Global warming/climate change discussion

[Wayne in Maine]

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 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.

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?

[PeterG]

I doubt there's anybody on MennoNet qualified then to discuss this topic.
[snip]
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.
[snip]
The real "global climate change" debate has little to do with science and more to do with wealth transfer, politics, economics and religion.

With increasing reluctance, but in the interest of consistency:

Do not question or denigrate the qualifications, character, or motives of any individual or group.

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?

Again, this is a good question.

[Bootstrap]

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.

I agree. And that's part of my frustration. I think we really can rely on the scientific community to assess these things. I don't think we have the knowledge to even read most of this. If we pretend to be experts where we are not, hogwash is inevitable.

But if we want to discuss how much the planet has warmed, and how well we know the causes, why not start with a high-school level summary of what a scientific textbook or introduction would say? And if we want to predict the range of possible outcomes, why not start with the same? If we don't have at least that level of understanding, what are we talking about?

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.

I disagree. I think common sense says scientists know how to discuss the science, and the rest of us do not know more than them. Scientists are not just political hacks and talking heads. The political hacks and talking heads who go on and on about this are not scientists. You can trust scientists to understand science. You can trust other people to act like they know about science when they are primarily motivated by politics, economics, and religion. Common sense requires the ability to figure out who is who.

And trusting the scientific community to be the scientists is a no-brainer. Especially for anyone who can't answer your comprehension test. That's just common sense.

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.

Has it? How would I know? When was that? What were conditions like then? How would I know? What would happen if this happened today? How would I know? Is there scientific literature on these questions? If so, what points of view were discussed? Have most scientists reached consensus? If so, what is that consensus?

Is there some authority I should trust more than the scientific community for answers to these questions? If so, who? And why?

I don't think it's common sense to assume we know this better than the scientists until we can summarize and engage with what they have said.

[PeterG]

Peter, could we have some guidance? What are we discussing? We seem to be moving past discussing the Christy / Emanuel papers, but I don't know what we have moved on to. I think we need some direction so we don't just fall back into the kind of discussion we have on this topic in other threads.

I thought it would be good to have a thread in which global warming/climate change could be discussed on a strictly scientific basis, with as little intrusion as possible from non-scientific issues. Overall I think this thread has been successful in this regard, thanks to you and the other participants. I posted the link to the Christy-Emanuel discussion to get things started and to provide a means of investment for thread participants. Yes, the thread has branched off to related questions, such as whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas at all. That's fine as long as the questions are addressed scientifically.

I have a few more thoughts that I'll put in the bunny trails thread.

[PeterG]

I'll say it again—

Do not question or denigrate the qualifications, character, or motives of any individual or group.

Think of it this way, maybe: Instead of telling who is wrong (or right), show what is wrong (or right).

[PeterG]

My very educated mother just served them noodles.

What planet begins with T?

[silentreader]

My very educated mother just served them noodles.

What planet begins with T?

Terra

[ohio jones]

One possible, and likely, reason is planets have more to eat.

My very educated mother just served them noodles.

What planet begins with T?

It's the planets that were hungry, not us. We had just eaten pizza. But Saturn's moon Titan used to be considered a secondary planet. And to answer your next question, they were udon noodles.

This is kind of a Lepus trail anyway, but I keep wondering if Robert was really talking about venus flytraps instead of Venus itself.

[Robert]

This is kind of a Lepus trail anyway, but I keep wondering if Robert was really talking about venus flytraps instead of Venus itself.

Reread my post. I have no idea what you are talking about. I have no idea why you would edit what I posted and make it look like I typed planets instead of plants.

[Bootstrap]

What planet begins with T?

Terra

You're on solid ground with that answer.