BS Chuck.

[Guest]

I see it as Basic Sense chuck. Easily destroys the likes of irrelevant farmer 5 or whatever his name is

[chuckChuck]

True, Schindler wasn't a climate scientist. Schindler studied the impacts of climate change. But in the anti science mind of climate change denialists this distinction doesn't matter in their campaign to discredit scientists of all types.

https://www.ualberta.ca/folio/2021/03/celebrating-the-life-of-david-schindler.html https://www.ualberta.ca/folio/2021/03/celebrating-the-life-of-david-schindler.html

"His studies into freshwater shortages and the effects of climate disruption on Canada's alpine and northern boreal ecosystems guided policy not only in the province, but across the country and around the world."

[AlbertaFarmer5]

True, Schindler wasn't a climate scientist. Schindler studied the impacts of climate change. But in the anti science mind of climate change denialists this distinction doesn't matter in their campaign to discredit scientists of all types.

https://www.ualberta.ca/folio/2021/03/celebrating-the-life-of-david-schindler.html https://www.ualberta.ca/folio/2021/03/celebrating-the-life-of-david-schindler.html

"His studies into freshwater shortages and the effects of climate disruption on Canada's alpine and northern boreal ecosystems guided policy not only in the province, but across the country and around the world."

As promised, anything you say can and will be held against you:

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

[AlbertaFarmer5]

"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."

Did you really read and comprehend that statement? Do you realize how infinitely preposterous and contradictory it is? This just makes you look even more ignorant of the subject, and was so laughable that it actaully prompted me to read the article to see how many more such gems are within( spoiler alert, lots of them)
I will try to explain it. The Charney sensitivity IS exactly about how warm the world will get in the future due to CO2. Now your article explains that warming depends more on the amount of CO2, than on the mathematical relationship between CO2 and warming. And this was supposed to pass for "science" according to you. And you repeated it, repeatedly as if it proves some point, other than you can't or don't read what you post.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

The more important point is that since 1979 when first postulated by Charney, we have added 41 years of climate data, with which we can ( if so inclined) narrow down the range by using actual observed values.
From the sciency sounding article:

Sensitivity can also be estimated from instrumental records of surface temperatures

And that's all they have to say about that, while giving great fanfare to the models.

Then in a few more paragraphs they casually mention this:

Model and palaeoclimate-based approaches (blue and purple lines and dots) rarely provide sensitivity estimates below 2C, whereas approaches that use instrumental data (orange) often have.

To translate that. The models estimate a Charney sensitivity much higher than actual real world data does.

We actually have the data now to throw out the models, and narrow this down using said temperature and CO2 data. But we don't.

The range of the sensitivity from the genuine climate scientists from the chart in your article is from 0 degrees to 10 degrees. 10 degrees is infinitely higher than 0 degrees.

Linzden and Choi use the instrumental record to narrow it down to between 0.4 and 0.51 degrees. They are climate scientists, not soil scientists, perhaps we should listen to them?

Check out their interactive chart, then come back and tell us all about settled science. And consensus, and which climate scientists we should listen to.

Not that it matters, with statements such as this:

While narrowing the range of sensitivity will not change the need for rapid decarbonisation

repeated in different phrasing throughout the article. When the conclusion is made before the science, why even bother with the science? What if narrowing the range equates to a range of between 0 and 0( within the range of the graph), it will not change the need for rapid decarbonization.
This is not how science works. The conclusion is supposed to be derived from the data, not preconcieved.

[fjlip]

Thanks AF5, great evidence! Excellent!

[Guest]

Blah blah blah. While some people argue with themselves in their echo chamber, this is the reality
https://247newsaroundtheworld.com/news/us-china-call-truce-to-cooperate-on-fixing-climate-crisis/

[furrowtickler]

the fight against global warming must be working ...
//youtu.be/lmJd3HfT8mc

[chuckChuck]

Climate sensitivity doesn't change the fact that increasing CO2 levels are causing global temperatures to rise. Estimating climate sensitivity is important in determining what the potential range of change will be.

A5 wants us to believe that global warming and climate change are nothing to worry about and that changes will be small or not at all. The current science does not support A5's opinion.

Charney in 1979 - 40 years ago, said the range of climate sensitivity is between 1.5-4.5 degrees warming for a doubling of C02 levels from pre industrial levels of 280ppm.

From more recent science "Now, bringing together evidence from observed warming, Earth’s distant past and climate models, as well as advances in our scientific understanding of the climate, our findings suggest that the range of ECS is likely to be between 2.6C and 4.1C."

https://skepticalscience.com/why-low-end-sensitivity-ruled-out.html https://skepticalscience.com/why-low-end-sensitivity-ruled-out.html

Keep in mind:
"the last time the atmospheric CO₂ amounts were this high was more than 3 million years ago, when temperature was 2°–3°C (3.6°–5.4°F) higher than during the pre-industrial era, and sea level was 15–25 meters (50–80 feet) higher than today."

"Global atmospheric carbon dioxide was 409.8 ± 0.1 ppm in 2019, a new record high. That is an increase of 2.5 ± 0.1 ppm from 2018, the same as the increase between 2017 and 2018. In the 1960s, the global growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide was roughly 0.6 ± 0.1 ppm per year. Between 2009-18, however, the growth rate has been 2.3 ppm per year. The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago."

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

Regardless of the sensitivity range we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

A5 is blowing smoke to argue that we should do nothing and has unbelievably even suggested we need to keep burning fossil fuels to stop CO2 levels from falling!

When it comes to human caused climate change A5 is in full denial!

[fjlip]

"Climate sensitivity doesn't change the fact that increasing CO2 levels are causing global temperatures to rise."

Maybe, but take a survey of northern countries, ask WHO wants it COLDER?

I predict ZERO %. There a consensus, earth is fine, warmer is better, equals LIFE, green, healthy, even LESS VIRUS. Cold is death, hunger, Virus heaven.

What should we chose?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Climate sensitivity doesn't change the fact that increasing CO2 levels are causing global temperatures to rise. Regardless of the sensitivity range we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

You just did it again. Do you not learn anything? I just went through this, yet you repeated it again.

What if climate sensitivity to CO2 is negative as it has been throughout most of geologic history?
What if it is zero, as indicated in your link from Climate Brief?

Read the bolded statement again. No wonder you keep reverting to using the word believe.

So no amount of evidence could ever sway your "belief". That is not how science works. That is how cults and superstitions work. They prey on the week minded, the uneducated, the ignorant.

When you apply this type of reasoning, it just reinforces that this has more in common with a religious cult than with science.

[chuckChuck]

So do you want hotter and dryer summers in the southern prairies? I sure as hell don't and most farmers would say the same!

Even with climate change our winters are going to be cold because of our latitude and mid continental climate.

If you want a mild winter move south to the sun belt.

[chuckChuck]

You just did it again. Do you not learn anything? I just went through this, yet you repeated it again.

What if climate sensitivity to CO2 is negative as it has been throughout most of geologic history?
What if it is zero, as indicated in your link from Climate Brief?

Read the bolded statement again. No wonder you keep reverting to using the word believe.

So no amount of evidence could ever sway your "belief". That is not how science works. That is how cults and superstitions work. They prey on the week minded, the uneducated, the ignorant.

When you apply this type of reasoning, it just reinforces that this has more in common with a religious cult than with science.

A5 climate sensitivity range is not zero or negative. Charney said 1.5- 4.5 degrees with a doubling of CO2 from pre industrial levels. The latest science says 2-4 degrees approximately. Neither are good news. Time to move on A5 you are grasping at straws.

[Partners]

It's minus 2 and snowing again.
Want it colder move North chucky.

[chuckChuck]

A couple of weeks ago it was relatively hot and very dry and drought was looming

In April I will take -2 and wet over hot and extremely dry any time.