BS Chuck.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Then why can't you provide an exact value for the Charney sensitivity? It should be easy according to your logic. As you point out, we should be able to solve for it using empirical data by now right? So what value does that yield?

[SASKFARMER]

Chuck is searching Google and looking in his Liberal Manual for the info. Come on Chuck phone Trudeau maybe he can answer the question. Nope, his coloring book is full and he ate the crayons.

[Goodtime]

A5, So your response, to sum it up, is all the climate scientists are wrong, extra CO2 doesn't cause climate change? So they don't even know how much increasing levels of CO2 will cause warming and climate change?

Here is a hint, since they clearly can measure CO2 from several sources of data and can also measure temperature increases, the conclusion that CO2 and other greenhouse gases cause climate change is a rock solid scientific conclusion.

That's why you can't find any scientific organization that says that it is not happening. Give up! Its over and nobody who matters takes your denialist bullshit seriously.

HA HA HA HA, Chuck thinks he matters, that is hilarious.

[chuckChuck]

Explainer: How scientists estimate ‘climate sensitivity’

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity

You can read all about how climate scientists estimate climate sensitivity. Charney's report from 1979 gives its name to Charney Sensitivity.

But regardless of the range of positive or negative feedback as discussed, the undisputed fact is human caused CO2 increases are causing warming and climate change.

All you are doing is raising a straw man argument with what is charney sensitivity. Time to move on a let the climate scientists do their work, free from the noise of amateur arm chair "experts".

Nobody listens to anyone outside the field of climate scientists. If that was the case we would let soil scientists design bridges.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck is searching Google and looking in his Liberal Manual for the info. Come on Chuck phone Trudeau maybe he can answer the question. Nope, his coloring book is full and he ate the crayons.

Exactly. And he has been frantically googling and searching for the answer for 8 months now since I first asked. And he can't find it, and won't find it.
dml usually comes to Chucks rescue when he gets in way over his head, but he is smart enough to avoid this one. Even Tweety who joined the previous debate wouldn't touch this topic. Poor Chuck just isn't smart enough to avoid stepping on the same garden rake, repeatedly, unabashedly.

If any of the "credible scientific organizations" had nailed this value down, Chuck would have found it by now and used it to discredit my argument. It would be so easy, he could actually win a debate for the first time in his life.

The only credible scientific organizations who have narrowed it down to a usefully narrow range have used the empricial data, and the values they calculate contradict everything Chuck "believes", so they are no longer credible or scientific according to his value system.

So I will ask again, please prove me wrong.

[furrowtickler]

Explainer: How scientists estimate ‘climate sensitivity’

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity

You can read all about how climate scientists estimate climate sensitivity. Charney's report from 1979 gives its name to Charney Sensitivity.

But regardless of the range of positive or negative feedback as discussed, the undisputed fact is human caused CO2 increases are causing warming and climate change.

All you are doing is raising a straw man argument with what is charney sensitivity. Time to move on a let the climate scientists do their work, free from the noise of amateur arm chair "experts".

Nobody listens to anyone outside the field of climate scientists. If that was the case we would let soil scientists design bridges.

//youtu.be/9fRBdy-6nZ0

[AlbertaFarmer5]

You can read all about how climate scientists estimate climate sensitivity. Charney's report from 1979 gives its name to Charney Sensitivity.

Does the word estimate cause you any concerns? Are you OK with spending trillions on something when the fundamental science behind it is an estimate, with a range wider than the broad side of a barn.

How can settled science, consensus science even, be based on an estimate? Can you perhaps define settled for us in this context?

But regardless of the range of positive or negative feedback as discussed, the undisputed fact is human caused CO2 increases are causing warming and climate change.

This is a priceless quote. Classic chuckChuck. I might keep it and use it against him regularly.

Regardless of ... positive or negative..the undisputed fact... increases are causing...

So even if the value is negative, it still causes climate change. Read that again, this is the very definition of a willfully blind idealogue. No facts could ever cause him to waver from his position.

[jazz]

AF, chuck is just like all the woke climate crowd. They just feel climate change is a happening and any grifter with a graph like Mann is good enough evidence for them.

[chuckChuck]

A5 our arm chair "expert", warming and climate change is still occuring. But you say not? LOL

Did you read the whole article?

"Does sensitivity matter?

Climate sensitivity is an important scientific uncertainty, and narrowing the range could have significant consequences. One economic study by Dr Chris Hope at the University of Cambridge suggests that the value of halving the uncertainty may be in the trillions of dollars, as it would allow the amount and speed of emissions reductions needed to be better determined.

Yet the world would still need to decarbonise to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, even if sensitivity is better understood or even at the low end of current estimates. An ECS of closer to 2C would only extend the deadline for reaching net-zero emissions by a decade or so, according to a study by IIASA’s Dr Joeri Rogelj and colleagues.

The uncertainty also cuts both ways; there are just as many new studies being published today suggesting that sensitivity might be on the high end of the 1.5C to 4.5C range as there on the low end. Knutti and colleagues suggest that the uncertainty in climate sensitivity should not be seen as a roadblock for action today. Dessler tells Carbon Brief:

“Unless climate sensitivity falls outside the IPCC’s range, I don’t see that refinements to the range have a huge impact on what we should be doing from a policy perspective. We should be trying to reduce emissions as fast as we can – but slow enough not to be too disruptive to the economy.”

Ultimately, just how warm the world will be in 2100 depends as much or more on the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere than on the precise value for climate sensitivity."

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Nobody listens to anyone outside the field of climate scientists. If that was the case we would let soil scientists design bridges.

Please keep repeating this statement. Then ask me repeatedly about David Schindler's (not a climate scientist)opinion on climate change. Maybe a lightbulb will go off.

[furrowtickler]

Estimates are just that estimates...


Climate models are fundamentally flawed to exaggerate the climate warming agenda

[dmlfarmer]

AF5 since you are dragging me into this stupid argument, I have one question for you. EXACTLY, to the bushel, will be the yields of each of your crops this year? I mean you have farmed for a good while so surely you know exactly what the yield will be right?

The Charney number from 1979 reflected a number of models to the impact of doubling of CO2 would have on temperatures. But at the same time the Charney number did not consider lots of variables such as melting of ice caps and glaciers for example. As a result, the Charney number was nothing more than a potential range of values generated from a number of models that used different variables.

In the same way you cannot predict with one hundred percent certainly the precipitation you will receive, or heat units, or frost or hail, or a host of other factors to predict your yields with 100% certainty. Even fertility, that you have some control over if your soil test and apply by recommendations will not guarantee a yield if growing conditions are outside the norm.

CO2 is not the only variable that effects temp and there are back feeds that science has not even identified yet that will impact the C)2/temp. To argue that because science has not come up with fixed value in 30 years is a strawman argument and is as rediculous as me claiming you must not be a real farmer if you cannot predict your yields this year with 100 percent certainty.

You insinuate it is impossible to plan on estimates, yet you do it as a farmer every year..

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Dml, how is this a stupid argument.
There are Trillions of dollars on the line, our standard of living, potentially the extinction of life(according to some), our ability to feed the population, catastrophic sea level rise etc etc.
I think we had better make sure we know what we are talking about. I thought this was an existential crisis. If so, you might want to have a convincing, science backed argument to get the rest of us on board.

And no, I don't know my exact yield this year, but I can predict the average trend yield going forward to within a few percentage points. I'm not going to apply inputs for a crop way over 3 times larger than I have ever accomplished before, but that is exactly what Chuck is supporting. Chucks range is orders of magnitude greater than that.

[chuckChuck]

"Ultimately, just how warm the world will be in 2100 depends as much or more on the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere than on the precise value for climate sensitivity."

A5 you have even gone as far to suggest that we need to keep burning fossil fuels to keep CO2 levels high enough! Completely ignoring the current science of climate change and the threat of rising CO2 levels. This is a wacky suggestion to put it mildly.

As usual just more distraction and denial. That's all it is and none of our leadership is listening to this bunk. Listen to the climate scientists and let them do their work.

[Guest]

Please keep repeating this statement. Then ask me repeatedly about David Schindler's (not a climate scientist)opinion on climate change. Maybe a lightbulb will go off.

I’m afraid that light bulb is hooked up to a ****ed Chinese solar panel long dead