No B.C. Fruit This Year

[chuckChuck]

Jazz, Ask Danny Smith and Scotty Moe who both have a large emitter carbon tax.


And A5 is wrong about rising CO2 concentrations and the impact on temperature! He keeps making shite up!

But he finally accepted that CO2 is a greenhouse gas! Progress!

[url]https://factsonclimate.org/infographics/concentration-warming-relationship[/url]

"Historical data as well as future climate models show that global warming is (approximately) directly proportional to the increase of CO₂ concentrations in the atmosphere. More specifically: every time the CO₂ concentrations rise by 10 ppm (parts per million), the mean global temperature increases by 0.1 °C.?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Jazz, Ask Danny Smith and Scotty Moe who both have a large emitter carbon tax.


And A5 is wrong about rising CO2 concentrations and the impact on temperature! He keeps making shite up!

But he finally accepted that CO2 is a greenhouse gas! Progress!

[url]https://factsonclimate.org/infographics/concentration-warming-relationship[/url]

"Historical data as well as future climate models show that global warming is (approximately) directly proportional to the increase of CO₂ concentrations in the atmosphere. More specifically: every time the CO₂ concentrations rise by 10 ppm (parts per million), the mean global temperature increases by 0.1 °C.?

Chuck, your assumption is proven wrong right in the math.

The accepted formula is temperature rise per doubling of CO2. Your suggestion is linear, the scientific formula is exponential decay. It is less and less effective at higher concentrations.

Going the other direction, remove all CO2 since the lows of the last ice age, at 180 ppm, would indicate that temperatures should have been 25 degrees lower. Instead they were 7 degrees lower. And as a side note, most of that increase occurred before human caused CO2, as a warming world released more CO2.
The relationship is not linear. And it does not extend to infinity. We are way past the point where CO2 concentrations are an effective greenhouse gas which improve the weather.

[furrowtickler]

GDD since April
way way below normal
Impossible in hot drought conditions that they tried to falsely propagate a few weeks back

[shtferbrains]

Haskap is the earliest fruit here abouts.
Looking like a bumper crop coming.

[chuckChuck]

Chuck, your assumption is proven wrong right in the math.

The accepted formula is temperature rise per doubling of CO2. Your suggestion is linear, the scientific formula is exponential decay. It is less and less effective at higher concentrations.

Going the other direction, remove all CO2 since the lows of the last ice age, at 180 ppm, would indicate that temperatures should have been 25 degrees lower. Instead they were 7 degrees lower. And as a side note, most of that increase occurred before human caused CO2, as a warming world released more CO2.
The relationship is not linear. And it does not extend to infinity. We are way past the point where CO2 concentrations are an effective greenhouse gas which improve the weather.

It's not my assumption. Follow the science.

How are CO? concentrations related to warming?

[url]https://factsonclimate.org/infographics/concentration-warming-relationship[/url]
?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

It's not my assumption. Follow the science.

How are CO? concentrations related to warming?

[url]https://factsonclimate.org/infographics/concentration-warming-relationship[/url]
?

So for all these years the alarmists have been telling us that temperature sensitivity to CO2 concentrations goes up per doubling of co2. Now you tell me the settled science claims it's a linear relationship.
Tell us again about the 97% consensus. If the science can't even agree on the relationship between CO2 and temperature.

[chuckChuck]

How would you know because you deny any scientific evidence that doesn't agree with your really stupid idea that we are going to run out of CO2 if we don't keep burning fossil fuels!

We don't take lectures from flat earthers like you seriously!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck, do you ever wonder why it is so rare that anyone takes the time and effort to make an intellectual response to your taunts?
Look no further than our above discussion.

It's very interesting that you are now denying the very same science which you have been preaching for all these years.
Do you know when the settled science changed from temperature change for doubling of CO2 to a temperature change per increment of co2?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Let's pretend for a moment that you're new settled science is correct. And therefore the previous settled science is now obsolete.
Back during the Cambrian period when life on Earth absolutely flourished, because CO2 was over 4,000 parts per million, if your new math is correct, that would have put the Earth's average temperature at over 52 degrees Celsius. Not very conducive to the explosion of life which the fossil record indicates is what actually happened.

What credible scientific organization is claiming that Earth was over 52°C average temperature during the Cambrian period?

[chuckChuck]

AB5 you disqualified yourself long ago with your dumb ass clueless take on CO2 and climate change.

You have failed to provide any credible science or scientists to back up your wacko claims.

Give up! You lost the argument.

Climate change is real and the main focus is to reduce CO2 emissions even in petro dominated Alberta which has a carbon tax on large emitters. Danny Smith still supports this hidden tax on consumers.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

You completely avoided answering the question. When did the settled science change from doubling of CO2 to a linear relationship?
This science doesn't sound very settled the way you describe it.
Do you think the Earth was 52 degrees Celsius during the cambrian period?

[fjlip]

If the human caused 3% of 0.04% of the air is causing catastrophic climate changes....WTF does the other 97% natural C02 do??

Answer smart AZZ!

[shtferbrains]

You have failed to provide any credible science or scientists to back up your wacko claims.

Chuck as the G7 countries swing to the "extreme right" do you think they will continue to fund the same credible scientists or will they get a whole new group of credible scientists?

I also wonder if climate change maybe won't occupy the top spot in governments concerns and investment?
Would that make huge numbers of government employees and contractors no longer needed? Whole departments might disappear? No one to pass out green subsidies?

Possibly the budget might balance itself?

[fjlip]

The minister of Climate Change will have a change of venue......in JAIL!

CC types be out millions in kickback from spewing propaganda!

[WiltonRanch]

AB5 you disqualified yourself long ago with your dumb ass clueless take on CO2 and climate change.

You have failed to provide any credible science or scientists to back up your wacko claims.

Give up! You lost the argument.

Climate change is real and the main focus is to reduce CO2 emissions even in petro dominated Alberta which has a carbon tax on large emitters. Danny Smith still supports this hidden tax on consumers.

You discredited yourself years ago when you said the sky would fall if the cwb disappeared. Give up you lost the argument! lol.