New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Ohio Enthusiast

Just out of curiosity, what's the plan, then? Assume this has nothing to do with human activity (neither causing it nor being able to reduce the temperature), so we should all just move further and further north/south (and inland) to stay in habitable temperatures (and not get flooded)?

Unfortunately I don't have a solution for that. Perhaps it will cycle back down like it has throughout the history. With all the evidence that human activity is insignificant to global climate change, jumping onto EV trend without a foresight of what implications it has to both emissions and pollution is extremly shortsighted and could be disastrous (case study: EU and UK right now). There is no guarantee that switching to 100% electric is going to solve anything. Nor do we have a clear idea of what it does to water, soil, and air pollution. A guy from Myanmar doesn't care if you're driving a Tesla or a Hellcat. All he cares about is the outright violation of his livelihood and human rights.

I don't like gasoline for a different reason- pollution. NOx, Carbon monoxide, carcinogenic lubes & chemicals involved in ICEs, etc. Not global warming. With that logic I'm not a big fan of EVs either. I don't find them as a solution to anything.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Unfortunately I don't have a solution for that. Perhaps it will cycle back down like it has throughout the history. With all the evidence that human activity is insignificant to global climate change, jumping onto EV trend without a foresight of what implications it has to both emissions and pollution is extremly shortsighted and could be disastrous (case study: EU and UK right now). There is no guarantee that switching to 100% electric is going to solve anything. Nor do we have a clear idea of what it does to water, soil, and air pollution. A guy from Myanmar doesn't care if you're driving a Tesla or a Hellcat. All he cares about is the outright violation of his livelihood and human rights.

I don't like gasoline for a different reason- pollution. NOx, Carbon monoxide, carcinogenic lubes & chemicals involved in ICEs, etc. Not global warming. With that logic I'm not a big fan of EVs either. I don't find them as a solution to anything.

Where are you getting that? From one study? Again, a hundred studies can affirm that position, but if 10,000 affirm the corollary then that should make you question your position and not make such a statement. 97% of climate scientists and the supporting published research are in agreement. Meanwhile, the guy you quoted in the last article has a PHD in apparently radiologic sciences. I’ve seen discussions on the same subject suggesting the corollary to his conclusions. Below is him responding to critique of his work, which is to say his colleagues and the editors may have some objections to his findings as they were obtained and analyzed. This is common part of the review process.

https://journals.lww.com/health-phys..._et_al_.4.aspx


It isn’t a mystery how much CO2 is coming from humans. We have models for how much we burn in cars, in coal towers, when burning wood, when producing concrete, etc. We know how much we add, and it is tens of billion of metric tons a year. We know the rate it is increasing, and we know the effects of methane and other gases on global warming. We know it is human activity.

What is interesting is that in over 10,000 years+ the CO2 concentrations have been below 300ppm, yet it is only since the industrial revolution that CO2 has risen to 420ppm, and you believe that it is more likely some natural event is leading to this surge that otherwise would be perfectly explained by the advent of technology.

http://www.climate.gov/news-features...-caused-humans

http://www.planetexperts.com/smoking...lobal-warming/

You also are making claims about what we don’t know about the effects of manufacturing batteries, yet we have studies comparing end of life emissions and environmental effects of BEVs, and they are better than other EVs and by far ICE, and it will only get better as we advance.

Irregardless of whether BEVs are going to save the environment, they are far more sustainable in a future with renewable energy and with diminishing fossil fuels, and they are superior for the average user in almost every way. ICEs will be antiquated to collectors and enthusiasts. Manufacturers will make more with BEVs too, so they want to move that way, even if the cars will be cheaper over the life of the vehicle for the owner; higher up front cost, but less maintenance and gas, so better long term savings and more dollars going to the manufacturer instead of OPEC and the dealerships. These BEVs will be even cheaper once we get sodium sulfur, so much so, that everyone will want an BEV. No one will want an ICE like no one will want a 90’s Nokia flip phone.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

To keep it short and quick:

1. Yes
2. No, but good luck trying
3. Inconclusive data from me to make a comment
4. No (another one: https://journals.lww.com/health-phys...tivity,.2.aspx)
5. Yes
6. No
7. I am yet to see any convincing evidence on this cyclic behavior, so I don't have an opinion yet
8. No. Eventually, like all stars, sun has its clock ticking too. No point in fighting the natural course of the cosmos.

Just so everyone understands, it takes a lot of time and effort to read thru the comments, pick out legit questions, and respond. It's not like I get paid for the time spent.

In regards to the article, here is a piece of one of the objections that got published:

https://journals.lww.com/health-phys...ts_14c.13.aspx

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

In regards to the article, here is a piece of one of the objections that got published:

https://journals.lww.com/health-phys...ts_14c.13.aspx

1. The critique was that the data measured from 1750 was done measuring a radioactive test (think carbon dating) while the most recent 2002+ data was done using contemporary methods. If this objection is valid, then all your carbon dating theory is out the window. If carbon dating techniques are valid, then this critique is invalid.
2. The nuclear drops and testing during the 50s and 60s. Since the contemporary isotope measurements have been in use since 2002, the measurements from 1950s and 60s were done using the same cosmogenic measurements he was criticizing in #1. He is contradicting his own #1.
3. No access to full article
4. No access to full article

If you have the full paper, I'll be happy to look at it.


The original authors responded to the critique: https://journals.lww.com/health-phys...ts_14C.11.aspx

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Where are you getting that? From one study? Again, a hundred studies can affirm that position, but if 10,000 affirm the corollary then that should make you question your position and not make such a statement. 97% of climate scientists and the supporting published research are in agreement.

I said I would use just 1 paper, to be reasonable with time and effort. How many papers do you want to review? I actually did link 2 or 3 more in there - must have been lost among the pages. On the contrary, you haven't given me one paper that establishes the causative link between manmade CO2 and rising atmospheric temperatures. In stead, you are saying there are too many data points to list. Maybe show me a metadata analysis at least.
Science isn't about quantity, but quality. Even if there is one shred of evidence that the majority is wrong, it should be taken seriously.
Yes, the author is from radiological sciences, you can tell because he's talking about 14C, not 12C. That's why he is qualified to talk about 14C. The critics, on the other hand, are affiliates of DoE.

Regarding the models you say, do those models include water vapor? Aren't these the same models that said ice caps would melt completely in 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2012, etc.?

I realize that I did not respond to every one of questions (from you and others) from earlier posts. I didn't read all your posts to be honest. i'm pretty sure you're doing the same too. But one comment I do want to answer is about that paper about hurricanes. Basically this is what the authors were trying to say:

A: Affirmative claim that global warming exists
B: No evidence that catastrophic weather events have gone up (they showed it themselves)
Conclusion: There is no link between A and B.

Analyzing that logic, they proved B themselves. But they're affirmatively claiming A to be true. Therefore they're being forced by themselves to say that A and B aren't related. I am focusing on their own finding - statement B - because they're proving it with their own data. The reason I'm looking beyond A is because they're not proving or disproving that statement.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

1. The critique was that the data measured from 1750 was done measuring a radioactive test (think carbon dating) while the most recent 2002+ data was done using contemporary methods. If this objection is valid, then all your carbon dating theory is out the window. If carbon dating techniques are valid, then this critique is invalid.
2. The nuclear drops and testing during the 50s and 60s. Since the contemporary isotope measurements have been in use since 2002, the measurements from 1950s and 60s were done using the same cosmogenic measurements he was criticizing in #1. He is contradicting his own #1.
3. No access to full article
4. No access to full article

If you have the full paper, I'll be happy to look at it.


The original authors responded to the critique: https://journals.lww.com/health-phys...ts_14C.11.aspx

That is another critique of the paper--not a response from the original authors.

Despite the venue of publication. I feel confident that
the paper of Srable et al. (2022) will receive scrutiny from
the amosphene science communiy.

Regardless, a single study does not stand on its own. I presented a few topics using the CO14 and other isotope measurements to demonstrate global warming related to CO2 emissions. You are latching onto whatever you can, while ignoring the rest of the body of evidence that overwhelming demonstrates that global warming is happening and is anthropomorphic in origin.

Also, please read the links you are posting. Multiple times you have posted papers trying to affirm your position with claims about what the links are saying, yet Spuds, myself and others have quoted parts of the articles from your links that directly refute what you are claiming the authors said or are trying to suggest. This is really looking bad on your behalf. It really is making you appear to be intellectually dishonest and more ideological. In science, we don't make conclusions and then find papers to support our opinion. Scientists tediously review all of the literature and see where the evidence is leading, so this type of back and forth is a waste. The fact is 97% of climate scientists support the position that anthropomorphic emissions are causing global warming.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

That is another critique of the paper--not a response from the original authors.

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.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

To keep it short and quick:

1. Yes
2. No, but good luck trying
3. Inconclusive data from me to make a comment
4. No (another one: https://journals.lww.com/health-phys...tivity,.2.aspx)
5. Yes
6. No
7. I am yet to see any convincing evidence on this cyclic behavior, so I don't have an opinion yet
8. No. Eventually, like all stars, sun has its clock ticking too. No point in fighting the natural course of the cosmos.

Just so everyone understands, it takes a lot of time and effort to read thru the comments, pick out legit questions, and respond. It's not like I get paid for the time spent.

Ok then...

Let's start with #3. What would constitute conclusive evidence for or against greenhouse gasses being involved in atmospheric heating?

It would also help if you explained what your degrees are in.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

I said I would use just 1 paper, to be reasonable with time and effort. How many papers do you want to review? I actually did link 2 or 3 more in there - must have been lost among the pages. On the contrary, you haven't given me one paper that establishes the causative link between manmade CO2 and rising atmospheric temperatures. In stead, you are saying there are too many data points to list. Maybe show me a metadata analysis at least.
Science isn't about quantity, but quality. Even if there is one shred of evidence that the majority is wrong, it should be taken seriously.
Yes, the author is from radiological sciences, you can tell because he's talking about 14C, not 12C. That's why he is qualified to talk about 14C. The critics, on the other hand, are affiliates of DoE.

Regarding the models you say, do those models include water vapor? Aren't these the same models that said ice caps would melt completely in 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2012, etc.?

I realize that I did not respond to every one of questions (from you and others) from earlier posts. I didn't read all your posts to be honest. i'm pretty sure you're doing the same too. But one comment I do want to answer is about that paper about hurricanes. Basically this is what the authors were trying to say:

A: Affirmative claim that global warming exists
B: No evidence that catastrophic weather events have gone up (they showed it themselves)
Conclusion: There is no link between A and B.

Analyzing that logic, they proved B themselves. But they're affirmatively claiming A to be true. Therefore they're being forced by themselves to say that A and B aren't related. I am focusing on their own finding - statement B - because they're proving it with their own data. The reason I'm looking beyond A is because they're not proving or disproving that statement.

Again, reviewing a bunch of papers isn't going to demonstrate anything conclusively if people are cherrypicking. The data overwhelmingly supports a position in opposition to your position. No single study will encapsulate the totality of the evidence and arguments for global warming being anthropomorphic, which is also why I quoted IPCC's report. It is the accumulation of the latest climate science into a single presentation.

You either don't understand how science works or are being intellectually dishonest when you suggest it is possible to present a few studies that should be overwhelmingly conclusive in the positive or negative, so your line of reasoning is nonsensical.

This isn't new science that is just going back and forth. This is established science this is just getting more and more refined. A good example is the difference between young earth creationists and scientists regarding the age of the earth. Biblical scholars claimed 6k-10k years old for the age of the earth, and scientists claimed hundreds of millions of years old, and then they got better tools, and it became better to billions and then it is at 4.5 billion years old with the oldest fossils at 3.5 billions years. Human history for first tool use and other milestones also get adjusted, but they are honing in on a target with more and more accurate instruments and computer models and so forth. So in the same way, scientists created models for climate change based on evidence in their time and on the computational limits of their models at the time, and some of those models were based on factors that may have changed like depletion of the ozone layer or whatever. The point is that models change and get better and better over time. It is clear to me that you are not familiar with this process of science. Would you also argue that science was wrong a hundred years ago about the age of the earth, so they must not know now what is the age of the earth? Can you not see the fallacy in this line of thinking?

With all the evidence that human activity is insignificant to global climate change

Really? All the evidence...??? This statement is intellectually dishonest and promoting misinformation, which is the only reason I'm continuing in this conversation with you because it is worth challenging misinformation.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Ok then...

Let's start with #3. What would constitute conclusive evidence for or against greenhouse gasses being involved in atmospheric heating?

It would also help if you explained what your degrees are in.

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.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Really? All the evidence...???

Depends on how many you want

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Ok then...

Let's start with #3. What would constitute conclusive evidence for or against greenhouse gasses being involved in atmospheric heating?

It would also help if you explained what your degrees are in.

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

[Spuds]

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.

Alternatively chipmunk could directly answer the question and then we all have something to start from. Until the question is actually answered we have a Schrödinger's Chipmunk.

I suppose a third option is the question is ignored. But increasing the time the cat/chipmunk is in the box tends the possibility towards death of the subject anyway.

Edit: Looks like the cat is out of the bag. Okok I'll stop with the puns.

[Spuds]

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

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?