Global Warning/Climate Change

Things that are not part of politics happening presently and how we approach or address it as Anabaptists.
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

Robert wrote:Why do you doubt the consensus of Paleoclimatologists?
First question: Where would you find the consensus of Paleoclimatologists, and to what extent do they have consensus?

These chapters at least claim to be a comprehensive literature review of the current literature, with a process for determining how much consensus there is among Paleoclimatologists for each of their findings:
Are there other similar literature reviews that most Paleoclimatologists would consider authoritative? If so, which ones, and how can I know that?
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Robert
Site Janitor
Posts: 8522
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:16 pm
Affiliation: Anabaptist

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Robert »

Bootstrap wrote:You can find graphs to prove anything you want somewhere on the Internet.
Yep. Your charts do that by not showing a full history.
Bootstrap wrote:C02 is just one of many factors.
Just like today. co2 isjust one factor, not even the leading factor. h2o affects the greehouse effect much more than co2. Most likely because h2o is +20% of the atmosphere as co2 is just .04%.
Bootstrap wrote:There's a lot of uncertainty and speculation when we try to reconstruct prehistory.
And current climate, thus the incorrect charts you keep showing. You know, the ones that overestimate the temperature raise?
Bootstrap wrote:OK, that tells me where to look for the scientific literature on this.
So you are a denier of scientific analogy of prehistoric climate? Why can't you accept the consensus?

o2 was no in the atmosphere of earth before plants. All atmo o2 is created by plants and cyanobacteria. The oceans used to be purple, not blue because there was no o2.

You denier you! :lol: :P
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not after you.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
KingdomBuilder
Posts: 1482
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:00 pm
Affiliation: church of Christ

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by KingdomBuilder »

These charts are not young-earther friendly, are they? :P
0 x
Ponder anew what the Almighty can do
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

Robert wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:You can find graphs to prove anything you want somewhere on the Internet.
Yep. Your charts do that by not showing a full history.
I don't think that's true. I can understand dogs without knowing much about dinosaurs, and I can know a lot more about dogs because I can observe them directly. We can only try to reconstruct what dinosaurs were like.

The most reliable data we have comes from recorded history. It's also the easiest to understand.

But if you want to look at the full picture, I think the way to do that is to look at literature reviews that take the whole literature into account. I pointed to two chapters that do that. I haven't had time to read and process them fully, but I can see that they claim that (1) Changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun were the biggest factor. You can see that in the cycles in your graph, some kind of cycle has to be going on, and (2) you cannot explain glacial–interglacial temperature and ice volume changes without accounting for changes in atmospheric CO2 content and associated climate change.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

Robert wrote:Image

Why do you doubt the consensus of Paleoclimatologists?
Turns out that image was made by Robert Rohde - click on the link to see his publications.

He certainly doesn't seem to believe that the image disproves global warming today. Two recent papers he coauthored:
His findings are very much in the mainstream.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Robert
Site Janitor
Posts: 8522
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:16 pm
Affiliation: Anabaptist

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Robert »

Bootstrap wrote:His findings are very much in the mainstream.
Good, so you can accept the consensus view of Paleoclimatologists. I was getting pretty concerned that you were a denier.

Volcanic activity is also a leading factor of the ebb and flow of paleo climate too. It is also a leading cause of atmospheric co2.

Seems that there may be something balancing out the co2 greenhouse effect with the solar and volcanic ebbs and flows. Isn't that amazing? Almost like a divine hand guiding things. If that is the case, why would it all the sudden stop in year 2000?
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not after you.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

Robert wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:His findings are very much in the mainstream.
Good, so you can accept the consensus view of Paleoclimatologists. I was getting pretty concerned that you were a denier.
Yes, I think I do accept the consensus view of Paleoclimatologists, as best I can tell.
Robert wrote:Seems that there may be something balancing out the co2 greenhouse effect with the solar and volcanic ebbs and flows. Isn't that amazing? Almost like a divine hand guiding things. If that is the case, why would it all the sudden stop in year 2000?
The data doesn't seem to show that divine hand balancing out poor choices by human beings.

Let's stick with diagrams by Robert Rohde, since you picked one of his diagrams to describe the paleoclimate - this is someone we apparently both respect. This diagram shows that fossil emissions have gone way up:

Image

And during the same time - starting way before the year 2000, temperatures started going up too:

Image

Back when C02 emissions were not a factor, solar cycles dominated temperature, but that is no longer the case due to the dramatic rise in C02 in the industrial revolution:

Image

Here's how Robert Rohde describes it in the caption to the above image:
Changes in carbon dioxide concentrations, both during the recent glacial/interglacial cycles and during the last 1000 years. Since the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide levels have dramatically risen to levels not seen during the last 400 thousand years. This change is implicated as a likely cause of global warming.
If you look at the writings of other paleoclimatologists, they generally agree.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Robert
Site Janitor
Posts: 8522
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:16 pm
Affiliation: Anabaptist

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Robert »

This change is implicated as a likely cause of global warming.
This does not sound very firm or scientific to me.

Correlation does not mean causation.

We now have to take in the fact that volcanoes are producing up to 6 times the amount they thought, plants using 17% more co2 then they thought, and .035% to .04% co2 is driving temperatures up when 20%+ did not. We actually had several snowball events with much higher co2 amounts. I could see co2 at 1% maybe not affecting as much, but 20%? One can not logically deduce that 20% co2 would not cause massive warming when from .035% to .04% will drive temperatures sky high.

There is some logical thought missing in there somewhere.

Image
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not after you.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
appleman2006
Posts: 2455
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:50 pm
Affiliation: Midwest Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by appleman2006 »

So as we near 50 pages in this thread (by far the longest of any on this forum. only 2 others are even half that long) I thought I would take just a minute to write how my thoughts continue to evolve on this topic.
I am normally very critical of those that do not take science seriously or at face value. Think GMOs, medical research, vaccines, farming and food nutrition research to name just a few.

I am especially vocal towards those that are constantly harping on the anti vaccine or anti GMO or anti pesticide train. I fully recognize that I cannot be an expert in all these areas and must trust someone and so I choose to trust those that have made it their life work to study these things. I do recognize that new stuff is coming out all the time and so I am constantly open to new ideas in any of these fields. However I am very slow to completely change my mind in any of these things especially when the change involves an immediate radical shift from how things are previously done. I am even more leery of such changes when the impact would be extremely hard on the less fortunate in the world both locally and internationally. I am also very leery of things simply being defined as bad with no better alternative in sight. That in itself often spells trouble. I also get scared if the so called solutions are largely controlled by a monopoly or if lobby groups get involved in a big way. So here is my dilemma. The climate change debate does not fit neatly in any of my boxes. There is ample evidence that the climate is changing. I accept that. There is also at least some evidence that things that man does can affect climate change at least on a local level. I also accept that. Where it gets much more fuzzy for me is the proof that we can in fact slow things down by implementing the popular changes that are often proposed. I am absolutely convinced that cash strapped governments are using it as an excuse to add to their coffers as well as to expand build government. Of that there can be little debate.
And as I have said before the prosed cures do not fit the implied dangers in many cases. The immediate harm done to the disadvantaged IMO does not justify some of the radical implementations that are being proposed and so I am left with no choice but to continue to watch and listen. In the meantime I think I do as much and in many cases more than anyone to reduce my footprint where it makes sense.
And I wonder if my grandchildren get to read this post 40 years from now, whether they will see wisdom in it or whether it will be perceived as being written by a dinosaur. Only time will tell.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

appleman2006 wrote:I am normally very critical of those that do not take science seriously or at face value. Think GMOs, medical research, vaccines, farming and food nutrition research to name just a few.

I am especially vocal towards those that are constantly harping on the anti vaccine or anti GMO or anti pesticide train. I fully recognize that I cannot be an expert in all these areas and must trust someone and so I choose to trust those that have made it their life work to study these things. I do recognize that new stuff is coming out all the time and so I am constantly open to new ideas in any of these fields. However I am very slow to completely change my mind in any of these things especially when the change involves an immediate radical shift from how things are previously done.
I agree with all of this.

And really, an awful lot of my energy on this thread has been about one question: how do we identify reliable sources of scientific information like scientific journals, scientific associations, literature reviews done by scientists, etc.
appleman2006 wrote:So here is my dilemma. The climate change debate does not fit neatly in any of my boxes. There is ample evidence that the climate is changing. I accept that. There is also at least some evidence that things that man does can affect climate change at least on a local level. I also accept that. Where it gets much more fuzzy for me is the proof that we can in fact slow things down by implementing the popular changes that are often proposed. I am absolutely convinced that cash strapped governments are using it as an excuse to add to their coffers as well as to expand build government. Of that there can be little debate.

And as I have said before the proposed cures do not fit the implied dangers in many cases. The immediate harm done to the disadvantaged IMO does not justify some of the radical implementations that are being proposed and so I am left with no choice but to continue to watch and listen. In the meantime I think I do as much and in many cases more than anyone to reduce my footprint where it makes sense.
To my mind, this is really the debate we should be having. Given the fact that we are dramatically increasing C02, and that scientists are warning us this may be dangerous, what should we do?

There are a wide variety of answers to that question. Some cost more than others, some seem more effective than others. And it's not all or nothing - if we pollute less, that's better than polluting more. So this is really a cost-benefit question for all the different things we can do to reduce C02 pollution.

Most of this is for Caesar to solve. As you say, bringing down my own carbon footprint is one thing we can do without Caesar's help. In general, my carbon footprint is small when I am at home, but I'm very aware that I am flying three times by the end of the year for work-related trips ...
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Post Reply