Oh....oh!!!!!!!

[LEP]

I WAS - if you think of out in the field at 10 or 11 years of age learning the in and outs of agriculture as being homeschooled.

Well I am with you there. About 43 for me.

This whole thing about education is nuts really. I have conversations with a whole spectrum of people on all sides of different issues and I don't automatically discount someone's opinion because they went to tech versus holding a master's degree and likewise I don't accept an opinion blindly because it was touted by someone who might have a Phd over a tech certificate.

My own life experience and information gets weighed as part of all information collected. If something doesn't appear to make sense on the surface I may not accept a finding until there is more evidence. Maybe I am a doubting Thomas but so far it has served me well through my life.

I firmly believe that you have every right to your opinion as do I.

[Horse]

Well stated, BIGGEST failure is NO PREDICTIONS have come to pass! If there are NONE, why believe the DOOMSDAY ones? Please give us ONE that has been predicted!

Google Nostradamus.

[mustardman]

The predictions on Temperature in relation to CO2 from the Charney Group in 1979 - 41 years Ago is bang on.
The nasa models of prediction Also came to pass.
Wing- Nut weekly will tell you there is no crisis ,every thing is normal but there have been HEAT waves around the world ,and warmest years have All come lately.

Pine bark beetles expanding territory
Wood ticks , west Nile mosquitoes, more violent hurricanes, acidifying oceans, more bush fires

Oh yea right No predictions have come to pass. Lol

[sumdumguy]

Subjective conjecture - no definitive relationship to CO2. I shouldn’t need to inform a critical thinker.

[6V53]

Co2 levels will rise with global warming as a symptom not a cause. The big orange fireball in the sky calls the shots.

[jazz]

A critical thinker should be able to load up Wikipedia and find out the hottest and coldest temps on record occurred in the 1880s and 1920-30s.

[agstar77]

Unless there is a drastic change in conditions in Australia , it could be the canary in the coal mine.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

The predictions on Temperature in relation to CO2 from the Charney Group in 1979 - 41 years Ago is bang on.

Bang on, is a strange choice of wods, considering that Charney narrowed down the sensitivity to somewhere between 1.5 degrees and 3 times that amount. Pretty hard to miss the target when it is all encompassing.
But, surely we must have narrowed it down in the intervening 41 years though, right?
Nope, with all of the research money. All of the settled science and consensus still haven't improved on Charneys low end calculation and 300% more than that.

I'm forecasting that you will get between 10 and 30 inches of precipitation next year. Let me know if my forercast is bang on.

Bonus points to anyone who can point out the grevious error ( omission) I made in this post.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Bang on, is a strange choice of wods, considering that Charney narrowed down the sensitivity to somewhere between 1.5 degrees and 3 times that amount. Pretty hard to miss the target when it is all encompassing.
But, surely we must have narrowed it down in the intervening 41 years though, right?
Nope, with all of the research money. All of the settled science and consensus still haven't improved on Charneys low end calculation and 300% more than that.

I'm forecasting that you will get between 10 and 30 inches of precipitation next year. Let me know if my forercast is bang on.

Bonus points to anyone who can point out the grevious error ( omission) I made in this post.

Since no one else is apparently still reading this thread, I'll respond to myself.

Not only is the Charney sensitivity so broad that it couldn't possibly miss, it still missed. And the measure itself is meaningless.

With the benefit of 41 more years of empirical evidence, it now appears that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is more likely half of the lowest estimate that Charney calculated. Making his high estimate only 600% too high. So based on my estimate of your precipitation for the year, even if you only get 5 inches, my forecast would still be bang on.

But what makes it meaningless, is that based on modern calculations of CO2 sequestration vs emissions, doubling of CO2 from pre industrial levels is looking to be unachievable. That and the law of diminishing returns applies to CO2, whereby the rate of increasing benefits to temperature decline at higher levels of CO2. So the sensitivity is not a fixed figure.

[A990]

Since no one else is apparently still reading this thread, I'll respond to myself.

Not only is the Charney sensitivity so broad that it couldn't possibly miss, it still missed. And the measure itself is meaningless.

With the benefit of 41 more years of empirical evidence, it now appears that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is more likely half of the lowest estimate that Charney calculated. Making his high estimate only 600% too high. So based on my estimate of your precipitation for the year, even if you only get 5 inches, my forecast would still be bang on.

But what makes it meaningless, is that based on modern calculations of CO2 sequestration vs emissions, doubling of CO2 from pre industrial levels is looking to be unachievable. That and the law of diminishing returns applies to CO2, whereby the rate of increasing benefits to temperature decline at higher levels of CO2. So the sensitivity is not a fixed figure.

I for one appreciate your well researched posts
....I think these threads illustrate that minds are seldom changed by evidence

[burnt]

Since no one else is apparently still reading this thread, I'll respond to myself.

Not only is the Charney sensitivity so broad that it couldn't possibly miss, it still missed. And the measure itself is meaningless.

With the benefit of 41 more years of empirical evidence, it now appears that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is more likely half of the lowest estimate that Charney calculated. Making his high estimate only 600% too high. So based on my estimate of your precipitation for the year, even if you only get 5 inches, my forecast would still be bang on.

But what makes it meaningless, is that based on modern calculations of CO2 sequestration vs emissions, doubling of CO2 from pre industrial levels is looking to be unachievable. That and the law of diminishing returns applies to CO2, whereby the rate of increasing benefits to temperature decline at higher levels of CO2. So the sensitivity is not a fixed figure.

Oh I'm still reading it. But since I didn't complete a degree, I'm completely unable to comprehend it. LOLLLZ!

But I THINK you made a good point in your last post...LOL!

And I also THINK that this mustardman guy got -. . .homeschooled in this thread.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Unless there is a drastic change in conditions in Australia , it could be the canary in the coal mine.

Sorry Agstar77, I didn't mean to leave you out of the list. What are your educational credentials that qualify you to make such a statement?