New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[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.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

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.

https://grammar.yourdictionary.com/v...ifference.html

The main difference between irregardless and regardless is that irregardless is used only in informal settings, while regardless is used in informal and formal contexts.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

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.

Wait... are we looking at global averages? Or as measured at the Antarctica dome? Or Greenland?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Wait... are we looking at global averages? Or as measured at the Antarctica dome? Or Greenland?

It is in the chart in the upper right corner. Relatively speaking, modern civilization has sprouted from a period of stable climate relative to periods preceding it. This is the last 100k years with a very stable last 10k years.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

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.

So, because the global temperature has not so far increased proportionally to the amount of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere per the models and records, you are questioning the accuracy of the same models that say the temperature should increase in short order?

[clio]

My take on climate change is as follows:

NASA employs amongst the best scientists in the world and devote much of their website to confirming the climate change issues at hand. End.

When I was a kid (1980's) the ozone layer was depleting due to the use of CFC's.
This problem and remedy is fact. I cannot imagine the amount of keyboard warriors that would be challenging the issue if it were to have occurred today.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

https://grammar.yourdictionary.com/v...ifference.html

I question the implications from your source that the word "irregardless" has been debated for centuries, but this is too OT to care that much.

[Irace86.2.0]

https://www.nytimes.com/article/clim...rming-faq.html

This news article answers a lot of questions in a single place, which is palatable for some. This image is really why there is cause for concern. The projections for 2050 and 2100 population shows the countries with the most population as India, China, Nigeria, USA, Pakistan, DROC, etc. There should be a huge rise in emerging markets and increases in standards of living, and we should expect a huge rise in greenhouse gasses as these countries grow and start to consume more resources just as we all have done. They will go through a faster industrial revolution and modernize, but we can expect huge increases. For reference, China had 650k people in 1960, 330k more than the US today, and it is more than double what it was today at 1,400k, but its emissions are night and day different. What happens when other emerging markets start increasing their emissions?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projec...ulation_growth

[Irace86.2.0]

China’s Record Drought Is Drying Rivers and Feeding Its Coal Habit

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/26/b...y-climate.html

https://www.ft86club.com/forums/show...&postcount=467

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

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.

???
But temperatures have risen, *are* rising...

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/wo...l-temperatures

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.

*To YOU*. Not to people who understand how these mechanisms work.

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!

It is well established that water vapor does have a larger effect, and that temperature rise driven by increased CO2 is reinforced with further temp rise due to increased water vapor in the atmosphere.

But looking at CO2 as the only demon has very little data to support.

NO one is saying that CO2 is "the only demon". But it is a primary instigator...

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.

??? If we reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions to *zero* right now, we will *still* be dealing with the effects of the CO2 we have added to the atmosphere over the past 150 years or so. So on that point you're kinda *right*! But the conclusion should not be "let's keep on adding as much CO2 as we possibly can!" We need to drastically reduce our CO2 emissions NOW, and there are non-disruptive ways to do that...

[Irace86.2.0]

Unless we plant trees and create carbon capture systems.