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

[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?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

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

Thanks, glad to know that someone actually reads them. But sorry to disappoint, most posts (including the preceding)are done from memory while driving tractor or checking cows, not a lot of time for research. Although, if I am in front of the computer, I will make sure to fact check, and include quotes and sources.

As for changing anyone's minds, I have extremely low expectations that any of the "science is settled(and requires belief)" crowd are open to changing their minds, let alone exposing themselves to blasphemy by actually reading something from a nonconformist.

It does however sometimes force them to go looking for information which contradicts their "beliefs", and it is easy to tell when that happens because the thread suddenly dies, rather than admit they have been misled.

But it is my vain hope that other posters read some of the posts, an pick up some new information to use in their own arguments.

[mustardman]

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?

I don’t want to speak For Agstar But what he is saying is What 97% of scientist are saying !
My Point on Questioning Everyone’s Education level is How everyone on here (except a few) are Deniers THINK THEY Are SMARTER than the Scientists who have given us the information!!

It is the Denier Side that sounds Like AntiVaxxers

[jazz]

I don’t want to speak For Agstar But what he is saying is What 97% of scientist are saying !
My Point on Questioning Everyone’s Education level is How everyone on here (except a few) are Deniers THINK THEY Are SMARTER than the Scientists who have given us the information!!

It is the Denier Side that sounds Like AntiVaxxers

I asked before are scientists infallible? The food guide had so much support they got it enshrined in Canadian policy, even taught in schools. And that stood for more than 35 years.

I don't think I am smarter than anyone but I have super keen eye for bullshit especially when flimsy science is wrapped in oppressive govt policy. Your alarm bells should be going off.

[bucket]

AL Gore .....where is his science degree....

He's a preacher at best....and made a billion preaching lies....

Not one of his inconvenient truths came true....

I am a denier because I use my brain and weigh all sides....one side is lying....and when you use celebrities to further the lie ....then I question even more....while celebrities fly around on private planes that burn more fuel in an hour than my farm does in a year....

[agstar77]

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see the problems Australia is having with or without climate change. However a couple of degrees in Agriculture soils and climate does help.

[bucket]

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see the problems Australia is having with or without climate change. However a couple of degrees in Agriculture soils and climate does help.

You think that hasn't happened in Australia before with the wild fires....how long has Australia been inhabited with people that keep records...

Biggest thing is to learn from the fires and develop a plan to mitigate the risk.....

How many fires were started by man?