I doubt there's anybody on MennoNet qualified then to discuss this topic. "Basic Comprehension" needed to even read the papers included fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, differential equations, dynamics, systems analysis, chemistry, optical physics, statistics, etc.Bootstrap wrote: To discuss the topic, we really need to read and understand what the scientists are saying. You cannot refute what they say without doing that first. I'm tempted to say that we need a thread where only people who have passed a basic comprehension test can participate.
...In any subject, the first step is to assume you don't know, there is a lot to learn, and it will take time and effort to learn it .
I personally don't have enough of a background to really analyze the models (I wish I did, systems analysis was one of my favorite subjects in school). Most of the people in the widely cited "94% consensus" are actually out of their field in contributing to that consensus, and the politicians... never mind.
So here's your test:
What is the proper value for the Planck feedback and on what do you base that conclusion?
And (this equations are highly simplified) :
How did addition of a boundary condition as opposed to the assumption "infinitely thick atmosphere" create a model with that clearly indicates that a runaway greenhouse effect is not possible in earth's atmosphere?
Maybe we should not be afraid of common sense while realizing at the same time that the real "global climate change" debate has little to do with science and more to do with wealth transfer, politics, economics and religion.
Let's just ask this one simple question: At times in the past CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been as much as 20 time greater than it is now. Why then have we not experienced the feared runaway global warming that we supposedly can prevent by driving Prius' and replacing our incandescent light bulbs with compact florescents LEDs? Is there something missing from the models (equations) that somehow result in predictions that don't match the data?