Climate Sensitivity per the IPCC

[Crick]

So Co2 clumped over North America and fled Greenland?????

Not all obsessions are based on facts.

We have lots of greenhouse warming right now but still have ice at the poles, over Greenland, Northern Canada, Northern Europe and Russia.

The southernmost tip of Greenland is at approximately the same latitude as the southern boundary of Canda's Northwest Territories. The geographic center of Greenland is roughly at the same latitude as Svalbard, Norway. The center of Greenland is north of the Arctic circle. Why the fuck should ANYONE be surprised that Greenland was covered in ice while Chicago was not?

 

[otto105]

Just checking in to see if any denier has posted the name of one scientific organization which supports the denial position.


And nope, board is still at zero.

 

[Crick]

Just checking in to see if any denier has posted the name of one scientific organization which supports the denial position.


And nope, board is still at zero.

​

Koch-funded Climate Denial Front Groups​

• facebook
• Twitter
• Email

From 1997 to 2017, the Kochs funneled $127,006,756 to 92 organizations that advance the Kochs' attacks on climate change science while presenting themselves as experts. These organizations are listed below:

These are the front groups fueling the climate denial machine.

Learn More​

• Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty​

• American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF)​

• American Council on Science and Health (ACSH)​

• American Enterprise Institute (AEI)​

• American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)​

• American Spectator Foundation​

• Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFP)​

• Americans for Tax Reform (ATR)​

• Atlas Network​

• Ayn Rand Institute (ARI)​

• Capital Research Center (CRC)​

• Cato Institute​

• Center for Freedom & Prosperity Foundation​

• Center for Independent Thought: Stossel in the Classroom​

• Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (CO2 Science)​

• Center for the Study of Market Processes​

• Citizens for a Sound Economy (disbanded – now FreedomWorks)​

• CO2 Coalition (formerly George C. Marshall Institute)​

• Collegians For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT Campus)​

• Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives​

• Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)​

• Council for National Policy​

• Environmental Literacy Council (disbanded)​

• Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies​

• Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)​

• Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE)​

• Fraser Institute​

• Frontiers of Freedom​

• Goldwater Institute​

• Heartland Institute​

• The Heritage Foundation​

• Independence Institute​

• Independent Institute​

• Independent Women’s Forum (IWF)​

• Institute for Energy Research (IER) & American Energy Alliance (AEA)​

• Institute for Humane Studies (IHS)​

• James Madison Institute (JMI)​

• John Locke Foundation (JLF)​

• Mackinac Center for Public Policy​

• The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research​

• Media Research Center (MRC)​

• Mercatus Center​

• National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA)​

• National Review Institute​

• National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF)​

• Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy (PRI)​

• Property and Environment Research Center (PERC)​

• The Reason Foundation​

• State Policy Network (SPN)​

• Students for Liberty (SFL)​

• Tax Foundation​

• Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF)​

• Washington Legal Foundation (WLF)​

None of these would actually qualify as scientific organizations though I'm sure every one of them would make the claim.

 

[EMH]

Not all obsessions are based on facts.

We have lots of greenhouse warming right now but still have ice at the poles, over Greenland, Northern Canada, Northern Europe and Russia.

The southernmost tip of Greenland is at approximately the same latitude as the southern boundary of Canda's Northwest Territories. The geographic center of Greenland is roughly at the same latitude as Svalbard, Norway. The center of Greenland is north of the Arctic circle. Why the fuck should ANYONE be surprised that Greenland was covered in ice while Chicago was not?

Why is Greenland covered with ice south of the Arctic Circle while Alaska has trees and wildlife north of the Arctic Circle?

LOL!!!

And we have precisely NO WARMING in the atmosphere according to highly correlated satellite and balloon data... nice try...

 

[BackAgain]

He never said anything inadvertently. He said that what is happening: the devaluation of fossil fuel resources and the evaluation of wind and solar friendly resources, is effecting a transfer of wealth. But I know what you think and since you're a paragon of cognitive dissonance, I have no expectations of you taking that into consideration even for a second.

If your proposed methodology to fix global warming is to reduce carbon emissions and share the remaining amounts “permitted” with developing nations, then you are choosing to disrupt the world wide economy.

But I realize you will decline to admit the obvious truth of what I just posted again as starkly as you deny that old Ottmar did say as much.

In reality (the water is fine, you should try it), when he said “de facto” he meant it — as well as de jure.

 

[Crick]

If your proposed methodology to fix global warming is to reduce carbon emissions and share the remaining amounts “permitted” with developing nations, then you are choosing to disrupt the world wide economy.

Global warming is disrupting the world wide economy. The longer we put off dealing with it the worse the consequences will be. I am not concerned about the welfare of the fossil fuel industries. They have gotten far more than their money's worth from us all. The US has plenty of capacity for wind and solar, hydroelectric, tidal, OTEC and who knows what all.

But I realize you will decline to admit the obvious truth of what I just posted again as starkly as you deny that old Ottmar did say as much.

Ottmar was not stating that the goal of the IPCC was the redistribution of wealth. If that's what you think he said, you are mistaken.

In reality (the water is fine, you should try it), when he said “de facto” he meant it — as well as de jure.

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages
de fac·to
adverb

1. in fact, or in effect, whether by right or not.
   
   
   His use of the term de facto supports my interpretation of his comment, not yours.
   
   
   

 

[BackAgain]

Global warming is disrupting the world wide economy. The longer we put off dealing with it the worse the consequences will be. I am not concerned about the welfare of the fossil fuel industries. They have gotten far more than their money's worth from us all. The US has plenty of capacity for wind and solar, hydroelectric, tidal, OTEC and who knows what all.

Ottmar was not stating that the goal of the IPCC was the redistribution of wealth. If that's what you think he said, you are mistaken.

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages
de fac·to
adverb

1. in fact, or in effect, whether by right or not.
   
   
   His use of the term de facto supports my interpretation of his comment, not yours.
   
   

His use of the term de facto is as distinguished from de jure. It. it could be both.

Either way, the methodology to “combat” global warming is unable to be extricated from its purpose. It is an economically premised effort. It is a worldwide effort (if conducted along the lines of its intent) to achieve a redistribution of wealth.

It assumes that our atmospheric marginal increase of a trace has (CO2) is the main culprit in global warming. On that assumption it seeks to attack human industry, and, in fact, to then redistribute it to less developed nations. None of this is a mystery. It is not left unspoken.

 

[abu afak]

Either way, the methodology to “combat” global warming is unable to be extricated from its purpose. It is an economically premised effort. It is a worldwide effort (if conducted along the lines of its intent) to achieve a redistribution of wealth.

No, it is environmentally premised effort to stop altering the atmosphere from severely disrupting the planet... which it is already doing.

It assumes that our atmospheric marginal increase of a trace has (CO2) is the main culprit in global warming. On that assumption it seeks to attack human industry, and, in fact, to then redistribute it to less developed nations. None of this is a mystery. It is not left unspoken.

It seeks to replace an old, dirty, and atmosphere/climate/lung disrupting old tech with a new cleaner one that won't make our climate more extreme, and eventually end up changing sea level and gigantically disrupting the planet from unimaginable Cost/Displacement.

Nations without wealth will continue to be nations without wealth.
The biggest losers will be the Arab Oil Gulf states who live big on the most of richest countries cash NOW.

In the meantime many of our states are adopting renewables, especially the Midwest/plains states who are getting cheaper and cleaner (mostly wind) power already. IOWA 63%, S Dakota 55%, Oklahoma 45%. RED states.

Sorry we can't indulge another of your Conspiracy Theories: NWO.
`

 

[mamooth]

mamooth you can almost feel sorry for him, t

Cried it all out, my sweet little pout-stalker bottom? Good. After all of that weeping and deflecting, you _still_ faked the Ottmar quote. That's not debatable. You're a fraud. Since you seem to live for humilation, I'll happily humiliate you again.

«Klimapolitik verteilt das Weltvermögen neu» | NZZ

NZZ am Sonntag: Herr Edenhofer, beim Klimaschutz fordern alle eine Reduzierung von Emissionen. Sie sprechen jetzt von «gefährlicher Emissionsreduzierung». Was ist das?Ottmar Edenhofer: Bisher ging Wirtschaftswachstum immer Hand in Hand mit dem Wachstum der Treibhausgasemissionen. Ein Prozent...

www.nzz.ch

A good translation:
---
Fundamentally, it is a big mistake to discuss climate politics separately from the big issues of globalization. The climate summit in Cancún at end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves under our feet – and we can only add 400 gigatons more to the atmosphere if we want to stay within the 2 °C target. 11,000 to 400 – we have to face the fact that a large part of the fossil reserves must remain in the ground.

De facto, this is the expropriation of the countries with these natural resources. This leads to an entirely different development than the one that has been initiated with development policy.

First of all, we as industrialized countries have quasi-expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must explicitly say: We de facto redistribute the world’s wealth due to climate politics. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic about this is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate politics is environmental politics. This has almost nothing to do any more with environmental politics, [as is was with] with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
---

Compare that to Frank's fake translation, which is just wrong.

---

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy... This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore...." Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
---

Mr. Edenhofer was clearly describing the _current_ economic situation, where poor nations subsidize rich nations by allowing them to pollute the world's atmosphere. Some denier liar twisted the words about and pretended that Mr. Edenhofer was calling for global monetary wealth distribution.

Frank, being long in the service of the Lord of Lies, clings to the fraudulent translation, and hatesmeforever for highlighting his fraud.

 

[jc456]

 

[mamooth]

Indeed, Mamooo thinks

more ice age ice on land = less ice dumped into the oceans

Dumbass, Antarctica is losing mass.

Ice Sheets | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

---

Key Takeaway:​

Antarctica is losing ice mass (melting) at an average rate of about 150 billion tons per year, and Greenland is losing about 270 billion tons per year, adding to sea level rise.
---

Care to try again? I mean, sure, reality says your theory is insane, but maybe if you scream and rage enough, reality will change, right?

Give it a try.

Oh, if you want to really give us a chuckle, try to calculate the how much ice would have to _not_ melt to account for the current ocean warming rate. It would be funny because you're not capable such a task. You have no idea of how badly you fail at the physics.

 

[mamooth]

Why is Greenland covered with ice south of the Arctic Circle while Alaska has trees and wildlife north of the Arctic Circle?

Why don't you tell us? We know, but we'd like to hear your version, as it should be hilarious.

LOL!!!

And we have precisely NO WARMING in the atmosphere according to highly correlated satellite and balloon data... nice try...

The radiosondes show the warming and the tropospheric hotspot. If anyone told you otherwise, they lied to your face, so you should demand they tell you why they lied to you.

We use direct thermometer data, you use a satellite model composed of fudge factors. Using bad data when good data is available is the sign of a pseudoscience cultist, and it's what you're doing.

 

[BackAgain]

No, it is environmentally premised effort to stop altering the atmosphere from severely disrupting the planet... which it is already doing.

Lie. It is explicitly an economic method to seek to reduce atmospheric carbon emissions. You can doing it any way you wish. You can skin like a top. It doesn’t matter. It’s still an economic effort to address this dubious problem.

It seeks to replace an old, dirty, and atmosphere/climate/lung disrupting old tech with a new cleaner one that won't make our climate more extreme, and eventually end up changing sea level and gigantically disrupting the planet from unimaginable Cost/Displacement.

Bullshit. Stop lying. That might be the utopian wet dream. But it doesn’t change the method one iota.

Nations without wealth will continue to be nations without wealth.

False. That’s not even remotely part of their plan.

The biggest losers will be the Arab Oil Gulf states who live big on the most of richest countries cash NOW.

They will be a temporary loser unless they adjust to the AGW Faither’s plot. But the biggest losers will be the industrialized nations. Replacing the energy options now used with the utopian energy options will unquestionably disrupt the economies of these nations.

In the meantime many of our states are adopting renewables, especially the Midwest/plains states who are getting cheaper and cleaner (mostly wind) power already. IOWA 63%, S Dakota 55%, Oklahoma 45%. RED states.

Sorry we can't indulge another of your Conspiracy Theories: NWO.

You remain fully stuffed with shit.

Accurately quoting what your guy said isn’t a “conspiracy theory,” you dishonest hack.

`

;

 

[Crick]

Lie. It is explicitly an economic method to seek to reduce atmospheric carbon emissions. You can doing it any way you wish. You can skin like a top. It doesn’t matter. It’s still an economic effort to address this dubious problem.

If a government refuses to grant a permit for the construction of a coal or natural gas power plant, but does grant one for wind or solar, do you regard that as an economic method?

If a utility company looks at their options and concludes that wind and solar are more profitable to them than would be natural gas or coal, is that an economic method APPLIED BY OTHERS?

 

[BackAgain]

If a government refuses to grant a permit for the construction of a coal or natural gas power plant, but does grant one for wind or solar, do you regard that as an economic method?

Obviously.

If a utility company looks at their options and concludes that wind and solar are more profitable to them than would be natural gas or coal, is that an economic method APPLIED BY OTHERS?

That’s often up to others.

Was there any hope of a point here?

 

[abu afak]

No, it is environmentally premised effort to stop altering the atmosphere from severely disrupting the planet... which it is already doing.

HackAgain: Lie. It is explicitly an economic method to seek to Reduce Atmospheric Carbon emissions. You can doing it any way you wish. You can skin like a top. It doesn’t matter. It’s still an economic effort to address this dubious problem.

So STUPID as you are... You are UNWITtingly agreeing with me.

YOUR ""economic method to Reducing Atmospheric Carbon Emissions""
IS MY "Environmentally Premissed effort to Stop Altering the ATMOSPHERE."

IOW, We both agree that they are doing it to stop polluting the Atmosphere!
You just Conspiratorially call it a PLOT to redistribute wealth. ooooooooooooooooooh
For which you have NO Evidence.
The Govt is incentivizing this Healthy Change as they use other Tax incentives for. (College savings accounts, IRAs, etc)

The Govt ALSO has had for 20+ years higher MPG rules and ALSO NOT for "redistributing wealth" but for the SAME REASON. Less Pollution. NOT Redistribution of wealth.
You ConspiraCYst Clown

`

 

[Crick]

Neither of these answer make sense. What am I missing here?

Obviously.

You believe the government forcing renewable energy technology via the permitting process is an economic method? Please explain what economics are involved.

That’s often up to others.

The point of the question was that the cost of wind and solarPV now being cheaper per kWh is not due to the actions of government or anyone in the IPCC. It is capitalism. I rather doubt PV panel makers in China are operating at a loss to enable American climate scientists to get research grants or to give some Pawnee County zoning inspector the power to control a hundred acres of empty grassland.

Was there any hope of a point here?

There was.

 

[BackAgain]

Neither of these answer make sense. What am I missing here?

Common sense.

You believe the government forcing renewable energy technology via the permitting process is an economic method?

As I said, “obviously.”

Please explain what economics are involved.

Please explain your understanding of a government “forcing” a company’s options in what form of energy is allowed.

The point of the question was that the cost of wind and solarPV now being cheaper per kWh is not due to the actions of government or anyone in the IPCC. It is capitalism.

If the cost per kWh was actually cheaper especially if you factor in the costs of converting the availability of the alternative energy. Maybe. But being told what option one may make use of is certainly not capitalism.

I rather doubt PV panel makers in China are operating at a loss to enable American climate scientists to get research grants or to give some Pawnee County zoning inspector the power to control a hundred acres of empty grassland.

Ok. You doubt things which haven’t been discussed. Cool.

There was.

Yet you failed to make it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dumbass, Antarctica is losing mass.

Ice Sheets | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

---

Key Takeaway:​

Antarctica is losing ice mass (melting) at an average rate of about 150 billion tons per year, and Greenland is losing about 270 billion tons per year, adding to sea level rise.
---

Care to try again? I mean, sure, reality says your theory is insane, but maybe if you scream and rage enough, reality will change, right?

Give it a try.

Oh, if you want to really give us a chuckle, try to calculate the how much ice would have to _not_ melt to account for the current ocean warming rate. It would be funny because you're not capable such a task. You have no idea of how badly you fail at the physics.

World of Change: Antarctic Sea Ice

Odd that Antarctica gained.

 

[Crick]

Common sense.

As I said, “obviously.”

Please explain your understanding of a government “forcing” a company’s options in what form of energy is allowed.

I asked if you would explain what economics were involved in a government pushing renewable tech via the permitting process. You haven't even attempted to answer.

If the cost per kWh was actually cheaper especially if you factor in the costs of converting the availability of the alternative energy. Maybe. But being told what option one may make use of is certainly not capitalism.

No one has done that here. Every one of the wind turbines and solar PV fileds in this nation was erected by the free choice of the companies involved. Apparently they have all profitted from those choices because they continue to do so.

Yet you failed to make it (my point).

With you, perhaps. I think everyone else got it. Maybe you also got it, you just don't want to admit that because you don't have an answer.