BS Chuck.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Then why can't you provide an exact value for the Charney sensitivity? It should be easy according to your logic. As you point out, we should be able to solve for it using empirical data by now right? So what value does that yield?

[SASKFARMER]

Chuck is searching Google and looking in his Liberal Manual for the info. Come on Chuck phone Trudeau maybe he can answer the question. Nope, his coloring book is full and he ate the crayons.

[Goodtime]

A5, So your response, to sum it up, is all the climate scientists are wrong, extra CO2 doesn't cause climate change? So they don't even know how much increasing levels of CO2 will cause warming and climate change?

Here is a hint, since they clearly can measure CO2 from several sources of data and can also measure temperature increases, the conclusion that CO2 and other greenhouse gases cause climate change is a rock solid scientific conclusion.

That's why you can't find any scientific organization that says that it is not happening. Give up! Its over and nobody who matters takes your denialist bullshit seriously.

HA HA HA HA, Chuck thinks he matters, that is hilarious.

[chuckChuck]

Explainer: How scientists estimate ‘climate sensitivity’

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity

You can read all about how climate scientists estimate climate sensitivity. Charney's report from 1979 gives its name to Charney Sensitivity.

But regardless of the range of positive or negative feedback as discussed, the undisputed fact is human caused CO2 increases are causing warming and climate change.

All you are doing is raising a straw man argument with what is charney sensitivity. Time to move on a let the climate scientists do their work, free from the noise of amateur arm chair "experts".

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

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck is searching Google and looking in his Liberal Manual for the info. Come on Chuck phone Trudeau maybe he can answer the question. Nope, his coloring book is full and he ate the crayons.

Exactly. And he has been frantically googling and searching for the answer for 8 months now since I first asked. And he can't find it, and won't find it.
dml usually comes to Chucks rescue when he gets in way over his head, but he is smart enough to avoid this one. Even Tweety who joined the previous debate wouldn't touch this topic. Poor Chuck just isn't smart enough to avoid stepping on the same garden rake, repeatedly, unabashedly.

If any of the "credible scientific organizations" had nailed this value down, Chuck would have found it by now and used it to discredit my argument. It would be so easy, he could actually win a debate for the first time in his life.

The only credible scientific organizations who have narrowed it down to a usefully narrow range have used the empricial data, and the values they calculate contradict everything Chuck "believes", so they are no longer credible or scientific according to his value system.

So I will ask again, please prove me wrong.

[furrowtickler]

Explainer: How scientists estimate ‘climate sensitivity’

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity

You can read all about how climate scientists estimate climate sensitivity. Charney's report from 1979 gives its name to Charney Sensitivity.

But regardless of the range of positive or negative feedback as discussed, the undisputed fact is human caused CO2 increases are causing warming and climate change.

All you are doing is raising a straw man argument with what is charney sensitivity. Time to move on a let the climate scientists do their work, free from the noise of amateur arm chair "experts".

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

//youtu.be/9fRBdy-6nZ0

[AlbertaFarmer5]

You can read all about how climate scientists estimate climate sensitivity. Charney's report from 1979 gives its name to Charney Sensitivity.

Does the word estimate cause you any concerns? Are you OK with spending trillions on something when the fundamental science behind it is an estimate, with a range wider than the broad side of a barn.

How can settled science, consensus science even, be based on an estimate? Can you perhaps define settled for us in this context?

But regardless of the range of positive or negative feedback as discussed, the undisputed fact is human caused CO2 increases are causing warming and climate change.

This is a priceless quote. Classic chuckChuck. I might keep it and use it against him regularly.

Regardless of ... positive or negative..the undisputed fact... increases are causing...

So even if the value is negative, it still causes climate change. Read that again, this is the very definition of a willfully blind idealogue. No facts could ever cause him to waver from his position.

[jazz]

AF, chuck is just like all the woke climate crowd. They just feel climate change is a happening and any grifter with a graph like Mann is good enough evidence for them.

[chuckChuck]

A5 our arm chair "expert", warming and climate change is still occuring. But you say not? LOL

Did you read the whole article?

"Does sensitivity matter?

Climate sensitivity is an important scientific uncertainty, and narrowing the range could have significant consequences. One economic study by Dr Chris Hope at the University of Cambridge suggests that the value of halving the uncertainty may be in the trillions of dollars, as it would allow the amount and speed of emissions reductions needed to be better determined.

Yet the world would still need to decarbonise to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, even if sensitivity is better understood or even at the low end of current estimates. An ECS of closer to 2C would only extend the deadline for reaching net-zero emissions by a decade or so, according to a study by IIASA’s Dr Joeri Rogelj and colleagues.

The uncertainty also cuts both ways; there are just as many new studies being published today suggesting that sensitivity might be on the high end of the 1.5C to 4.5C range as there on the low end. Knutti and colleagues suggest that the uncertainty in climate sensitivity should not be seen as a roadblock for action today. Dessler tells Carbon Brief:

“Unless climate sensitivity falls outside the IPCC’s range, I don’t see that refinements to the range have a huge impact on what we should be doing from a policy perspective. We should be trying to reduce emissions as fast as we can – but slow enough not to be too disruptive to the economy.”

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."

[AlbertaFarmer5]

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

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.