BS Chuck.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

And what happened to your double standard that demanded only reputable scientific organizations be allowed to offer any contributions to climate science.

The director and editor of Carbon Brief is Leo Hickman, who

graduating in Art History in 1994.

According to Wikipedia.

Now I don't normally play your games, of attacking the messenger. I just spent countless posts destroying the inconsistencies and outright lies and omissions within the message instead, something you have never done, you promptly claim the source isn't approved, then ignore all the scientific evidence within. But please apply your own standard consistently.

And as for Zeke Hausfather, the author, you might want to find a more reputable source. This is the guy who recently wrote a paper defending how accurately the models have forecast current temperatures. You know, the models in the graph furrowtickler posted above indicating that the empirical measurements have now fallen completely below the range of all of the models, which themselves represent a range so broad as to be almost useless.

[chuckChuck]

And Charney? And the whole IPCC?

It doesn't matter to you if the source is credible climate scientists or not.

According to you they are all wrong! LOL

[AlbertaFarmer5]

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.

The zero value came right from the Climate Brief link you posted in this thread. Didn't you read it? The range from the interactive chart ranges from 0 to 10 degree C. Now you are contradicting your own sources?
Pick your time frame, almost all show an inverse corellation. I thought you were the one who "believes" in science?
30 years of US data yields this:

When the correlation is calculated for the chart's temperature trends and the average CO2 levels for each time period, the result is a -0.93 with a r2 of +0.86. That puts it in the universe of almost a perfect inverse (negative) correlation - higher CO2 levels seemingly drives temperatures to deceleration and cooling.

500 million years:

8000 years:

[jazz]

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

Isnt that better for solar panels?

A bunch of furnaces will now have to run for the next few week. April should be warmish right? Thats a shoulder month.
And you want it cold?

Sounds like the same logic as the carbon tax. Get a bigger rebate by using more fossil fuel.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Back to Foragefarmers assertion that I'm doing a good job of debating Chuck.
As proved here once again, I've done a terrible job.
After all this effort ,Chuck is back to where he started. Didn't learn anything.
I used his own sources, to prove he is wrong.
I used his own words, and his own arguments to disprove his own arguments.
I turned everything he said and used it against him.
And it had absolutely no effect. HIs mind is as closed as ever.
It's almost as if he didn't come here to learn anything.
Almost as if his sole purpose is to spread propaganda, not have a debate.
The operation was a success, the patient died.

[Partners]

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.

It was -10 last night again chuck. You must be so happy.
Without a warm April NO seeding in May...
So which planet are you on ???

[dmlfarmer]

For those of you who claim you are open minded, looking for answers to climate change questions, and base your opinion about climate change on science consider reading the article "The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof" that was in this morning NYTs. This article addresses the biggest questions people have about the science behind climate change and the misinformation used by climate change deniers. It is an interesting read. The author has a doctorate in geology so has some credibility. I will only post the link so those who refuse to consider anything outside their bias will not have to scroll past a long cut and paste.

https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html?campaign_id=2&emc=edit_th_20210420&instan ce_id=29436&nl=todaysheadlines&regi_id=50975083&se gment_id=55916&user_id=7a12d123dfb1d02ee141dbfea00 5288b https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html?campaign_id=2&emc=edit_th_20210420&instan ce_id=29436&nl=todaysheadlines&regi_id=50975083&se gment_id=55916&user_id=7a12d123dfb1d02ee141dbfea00 5288b

[Guest]

https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-why-some-people-still-think-climate-change-isnt-real-124763

[sumdumguy]

Chuck, you have lots of friends here because ‘A friend listens to your BS, tells you that it is bullshit and then listens some more.’ Now I didn’t say he reads your cut and pastes. But its all good if you have a friend or two. 😂

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Thanks for posting the article dml. I always read on when I see a headline or paper with such promises.
I keep hoping they will present the smoking gun evidence.
I really want you to be right, that there might be some more warming in our future and that we have control over that.
I was underwhelmed yet again.
Perhaps I missed it, but can yo point out which section of the article you consider to new undisutable information that cements your side of the debate? So that we have a starting point for a facts based debate on this.

But unfortunately, Chuck already contradicted you when he pronounced that no one listens to anyone who isn't a climate scientist. And the geologist in your article is not a climate scientist.

Are you really sure that Chuck is on your side? Every post he makes seems to make your job harder. With his contradictions, complete and willful ignorance of the topic and lack of any scientific comprehension. Not to mention the attitude. Perhaps he is really a double agent? In spite of all my efforts using facts, evidence and pointed question to counter your arguments, I am of the opinion that Chuck has been our sides biggest asset in destroying the credibility of the CAGW narrative.
Lock him in a room with Al Gore for an hour, and Al will come out as a born again climate denier. With apologies to Al Gore, I wouldn't actually wish that on my worst enemy.
But if you really care about the issue as you claim, perhaps you should take Chuck aside and politely ask him to quit sabatoging your cause at every turn.

[dmlfarmer]

Nice distraction AF5. Not a single rebuttal on the information presented in the article. Instead you respond with your typical personal attack on Chuck. If you are so underwhelmed you would have thought you would have at least pointed out where you disagreed with what was written and ideally provided actual scientific evidence of that what was claimed in the article was false. To argue that a commentary is only valid if new information is presented will sure make a lot of your commenting on climate change shorter as you also regurgitate the same denial arguments over and over.

To answer your question however, the article was not intended to present any new data, evidence or research. It was a recap of existing evidence of global warming and a rebuttal of oft repeated climate denial claims.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

What about the article would you like me to rebut? I already asked you to point out what you want to discuss within the article.
You and Chuck seem to have a lot of spare time at this busiest time of year for most of us, you take the initiative. I personally don't have time for a dissertation disproving the entire article, but if you could narrow it down to what you consider irrefutable evidence that disproves what I have been claiming, I would gladly take the time to discuss it with you.
I didn't see anything that hasn't already been rehashed to death here and elsewhere.
I saw nothing that adressed the two questions I have been asking of you two.

Actually, I will start.
The article claims we have 150 years of accurate climate data. So if we both agree to accept that fact, can we also agree that 150 years of both climate data and CO2 records should be enough to finally empirically establish the relationship between CO2 and temperature ( Charney sensitivity) 42 years after it was first postulated? Why are we still relying on models to estimate this relationship when the definitive answers to the big questions in the article indicates we could be using actual reliable data instead?

[dmlfarmer]

Actually, I will start.
The article claims we have 150 years of accurate climate data. So if we both agree to accept that fact, can we also agree that 150 years of both climate data and CO2 records should be enough to finally empirically establish the relationship between CO2 and temperature ( Charney sensitivity) 42 years after it was first postulated? Why are we still relying on models to estimate this relationship when the definitive answers to the big questions in the article indicates we could be using actual reliable data instead?

No we can't agree on that. Answers based in science cannot be scheduled and there is no time limit after which science has failed.

Glyphosate was patented 51 years ago and science cannot yet even agree on the cancer risk it poses. IARC says it poses significant risk but the EPA says there is little risk. And this is the a risk poses to an individual, not nearly the complex question of the effect of CO2 on the global climate.

But if science truly should be able to figure anything out in a set period of time why are we even worrying about glyphosate. A better question is why has science not found the cure for cancer. Cancer was documented in Egypt back in 1600BC. In 1910 President Taft pledged to cure cancer in 5 years. In 1971 President Nixon ordered a campaign to find a cure for cancer (50 years ago) and billions of dollars later people are still dying of cancer.

Which brings up the question of what happens when you die? Back in 1907 Dr MacDougall tried to determine the weight of the human soul by placing dying people on a scale. He came up with 21 grams. So is this right? It is the average of the best 4 tests he made, just as the Charney number was the best average of the estimates at in 79. Do you agree that the soul weighs 21 grams, or are there factors that the science of MacDougall did not take into consideration, just like there are climatic feedback loops that were not accounted for in the Charney estimate, and there are likely more that we have not even thought of?

In 1758 Carl Linnaeus created the taxonomy order so all species could be classified. (kingdom, class, order, species etc) Since that time, 1.5 million species have been recorded. But how many species of life are on this planet? Science estimates only 15% of species found on earth have been identifed. How can it be that in 2 and a half centuries we have not been able to identify all life on this planet if you think we should be able to know the exact impact of CO2 on the entire global climate?

You claim to believe in science yet your claim because we do not have an exact Charney number somehow proves that climate change is not real is as unscientific as it gets. It ranks right up there with the anti vax rants on this site.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Thanks for the long winded reply dml.
Since this thread is dedicated to Chuck, I will respond in true Chuck style, by putting words in your mouth.

So, what you are saying is that global warming is a non-falsibiable hypothesis. No amount of real world data and no amount of failed predictions can ever disprove the theory. If 150 years of tandem data, 42 years since James Hansen first proclaimed the emergency, 50 years of climate models, aren't enough to at least narrow down the relationship, if there is one, then what would it take?

You claim to believe in science yet your claim because we do not have an exact Charney number somehow proves that climate change is not real is as unscientific as it gets. It ranks right up there with the anti vax rants on this site.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I have never claimed to Believe in science. Quite the opposite, I have been defending the integrity scientific method and insisting that it does not require belief, it requires evidence. You possibly have me confused with Chuck, he insists science is a religion ( a democratic one at that, requiring consensus) based strictly on belief.
Stating that science relies on belief is as unscientific as it gets.

Not knowing the exact Charney sensitivity does not prove climate change isn't real, and I've never claimed that it isn't.

What it does however do is completely destroy the current narrative that there is certainty that we are facing an existential climate crisis. While the media, the politicians, the activists, all present the global warming story as if there is absolute certainty. The science is settled, the debate is over, 97% agree, always giving the indication that there is no room for uncertainty.
That is absolutely NOT what the science says. Even the IPCC readily admits the vast uncertainties. This is only one of them, but it is fundamental to the entire theory. We aren't talking about quibbling over a few percent, the accepted values have a range of 300% from smallest to largest. And the entire range is from 0 to 10, and that is right out of Chuck's article, I'm not making it up. Other sources postulate that the relationship is negative based on the geologic record.

[Spyguy]

Doesn’t matter who does or doesn’t believe in science. The truth of the matter is we can’t compete paying 170.00 per ton on carbon taxes when other countries won’t follow. Puts us at a horrible disadvantage on the world front. Nobody will pay us more for our grain then they can buy it from other countries that have no carbon tax. Canada puts out 1.6 percent of the world carbon and even if we cut it in half who will notice with the likes of Russia, China, India not having any notion of doing anything. If you google how much money Canada has collected on carbon tax it comes up with a number real quick but google how the money collected is being used to reduce emissions and the old wheel spins forever. Collecting money from polluters does nothing to reduce the carbon. If carbon is so bad then why not pay us for capturing it like the usa does. I really don’t know who is telling the truth but it is quite obvious that the liberals have used a scare tactic and very successfully to tax households to pay for there reckless spending. Have you ever listened to you people talk about global warming. They have no idea who when where and what is going on other then we have to do something. Ask them where they got there information from and they say the news. Well the news isn’t news anymore. All it is now is paid advertising for political parties after generous contributions from political parties. Why don’t they make appliance companies double there warranties to 10 years on appliances that fill the landfill sites. They can easily make the appliances last longer. I still have a 1960’s fridge and deep freeze. Good thing science helped them build a failure point in. How about Goodyear implement tire. They all fail in 3-5 years from cracking. They never wear out they fail from a compound or lack of a compound designed to make them fail. Why do other tire companies have better implement tires. Maybe the Governent should make manufacturers use other brands. Lots of carbon when making tires. Why are the cement plants in Quebec exempt. Easy because it is votes for the pm. Everything has a horrible political agenda and some us us can see the agenda on carbon tax. It ain’t about the world environment. If we all stopped burning fuel in Canada science couldn’t detect that if nobody followed suit.
Point being that governments could easily pick apart lots of carbon polluting sectors but the Trudeau liberals are hammering western Canada. His dad hated us and he is way worse. That is why we must go.
Now rumours are spinning about nitrogen fertilizer being a target. I guess people don’t want to afford food anymore. Once all the farms are run by Governent or chemical countries you will not be able to afford your grocery bill.
It is very evident that if western Canada wants to survive then it will have to be on our own. We must sever ties with the east and soon. I hear a west separatist party is forming in Alberta and I can’t wait. We must and will break away from the nonsense. After all is said and done with lies and scandals we all have to eat. That is a right we all have taken for granted. This is total insanity the attacks the Ottawa liberals have been dishing out to western Canada. I hope the lier’s fan club all move east when the crap hits the fan and Canada is split. People will only take so much and that point is here.