the game.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

My bad, I posted the wrong link.

Regarding your other comments, since I used only 1 paper for time's sake, I'm only referring to that. I take accusations of logical errors and cherry-picking seriously, and I explained that as well. I look at what is being objectively investigated, and what is taken as presupposition. So it is easy to read quotes from it that are contrary to my stance.
And you're right - a single study doesn't stand on its own, and so I posted other links too. Although not exhaustive, it's a good place to start. I have other papers too that I haven't shared.

You also mentioned ideologically driven misinformation. I agree with that, and you're severely underestimating its effects on yourself. A scientific process doesn't start with a theory. It starts with an observation. The 4 important pillars of any scientific method are: observation, measurability, repeatability, and logic & reason. I am yet to see any irrefutable evidence attributing human activity to climate change.

The 97% statistic you're quoting is incorrect. It was actually about 32-33%. ~1% denied the link. The other 65+% refrained from answering. So the statistic basically was a 33:1 ratio there. Still, quality, not quantity.

I made a whole post explaining the scientific process to you, so I don't know why you are explaining it back to me. Hypothesis leads to studies (observations), which eventually lead to models to explain processes, which eventually lead to the highest model in science--a scientific theory. We are there where the observations and models are giving as a grand theory that anthropomorphic emissions are causing global warming. This is far from debatable. This is established science that is only getting more and more refined.

---------------------------

These are statements by a number of science communities:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

----------------------------

I don't know where you are getting your information from. Here are a few key quotes from the Scientific American paper below, and how do you determine quality over quantity? Only when it serves your position?

The scientists examined 4,014 abstracts on climate change and found 97.2 percent of the papers assumed humans play a role in global warming (ClimateWire, May 16, 2013).

The idea is not new; several studies over the past 10 years have found a scientific consensus on climate change. Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at Harvard University, in 2004 found that 75 percent of published studies supported anthropogenic global warming. Since then, six other studies have been published with widespread media attention.

He collected 11,944 papers from the ISI Web of Science database that contained the words "global warming" or "global climate change." He and 11 Skeptical Science volunteers went through the abstracts and coded the authors' positions on anthropogenic global warming.

Green and her colleagues found 4,014 papers that endorsed global warming, rejected global warming or explicitly stated they did not hold a position on it. Of these papers, 97.2 percent endorsed the "consensus" that global warming is human caused.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...lobal-warming/

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Well, it seems you've given this some thought. Would you mind providing your definitions and lists for those?

So you have a PhD in solid mechanics? I assume your undergrad major and masters was something more broad?

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.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

He played the "most people" card and showed his hand early in the game.

And until you prove me otherwise, I will stick to that.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

And until you prove me otherwise, I will stick to that.

As I said in my follow up nobody will ever "prove" anything to you as you will simply disregard, ignore, reverse or counter with an even more obscure twist.

[Sasquachulator]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

As I said in my follow up nobody will ever "prove" anything to you as you will simply disregard, ignore, reverse or counter with an even more obscure twist.

The M. Night Shamalyan of internet arguments?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Depends on how many you want

Again, 97% of scientific papers are coming to the conclusion that the changes are anthropomorphic (See previous post).

You can post dozens or hundreds, but the conclusions of a few are heavily outweighed by the conclusions of the many. This can happen if their data set is too narrow, or they used an imperfect process for measurement, or they failed to properly analyze their data to account for confounding variables, or they failed to find true significance in their data sets. Scientists not only do studies, but they also analyze studies and respond to poor studies that passed the review process. Irregardless, you say you are not playing a numbers game, and that you are going for quality over quantity, but then you post a few more studies. Why don't you start with demonstrating why 97% of articles affirm that global warming is caused by humans. Why are those studies not quality studies?

Originally Posted by chipmunk

First a proper definition of what's all included under GHG umbrella.
Next, all the causes of temp rise
Next, contribution of each of the causes to the overall rise
Then, historical changes to these contributions and whether long-term correlation & causation can be established within the historical data time period we have.

My area is Solid Mechanics. But the analysis techniques are similar for all PhD disciplines

You want all of this to be in one study? Scientists do specialize and build on the work of themselves and others. There might be a scientists dealing with methane emissions from industry and another on just geologic sources and another on agriculture, for instance. What you are asking is for a body of evidence for A leading to a body of evidence for B leading to a body of evidence for C, thus A equals C, and then you want that in a single study encompassing everything and not in the format of IPCC report. I'm sorry, but this is not realistic, and you should know better.

It is people with this level of skepticism that I often ask if they hold the same level of skepticism for everything in their life, and I often find, when I know the individual, that it is either the case that they are highly cynical, or it is apparent they are special pleading that something they ideologically disagree with requires higher levels of scrutiny than other things they adopt with far less or no scrutiny.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

And until you prove me otherwise, I will stick to that.

Science doesn't prove. It shows, suggest or demonstrates. You should know that. Prove is a "four letter word" in science.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

It is people with this level of skepticism that I often ask if they hold the same level of skepticism for everything in their life, and I often find, when I know the individual, that it is either the case that they are highly cynical, or it is apparent they are special pleading that something they ideologically disagree with requires higher levels of scrutiny than other things they adopt with far less or no scrutiny.

[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.

Interesting, is that mechanical engineering, physics, or mathematics?

1. From the NASA article I linked: "The greenhouse gases in the dry air in Earth’s atmosphere include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons." I think we will consolidate those as "dry GHG" we can add water vapor to this list as a "wet GHG". I agree we can limit the scope of our discussion to CO2 and water vapor for the most part, just wanting to be complete.
2. So the list is currently GHG (both wet and dry) and solar intensity? Anything else you want to include? I would suggest changes in Earth's surface absorption/reflection ratio might play a role, but haven't looked into it very much.

If we agree on 1 and 2 we can start getting into more details for 3 and 4 (later, I have to do work)

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Interesting, is that mechanical engineering, physics, or mathematics?

It's Applied Mechanics with quite a bit differential calculus; Physics is basically limited to atomic- & lattice-levels.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

It is people with this level of skepticism that I often ask if they hold the same level of skepticism for everything in their life, and I often find, when I know the individual, that it is either the case that they are highly cynical, or it is apparent they are special pleading that something they ideologically disagree with requires higher levels of scrutiny than other things they adopt with far less or no scrutiny.

My point exactly!

[Irace86.2.0]

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.

1. You missed methane. Methane has a greater greenhouse effect than CO2 by 25:1, and I believe up to 80:1 in the first 20 years it is in the atmosphere. It has a shorter duration in the atmosphere. Methane has doubled in the atmosphere over the last few centuries, a lot of which, is from anthropomorphic causes. With that said, methane concentrations are 200x less than CO2 and lasts decades instead of centuries.
2. Again, one study will likely fail to encompass everything when these scientists do much to specialize.
3. Here is a study, but it isn't alone obviously:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4761980/
4. Even double blind studies are correlation studies with just a really high possibility of causation. Nothing in science is 100%. We aren't exactly going to do a double-blind study on the planet. We can simulate, but we only have observational data and correlation. Long-term correlation is better than short-term correlation, but what is long term to you?

--------------------------------------

97% consensus on climate change? More like 99.94%, study finds

But in 2017, James Powell published an even larger meta-analysis of 54,195 peer-reviewed papers, finding a 99.94% consensus about human-caused climate change. Again, more recent papers seem to back the idea up even more overwhelmingly.

https://www.zmescience.com/science/n...nsus-07042018/

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

My point exactly!

Again, you are the one disagreeing with the findings of 97%+ of the literature on anthropomorphic global warming. I took the null hypothesis until I saw the validity and overwhelming volume of evidence affirming the scientific consensus. At a certain point, the level of skepticism approaches on the irrational like the flat earthers who claim to have a position, but who also claim to be unbiased and that they are only accepting a null hypothesis until they have proof. They become evidence deniers and lose credibility, special pleading.

On other issues, I was born Catholic, was an alter-boy, CCD, the works, but I found the arguments for religion and theology lacking. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the evidence is overwhelmingly lacking, despite the extraordinary claims and popularity of religion.

I'm also entirely capable of changing my mind in light of solid/mounting evidence, as was the case with the COVID vaccination, as it pertains to preventing the spread of COVID. All the evidence shows the vaccine does an overwhelmingly great job at preventing serious complications and death for those who would respond poorly to COVID infection, but it does little to nothing to prevent transmission, so I changed my position in light of the evidence that vaccination status should influence social distancing.

Based on some of your links to questionable sources (JFK assassination conspiracies), and on your poor reading and statements of the studies you post, it seems like you could be an evidence denier and not genuinely curious and skeptical. That is just how it is looking so far.