No B.C. Fruit This Year

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck, since you are smarter than the climate scientists. Here is your chance to prove it.
Show your calculations of the specific heat capacity of the entire atmosphere, and the specific heat capacity of the entire oceans, and from there, calculate how much the atmosphere is capable of heating the oceans. I hope your calculator has a lot of room for zeroes on the right side of the decimal point, you will need them.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck, since you are smarter than the climate scientists. Here is your chance to prove it.
Show your calculations of the specific heat capacity of the entire atmosphere, and the specific heat capacity of the entire oceans, and from there, calculate how much the atmosphere is capable of heating the oceans. I hope your calculator has a lot of room for zeroes on the right side of the decimal point, you will need them.

I'm glad I didn't hold my breath waiting for an answer.

[chuckChuck]

A5 You go a head and keep pretending you know the advanced relationship between CO2 and the greenhouse gas effect math, but we all know you still can't understand even basic concepts of climate change and still deny climate change is warming the oceans.

Keep embarrassing yourself. Its fun to watch!

By the way where are the links and references for the climate change denier economics from Bjorn L on X. Why are you dragging your lazy ass on this if it is such convincing evidence?

Just another "all hat and no cattle" Albertan?

From NASA:
"Rising amounts of greenhouse gases are preventing heat radiated from Earth’s surface from escaping into space as freely as it used to. Most of the excess atmospheric heat is passed back to the ocean.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Climate change denier? Are you aware that he is an environmentalist and firm believer in human caused climate change?
But unlike most alarmists, he is capable of doing math.

[chuckChuck]

So the economists from Harvard and Northwestern can't do math?

Climate change will eventually reduce the value of the global economy by almost one-third, according to Harvard University’s Adrien Bilal and Diego Kanzig of Northwestern University.

[url]https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-climate-change-will-knock-one-third-off-world-economy-study-shows[/url]

[cropgrower]

more university indoctrination propaganda

[sumdumguy]

Oh Adrien and Diego, good guys, met them in the university pub and we made this up to see how far it will fly. ????

[furrowtickler]

A5 You go a head and keep pretending you know the advanced relationship between CO2 and the greenhouse gas effect math, but we all know you still can't understand even basic concepts of climate change and still deny climate change is warming the oceans.

Keep embarrassing yourself. Its fun to watch!

By the way where are the links and references for the climate change denier economics from Bjorn L on X. Why are you dragging your lazy ass on this if it is such convincing evidence?

Just another "all hat and no cattle" Albertan?

From NASA:
"Rising amounts of greenhouse gases are preventing heat radiated from Earth’s surface from escaping into space as freely as it used to. Most of the excess atmospheric heat is passed back to the ocean.

And for the rest of the story in 1/2 western Canada again overnight during the longest days of the year

[AlbertaFarmer5]

A5 You go a head and keep pretending you know the advanced relationship between CO2 and the greenhouse gas effect math..

Are you sure you are in any position to judge anyone on their math abilities.

You are simultaneously claiming that climate sensitivity to CO2 is both linear and logarithmic. Do you think both of those things are possible at the same time? Do you what either of those words even means?
Your cognitive dissonance knows no boundaries.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

A5 You go a head and keep pretending you know the advanced relationship between CO2 and the greenhouse gas effect math,

It is actually the alarmists such as yourself who are pretending to know the relationship between CO2 and temperature. The actual climate scientists admit there is vast uncertainty.

Ever since a Arrhenius first proposed the greenhouse effect 130 years ago, scientists have theorized that the relationship is logarithmic that's why we say per doubling of co2. And that it has an upper limit above which there is no further benefit. Evidence indicates we already at that point.
Except with 130 years of science behind us, the science still isn't settled on what the climate sensitivity to CO2 might be.
Science has narrowed it down to somewhere between 0 and 10° per doubling of co2. Which is about as useful as predicting that my crops will yield somewhere between 0 and 1,000 bushels per acre.

But then along comes a troll pretending to be a Farmer on an internet forum who suddenly claims to know the exact answer and that it is linear and not logarithmic.
Chuck single-handedly erased decades of climate science.

[chuckChuck]

Where is the credible scientific evidence to back up your irrelevant insider math there Einstein?

When asked for any independent evidence from a credible scientific institution that supports your wing nut ideas, you do a lot of yapping but you come up empty handed every time!

All hat and no cattle again and again!

A5 You go a head and keep pretending you know the advanced relationship between CO2 and the greenhouse gas effect math, but we all know you still can't understand even basic concepts of climate change and still deny climate change is warming the planet and the oceans.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

What is this advanced relationship you keep referring to?

You literally made a post where you claimed that the relationship is 0.1° c per 10 parts per million. You made the claim that you know the relationship. The scientists do not make any such bold claims because they cannot narrow it down.

How could I know the advanced relationship when the scientists don't know the relationship with enough precision to be useful?

I do know that all of the scientific literature for more than a century indicates it is a logarithmic relationship. The only one who thinks it is linear is Chuck.

[chuckChuck]

A5 You go a head and keep pretending you know the in depth relationship and science of CO2 and the greenhouse gas effect, but we all know you still can't understand even basic concepts of climate change and still deny climate change is warming the planet and the oceans.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck, you literally told us what you thought the relationship was. And it contradicts all of the scientific literature. I don't claim to know because I cannot know something that science doesn't claim to know with any certainty.

You are repeating your same unfounded accusations.

[fjlip]

Come on answer! If human caused 3% of C02 is killing earth, WHAT does the 97% natural C02 do to earth?