BS Chuck.

[furrowtickler]

Estimates are just that estimates...


Climate models are fundamentally flawed to exaggerate the climate warming agenda

[dmlfarmer]

AF5 since you are dragging me into this stupid argument, I have one question for you. EXACTLY, to the bushel, will be the yields of each of your crops this year? I mean you have farmed for a good while so surely you know exactly what the yield will be right?

The Charney number from 1979 reflected a number of models to the impact of doubling of CO2 would have on temperatures. But at the same time the Charney number did not consider lots of variables such as melting of ice caps and glaciers for example. As a result, the Charney number was nothing more than a potential range of values generated from a number of models that used different variables.

In the same way you cannot predict with one hundred percent certainly the precipitation you will receive, or heat units, or frost or hail, or a host of other factors to predict your yields with 100% certainty. Even fertility, that you have some control over if your soil test and apply by recommendations will not guarantee a yield if growing conditions are outside the norm.

CO2 is not the only variable that effects temp and there are back feeds that science has not even identified yet that will impact the C)2/temp. To argue that because science has not come up with fixed value in 30 years is a strawman argument and is as rediculous as me claiming you must not be a real farmer if you cannot predict your yields this year with 100 percent certainty.

You insinuate it is impossible to plan on estimates, yet you do it as a farmer every year..

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Dml, how is this a stupid argument.
There are Trillions of dollars on the line, our standard of living, potentially the extinction of life(according to some), our ability to feed the population, catastrophic sea level rise etc etc.
I think we had better make sure we know what we are talking about. I thought this was an existential crisis. If so, you might want to have a convincing, science backed argument to get the rest of us on board.

And no, I don't know my exact yield this year, but I can predict the average trend yield going forward to within a few percentage points. I'm not going to apply inputs for a crop way over 3 times larger than I have ever accomplished before, but that is exactly what Chuck is supporting. Chucks range is orders of magnitude greater than that.

[chuckChuck]

"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."

A5 you have even gone as far to suggest that we need to keep burning fossil fuels to keep CO2 levels high enough! Completely ignoring the current science of climate change and the threat of rising CO2 levels. This is a wacky suggestion to put it mildly.

As usual just more distraction and denial. That's all it is and none of our leadership is listening to this bunk. Listen to the climate scientists and let them do their work.

[Guest]

Please keep repeating this statement. Then ask me repeatedly about David Schindler's (not a climate scientist)opinion on climate change. Maybe a lightbulb will go off.

I’m afraid that light bulb is hooked up to a ****ed Chinese solar panel long dead

[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.