BS Chuck.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

The internet has created a tribalism among other negatives.
I will work at kicking myself off.

Well I'm doing my part to avoid feeding into any one specific tribe.
I've made enough enemies on all sides. And go out of my way to find something positive to say about The tribes I don't normally fit in with. Chuck just makes that last one really really hard to do most days.

[shtferbrains]

I asked Chuckster the CO2 question 3 times even offering multiple choices when he put up the long term chart that clearly showed the answer.
I don't think he looked at the chart or maybe couldnt comprehend it.

[chuckChuck]

OK Chuck, since you apparently have nothing better to do right now, while all the farmers are busy preparing for seeding, calving etc, and want to start another global warming debate, how about this:
If I honestly answer your 2 questions, will you promise to answer my two outstanding questions from the last Global Warming thread?
Mine are really easy, they require a one word(number) answer.
What is the exact Charney sensitivity for a doubling of CO2?
What is the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Go ahead A5 tell us all about it. LOL

Why not ask a climate scientist? Whats your point?

Are you repeating your previous bogus suggestion that we are going to run out of carbon dioxide if we don't keep burning fossil fuels? You suggested that canard before but provided zero scientific evidence.

Surely you are not going to embarrass yourself again by proving that you apparently know nothing about the carbon cycle?

Now its your turn.

Name one scientific organization that says that human caused climate change is not real.

Do you disagree with David Schindler that climate change is going to negatively impact fresh water supplies?

[SASKFARMER]

BS Chuck, again you twist and turn and don't answer a single question with your little brain. Come on man answer a simple question just once.

[blackpowder]

Beaver pics seem to work on Bin Laiden.

[chuckChuck]

Here is the answer to A5's obscure questions that will help A5 and others understand the impact and lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The Atmosphere: Getting a Handle on Carbon Dioxide

By Alan Buis,
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Changes to our atmosphere associated with reactive gases (gases that undergo chemical reactions) like ozone and ozone-forming chemicals like nitrous oxides, are relatively short-lived. Carbon dioxide is a different animal, however. Once it’s added to the atmosphere, it hangs around, for a long time: between 300 to 1,000 years. Thus, as humans change the atmosphere by emitting carbon dioxide, those changes will endure on the timescale of many human lives.

Earth’s atmosphere is associated with many types of cycles, such as the carbon cycle and the water cycle. Crisp says that while our atmosphere is very stable, those cycles aren’t.

“Humanity’s ability to thrive depends on these other planetary cycles and processes working the way they now do,” he said. “Thanks to detailed observations of our planet from space, we’ve seen some changes over the last 30 years that are quite alarming: changes in precipitation patterns, in where and how plants grow, in sea and land ice, in entire ecosystems like tropical rain forests. These changes should attract our attention.

“One could say that because the atmosphere is so thin, the activity of 7.7 billion humans can actually make significant changes to the entire system,” he added. “The composition of Earth’s atmosphere has most certainly been altered. Half of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in the last 300 years has occurred since 1980, and one quarter of it since 2000. Methane concentrations have increased 2.5 times since the start of the Industrial Age, with almost all of that occurring since 1980. So changes are coming faster, and they’re becoming more significant.”

The concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere is currently at nearly 412 parts per million (ppm) and rising. This represents a 47 percent increase since the beginning of the Industrial Age, when the concentration was near 280 ppm, and an 11 percent increase since 2000, when it was near 370 ppm. Crisp points out that scientists know the increases in carbon dioxide are caused primarily by human activities because carbon produced by burning fossil fuels has a different ratio of heavy-to-light carbon atoms, so it leaves a distinct “fingerprint” that instruments can measure. A relative decline in the amount of heavy carbon-13 isotopes in the atmosphere points to fossil fuel sources. Burning fossil fuels also depletes oxygen and lowers the ratio of oxygen to nitrogen in the atmosphere.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/

[chuckChuck]

Now its A5's turn to answer my questions.

[SASKFARMER]

Chuck are you just a slow learner or were you dropped on your head as a child. Several times.

We want an answer from Chuck, not a cut and paste. Your good at cutting and pasting but a real answer so we know you get what you're talking about. Not liberal drivel that was sent to you to repost.

Come on buddy work with us just answer a ****ing question.

[chuckChuck]

SF. So who do you think provides more convincing scientific evidence in answer to a question? A world class scientific organization like NASA or a farmer? LOL

Apparently you don't like cut an paste to prove a point? WTF That's like saying don't read books or any scientific literature to understand science!

What I cut and paste is called evidence that backs up my argument.

You should try it sometime! It works better than your coffee shop BS!

[farming101]

CO2 levels are rising. It is measurable.
CO2 levels will continue to rise.

It's reported bitcoin mining in China will exceed the power consumption of 181 countries by 2024.
Nobody cares man, nobody cares

[chuckChuck]

Nobody cares? Huh?

191 countries agreed to the Paris Accord to cut greenhouse gases. Erin O'Toole and every provincial premier have plans to cut emissions. So its obvious a lot of people care.

In fact Erin O'toole is announcing a new climate change platform today including a carbon tax .

OTTAWA — Conservative leader Erin O’Toole will release a climate platform on Thursday that proposes to tax the carbon emissions of both large industrial emitters and consumer fuels, though change how the fuel levy currently works.

A Conservative source had initially told the National Post that O’Toole is scrapping the federal carbon tax on fuels, but CBC obtained the full document that shows it will be replaced with a fuel levy that goes into a “personal low carbon savings account.” The Post has seen the document that confirms CBC’s reporting.

The Conservatives argue the new fuel charge is not a tax because it does not go into government revenue, but instead into a consumer savings account. However, the plan will mean consumers are still paying a surcharge on fuel; according to the document, it will start at $20 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions, increasing to a maximum of $50 per tonne.

The plan will also include a specific target and date for reducing Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. O’Toole has said the lack of a clear target and timeline was a major problem with the plan put forward by the Conservatives in the 2019 election under Andrew Scheer’s leadership.

The source did not say what exactly that target will be, though O’Toole has previously said his plan will at least meet the Paris Agreement target, which is to reduce national emissions to 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. Canada has also pledged to get to net-zero emissions by 2050.

“You’re going to see a very detailed plan…that will, I think, make our commitments probably faster than Mr. Trudeau,” O’Toole told the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade in February.

The release of the climate plan, scheduled for Thursday morning in Ottawa, is a major test for O’Toole’s leadership. He has repeatedly promised his plan will be more robust than Scheer’s, arguing that a lack of credibility on the environment badly hurt the Conservatives in the 2019 election.

The federal carbon pricing law brought in by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has two main parts: a fuel charge that consumers and smaller businesses pay (for example, at the gas pumps and for home heating), and a separate output-based pricing regime for large industrial emitters. The law establishes a minimum standard, and imposes the federal program if a provincial program doesn’t meet the standard.

The two parts of the federal law can function independently. Alberta, for example, currently has the federal fuel charge imposed on it, but has its own industrial pricing regime that meets the federal standard.

Scheer’s plan had proposed to scrap both parts of the federal law. It would have replaced the industrial pricing regime with a program that set emissions caps for large emitters, and required companies that exceeded the cap to make investments in clean technology and research.

The source did not provide more detail about what else in O’Toole’s plan will get Canada to its reduction target. The Liberals promised in the 2019 election to exceed Canada’s Paris Agreement target, and announced in December the government would raise the fuel charge from $50 per tonne in 2022 to $170 a tonne by 2030.

O’Toole’s 2020 leadership platform had promised a focus on large emitters, saying his plan would forge “a national industrial regulatory and pricing regime across the country.”

The leadership platform also said O’Toole’s plan “avoids focus on carbon only, and instead is scoped to capture ALL greenhouse gases, many of which are more powerful than carbon dioxide.”

It promised to simplify the tax code “to create confidence in the resource sector and support its actions toward emission reduction,” and to “proactively invest in mitigation programs and critical infrastructure to protect communities threatened by Climate Change on an on-going basis.”

The leadership platform promised to help lower global emissions by focusing on exporting modern nuclear technology, helping countries transition from coal to natural gas, and working with the oil and gas industry to get to net-zero emissions.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/new-conservative-climate-plan-to-put-carbon-tax-on-large-emitters-but-scrap-it-for-consumer-fuels https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/new-conservative-climate-plan-to-put-carbon-tax-on-large-emitters-but-scrap-it-for-consumer-fuels

[blackpowder]

Those same 191 countries likely also pledged to ban land mines and address childhood disease and hunger. Food waste and crop production.
But no, fat cat crusaders have banned crop advancements for the sustenance farmers. Can't puff the ego while getting your hands dirty. Africa too much work.
Spend billions banning guns for votes while 5 people/day die from opioid overdose in BC alone.
Write your checks and feel warm and fuzzy. Convince yourself the climate issue is a bigger threat than Hitler ever was.
Encourage the govt to spend billions in taxes chasing it's tail for votes.
Whales and polar bears much more cute than a pot bellied, one legged child.
What kind of life are you "saving" for his grandkids?? He would appreciate a full belly tonight.
We are all so blind. If only we could all give up all our wealth, the world would be fixed. Ya right, buffalo chips.
I hope your kids feel like they've done their part to save the world while living in their apartment on UBI after giving up property ownership and entrepreneurship. Sooner or later all on here will be told we don't deserve what we have.
But keep posting self validating articles and op ed pieces if it makes you feel better. I have work to do.

[Guest]

post of the year , right above

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck, inexplicably, you have avoided answering both of my questions, but succeeded in answering the ones I was supposed to answer.

You provided a range of between 300 years and 3.3 times longer. That is not an answer, it is a huge range, and it is wrong, as yyou already know from the previous thread. Considering that the science has been settled for decades already, this number must be known to 5 decimal places by now. Your range also contradicts what little we learned in the previous thread on this topic.

The IPCC (one of your favorite credible sources). Does attempt to answer this. The range they provide is a number, and another number a mere 3900% bigger than the first. Followed by a long list of excuses involving the word uncertainties. And for the record, 1000's of years falls far outside of even the IPCC's most generous guess. So you can give up and quit looking for a citation for your fabricated number.

About all we could conclude(from your credible sources) is that it is at least 5 years, and definitely much less than 1000. And recall that it took 8 pages of deflection and obfuscation on your part to establish even that non answer.

You haven't even attempted to answer the Charney sensitivity. And even if you actually tried, or wanted to answer the question, you couldn't possibly. So I will finally give in and help you. No one knows what it is. Not the IPCC, not NOAA, not NASA. The best they can offer is a range so large it is useless for any projections of future climate. And the uncertainty in its value keeps getting BIGGER 40+ years after Charney first postulated it. The range is so big as to be meaningless. Even the sign is up for debate, let alone the magnitude.
The credible scientific organizations responsible for the science behind spending trillions, destroying our standard of living, and prompting Bill Gates to modify the climate, haven't got a clue how much temperature change will result from doubling CO2, or how long that CO2 will remain in the atmosphere.

I beg you to prove me wrong, and provide the exact values for both of these. I can't create a model where I plug in a range of inputs, where the biggest is 1000's of times bigger than the smallest value, and receive an output that is any more accurate than the range of the input.

As for your questions to me:
You stated that those of us who are not climate scientists have no right or ability to contribute to the debate. Thus answering your question about Schindler.

Schindler was not a climate scientist(your go to argument). He was not doing original research into CO2's effect on climate. He was taking the false premise of CAGW and applying it to his own field of expertise. No matter how smart he was, when the input is garbage, so is the output. GIGO. Not his fault that the original "science" was corrupted by the likes of Micheal Mann etc.

As for your other question about scientific organizations, your non answer to my two questions about residency time and Charney senstivity answers that one for me. How can you even refer to them as credible or scientific when they readily admit that they don't know two of the most important inputs into modelling or forecasting climate change due to CO2. And that is only two of the complete unkowns which are integral to their models, we could go through dozens more.

Once again, prove me wrong with data.

[chuckChuck]

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.