Climate Sensitivity per the IPCC

[CrusaderFrank]

Numerous sites claim that Edenhofer had inadvertently given away the secret of the Paris Climate Accord. Unforunately, Edenhofer made this statement in 2010 and the Paris meeting didn't take place till 2015. A spokesperson for Edenhofer said the quote was used “to imply that Prof. Edenhofer ‘admits’ that there is some kind of ‘hidden agenda’ behind climate policy.“ The spokesperson added: “Of course, this is not what he was saying. These quotes are taken out of context to be misused. The devaluation of fossil fuel reserves of course leads in a way to wealth redistribution — but this is rather a consequence of the necessity to stop using fossil fuels, and not the actual goal of climate policy.”

---

When we are discussing the need to limit climate change by limiting the emission of greenhouse gasses, we are, inescapably, talking altering the economic value of natural resources, and thus, altering the world’s distribution of wealth.

A policy to limit carbon emissions (via tax, via cap and trade, or even via shaming in the media) will reduce the value of owning a coal deposit or an oil well. And in the presence of a continued demand for energy, will increase the value of other assets, like a high plateau suitable for wind farms, or a great river suitable for hydropower, or a deposit of pitchblende from which one can refine fuel for a reactor.

Most people don’t think as deeply on these matters as Edenhoffer. (It is, after all, his job to think deeply on these matters.) And Americans in particular have for many years associated the phrase “redistribution of wealth” with active schemes to tax the wealthy in order to provide economic support to the poor. In the context of the quote, though, it’s clear that Edenhoffer is not discussing transfer payments at all, but rather the fact that climate policy alters the value of national assets world wide.

Technology does the same thing - Saudi Arabia was a kingdom (or set of kingdoms ) of less than three million people living principally in a subsistence economy until the discovery of oil in 1938 and the systematic exploitation of that oil in the 1940s. Today, thanks to the value of oil, Saudi Arabia has one of the highest per capita GDP figures in the world and a population of 23 million (28 million if you include foreign guest workers.).

If the planet decides we can no longer afford to burn oil, Saudi Arabia won’t go back entirely to its pre-1930 economy. But it would lose a lot of its present economic position.

Here’s the context of Edenhofer’s comments (emphasis mine) :

He said it!!

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy..." Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's been pointed out to you how that's a faked quote.

And you _still_ use it. You're an open fraud, and so proud of it.

It's a direct quote! It's his own words!

You can try that shit all day and night with me and we laugh at what a total fraud you are!

You got NOTHING

 

[BackAgain]

He said it!!

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy..." Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC

Yeah … but his quote was taken …

in context.

 

[EMH]

According to your very peculiar theory, warming is caused by Antarctica dumping less ice into the oceans.

However, direct observation shows that Antarctica has been losing mass. That is, it has been dumping _more_ ice into the oceans.

Thus, your theory is disproved.

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

www.nasa.gov

the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.




You lost in the British Court too lying about Antarctica...

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods. It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this Tuesday morning...

www.newsbusters.org

• The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

 

[BackAgain]

Numerous sites claim that Edenhofer had inadvertently given away the secret of the Paris Climate Accord. Unforunately, Edenhofer made this statement in 2010 and the Paris meeting didn't take place till 2015. A spokesperson for Edenhofer said the quote was used “to imply that Prof. Edenhofer ‘admits’ that there is some kind of ‘hidden agenda’ behind climate policy.“ The spokesperson added: “Of course, this is not what he was saying. These quotes are taken out of context to be misused. The devaluation of fossil fuel reserves of course leads in a way to wealth redistribution — but this is rather a consequence of the necessity to stop using fossil fuels, and not the actual goal of climate policy.”

---

When we are discussing the need to limit climate change by limiting the emission of greenhouse gasses, we are, inescapably, talking altering the economic value of natural resources, and thus, altering the world’s distribution of wealth.

A policy to limit carbon emissions (via tax, via cap and trade, or even via shaming in the media) will reduce the value of owning a coal deposit or an oil well. And in the presence of a continued demand for energy, will increase the value of other assets, like a high plateau suitable for wind farms, or a great river suitable for hydropower, or a deposit of pitchblende from which one can refine fuel for a reactor.

Most people don’t think as deeply on these matters as Edenhoffer. (It is, after all, his job to think deeply on these matters.) And Americans in particular have for many years associated the phrase “redistribution of wealth” with active schemes to tax the wealthy in order to provide economic support to the poor. In the context of the quote, though, it’s clear that Edenhoffer is not discussing transfer payments at all, but rather the fact that climate policy alters the value of national assets world wide.

Technology does the same thing - Saudi Arabia was a kingdom (or set of kingdoms ) of less than three million people living principally in a subsistence economy until the discovery of oil in 1938 and the systematic exploitation of that oil in the 1940s. Today, thanks to the value of oil, Saudi Arabia has one of the highest per capita GDP figures in the world and a population of 23 million (28 million if you include foreign guest workers.).

If the planet decides we can no longer afford to burn oil, Saudi Arabia won’t go back entirely to its pre-1930 economy. But it would lose a lot of its present economic position.

Here’s the context of Edenhofer’s comments (emphasis mine) :

It wasn’t inadvertent. He meant what he said.

 

[EMH]

Indeed, Mamooo thinks

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

Mamoooo has NO IDEA what a GLACIER is. To her it is a rock and if you chip one piece of it is permanently reduced....


What a MOROOOOON

 

[abu afak]

So odd that CO2 doubled, but temperatures DECLINED for 75,000 years, right?

If CO2 were a driver of the climate as you allege, the redline would be TO THE LEFT of the CO2 blue line

Stupid and Dishonest FrusaderCrank keeps posting an IRRELEVANT graph at least once daily.

Asked and answered many times by me you Blithering Clocksucker.

Scientists have been able to measure radiation-in/radiation-out directly and precisely for more than 50 years.
Radiation-in has not changed as the earth warmed.
Radiation reflected back out is being blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs (Greenhouse gases)

CO2 is not the only GHG. (water vapor, Methane, etc)
Methane/CH4 is 20-80 as powerful. (from livestock), and the snowball effect of other GHG warming which releases more methane from the warming oceans and melting tundra.
CO2 is up from 280 PPM to 410, mainly in the last 70 (of 170) years.
Methane has Tripled.

Previous warming cycles were caused by orbital changes of angle or distance leading to more radiation-in, aka 'solar forcing.'
We/they know that is/was Not the case this time.

GHGs, as serious Deniers know/use, usually LAG that solar forcing... but this time are leading it! Because they also contribute to warming even in a natural cycle. (GHG definition).
This cycle was Not caused by increased solar energy but rather those gases increased/blanket thickened at an unprecedented rate Compared to natural cycles.


Get a New TOY you DISHONEST CLOCKSUCKER.

``

 

[otto105]

IPCC = UN

IPCC cannot explain how Co2 froze Greenland and thawed North America at the same time.. and neither can Crick....

Here's how out of whack Earth's climate is today

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Stupid and Dishonest FrusaderCrank keeps posting an IRRELEVANT graph at least once daily.

Asked and answered many times by me you Blithering Clocksucker.

Scientists have been able to measure radiation-in/radiation-out directly and precisely for more than 50 years.
Radiation-in has not changed as the earth warmed.
Radiation reflected back out is being blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs (Greenhouse gases)

CO2 is not the only GHG. (water vapor, Methane, etc)
Methane/CH4 is 20-80 as powerful. (from livestock), and the snowball effect of other GHG warming which releases more methane from the warming oceans and melting tundra.
CO2 is up from 280 PPM to 410, mainly in the last 70 (of 170) years.
Methane has Tripled.

Previous warming cycles were caused by orbital changes of angle or distance leading to more radiation-in, aka 'solar forcing.'
We/they know that is/was Not the case this time.

GHGs, as serious Deniers know/use, usually LAG that solar forcing... but this time are leading it! Because they also contribute to warming even in a natural cycle. (GHG definition).
This cycle was Not caused by increased solar energy but rather those gases increased/blanket thickened at an unprecedented rate Compared to natural cycles.


Get a New TOY you DISHONEST CLOCKSUCKER.

``

^This is what happens when a 450,000 year long dataset makes an absolute mockery of your pet theory.

The charts unequivocally shows: CO2 LAGS temperature on both increase and decrease AND doubling CO2 has no effect whatsoever on temperature. In fact, temperatures plunge for tens of thousands of years after CO2 peaks!

But how can this be? The Lunatic AGW Cult has consensus! The science is settled!

It means they HAVE to keep doubling down on their losing bet. It’s a fraud so huge it makes Bernie Madoff look honest.

 

[EMH]

Here's how out of whack Earth's climate is today

If you can parrot it, then it must be true...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

www.nasa.gov

the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.




You lost in the British Court too lying about Antarctica...

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods. It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this Tuesday morning...

www.newsbusters.org

• The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

It showed a net gain because of Climate Change, er, or something

 

[EMH]

It showed a net gain because of Climate Change, er, or something

Both Antarctica and Greenland have Earth glacier manufacturing system (EGMS) ON.

Each year both add a new layer to the top, what we find in ICE CORES....

As long as EGMS is ON, the ice is not shrinking, and as more stacks on land, more also calves into the ocean... and as it thickens it gets colder...


The warmers want us to think Antarctica is almost slush.

It isn't....

There is NO LIQUID WATER on Antarctica save tectonic events on the Transantarctic Mountains, especially the peninsula....

 

[otto105]

If you can parrot it, then it must be true...

Nice picture of a parrot, but does nothing to refute the article.

Typical nothingburger from a conservative denier.

 

[EMH]

Nice picture of a parrot, but does nothing to refute the article.

Typical nothingburger from a conservative denier.

LOL!!!


How did Co2 melt North America and freeze Greenland at the same time???

 

[abu afak]

^This is what happens when a 450,000 year long dataset makes an absolute mockery of your pet theory.

The charts unequivocally shows: CO2 LAGS temperature on both increase and decrease AND doubling CO2 has no effect whatsoever on temperature. In fact, temperatures plunge for tens of thousands of years after CO2 peaks!

But how can this be? The Lunatic AGW Cult has consensus! The science is settled!

It means they HAVE to keep doubling down on their losing bet. It’s a fraud so huge it makes Bernie Madoff look honest.

And what you post is not only WRONG but irrelevant (and of course STUPID) to the fact that there were no Humans spewing GHGs into the atmosphere 450,000 yrs ago or 50,000 yrs ago or 5000 yrs ago and barely any 500 years ago.

Men were murdered 10,000 yrs ago but no one was killed with a gun or WMD. And Industrial GHG emissions are the atmo equivalent of WMD. Weapons of Mass Warming.

You are a raging Low IQ MORON.

`

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And what you post is not only WRONG but irrelevant (and of course STUPID) to the fact that there were no Humans spewing GHGs into the atmosphere 450,000 yrs ago or 50,000 yrs ago or 5000 yrs ago and barely any 500 years ago.

Men were murdered 10,000 yrs ago but no one was killed with a gun or WMD. And Industrial GHG emissions are the atmo equivalent of WMD. Weapons of Mass Warming.

You are a raging Low IQ MORON.

`

Is modern CO2 a different molecule? Are the Oxygen atoms in different positions?

What’s so different about modern CO2?

Did it mutate in 1850 and suddenly develop heat-trapping, climate driving properties?

Take your meds

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yeah … but his quote was taken …

in context.

mamooth you can almost feel sorry for him, the insults are his one and only play. What’s he got besides that?

Remember when he told us we misidentified or misgendered Ottmar, or that he wasn’t speaking in his capacity as coChair of IPCC? LOL

He was flailing badly way back in 2010 and it’s gone downhill ever since

I believe that both him and Crick cant possibly be THAT FUCKING STUPID and believe the AGW nonsense, but religions are funny thing and Environmental Fundamentalist Cults are the worst kind of religion

 

[Crick]

It wasn’t inadvertent. He meant what he said.

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.

 

[otto105]

LOL!!!


How did Co2 melt North America and freeze Greenland at the same time???

Hilarious fuckup

 

[EMH]

Hilarious fuckup

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