The North Pole just surged above freezing in the dead of winter, stunning scientists

Um, bullshit.

The IPCC estimates that combatting global warming can be done at a reasonable cost, and may even lead to economic GROWTH. And when you factor in the alternative cost -- the cost of adapting to a changed climate -- it's not much at all.

I explained this several years ago:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...nying-materials.457404/page-2#post-1066207151
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-year-on-record.384448/page-4#post-1064489531

The estimated cost of adaptation -- the "do nothing" approach that deniers advocate -- is 3% of global GDP by 2100

The estimate cost of mitigation ranges from a 1% PROFIT to a 5% cost by 2100, with the median estimated annual cost being 0.12% of GDP.

That is easily affordable, your fearmongering about the cost aside.

Right, because there should never be international conferences about a huge international issue. :eyeroll: Never mind that the "mountains of cash" you criticize are in fact a grain of sand compared to overall global GDP, so not an issue. And the assertion that people are "awarded for demanding others make changes they themselves won't make" is polemic, not fact.

Nothing about this statement is fact. Literally nothing. It wasn't a scam, the recipients were NOT all "Obama donors", it produced plenty of usable technology, many are still in business, and the loan program is actually turning a profit.
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/...y-Department-s-loan-program-is-now-profitable

When you invest in start-up companies, some will succeed and some will fail. You don't point to the failures and claim the entire program is a failure.

The green program has a pretty good track record thus far: losses amount to just 2.28% of outstanding loans, and those losses -- most of which were due to Solyndra -- are outweighed by interest payments from companies that are still in business.

"AGWers" covers a large range of people; please don't try to tar the mainstream with the views of non-mainstream AGWers.

In fact, the mainstream view is to improve the design of air conditioners, not limit their use.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/science/air-conditioner-global-warming.html

And as far as advocating for skyrocketing gas prices, there are many people who do that, to a WIDE range of degrees, for reasons that don't always have to do with global warming.

For instance, I'm an advocate in general for full-cost pricing. It's the least-intrusive, most-effective way to ensure that we don't make self-destructive decisions.

What is full-cost pricing? It's the idea that the cost of an item should reflect an item's full cost to society -- basically by including externalities that typically aren't counted in an item's cost.

For instance, an oil company's cost to produce a gallon of gasoline only reflects its extraction, refining and delivery costs. It doesn't reflect what is arguably the largest cost associated with that gallon of gas: the environmental damage caused by its extraction and burning (and arguably the wars we are constantly getting embroiled in in the Mideast). Society pays for that damage, either directly (through cleanup) or indirectly (via environmental degradation).

By keeping that cost out of the equation, two things happen: we encourage companies to harm the environment in pursuit of lower costs, and it amounts to an artificial subsidy of gas prices. In a free market such as ours, that leads to bad economic decisions, because the true cost of that gallon of gas is not being accounted for. And so we end up with an economy dependent on foreign-supplied oil, where energy efficiency isn't as big a priority as it probably should be, and we get involved in expensive wars to protect our oil supply.

If the cost of a gallon of gas reflected the true cost of that gallon of gas, then the market would automatically make more rational decisions about the role and use of gasoline. We'd end up with more energy-efficient cars, houses and appliances, less pollution, etc. All without a single government regulation.

There would be a governmental role in this: because the government is usually the entity tasked with protecting and cleaning up the environment, adding in the cost of externalities usually takes the form of an additional tax on on item. And calculating the cost of externalities can be complicated. So it would only make sense for some of the things with the biggest externalities, like gas.

So you could say I'm advocating for higher gas prices. But what I'm really doing is advocating for ACCURATE gas prices, that will enable our market to make rational economic decisions.

As far as advocating for higher gas prices for global-warming specifically, the idea is to reduce our use of fossil fuels, as they are a major contributor to global warming. You don't seem to like the idea of higher gas prices. You also don't seem to like green-energy programs. I'm going to assume you also would oppose government mandates. So how do you propose reducing the consumption of fossil fuels?

And this is pure nonsense. The only thing even partly "theoretical" about AGW evidence are the models and their predictions for the future. Everything else about AGW is based on a ridiculous amount of evidence.

 

I bet, as we speak, its hella cold at the north pole.

 

Its hella cold at the north pole in august

 

First off would be impossibly high temperatures.

 

Says a model there are no instruments there.

 

50% relative to what?

It's not just models that predicted warming. Arrhenius is believed to have made the first prediction of CO2's warming effect. He calculated 5C per doubling of the concentration in 1896. He did so without the use of a general circulation model. Considering that he didn't factor in aerosols and other forcing mechanisms in his calculation to get a net warming figure like what scientists do today this is a realistic figure. And it was done by hand over 100 years ago.

You can read his paper here.

 

They could never get the equipment past all the ice.

 

Oh, hey, you're back! Got a source yet for that claim about satellites covering the Arctic in the winter? I'd love to discuss it when you actually back it up.

 

...an analysis that incorporated nearly 25,000,000 observations. Many of those are from polar orbiting satellites recording microwave and infrared emissions plus a bunch of other stuff that all goes into computing an accurate temperature field even in the high latitudes.

 

That article is crap.

The writer cites an SBA estimate (and competing CEI estimate) of the cost of complying with ALL federal regulations, and then blames them all on climate change.
https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms (Full).pdf

I stopped reading there. Find a credible source.

 

It's not impossible for temperatures to go above freezing in areas of dense snow and ice cover. It happens all of the time. You've probably witnessed it yourself in your own backyard at some point in your life. This is easily accomplished with advective processes even in the absence of solar insolation.

Again, show me proof that Labe tinkered with the GDAS (global data assimilation system) to produce a warmer result. How did he gain unauthorized access to NOAA's supercomputers and how is that you're the only person who figured it out? Also, why is that other analysis systems from other institutions show the same thing? Did he hack those too?

 

http://www.intellicast.com/Local/History.aspx?month=2

Um... they have had 40 degree days in February dating back to 1969.

 

Don't hold your breath. Microwave and infrared sounders don't turn off in the winter. And they don't need solar radiation to make their measurements. His point about clouds making it more difficult to identify whether low temperature EM emissions is the result of being cold or just cloudy is valid, but that's handled satisfactorily already via channeling. And it's not like these satellites only have microwave and infrared sounders. They have other instruments too. There are even satellites (Calipso, CloudSat, etc.) that are specifically designed to identify the presence of clouds.

 

Go back to sleep.

 

It is. This morning it was close to -30C. However, that's still well above average. Everything is relative.

 

Yep, a day here or there. Nothing like this. As they point out, it's the duration of the warming period that has them astonished, having a huge effect on the average for the entire month.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...r-global-warming-climate-change-a8230141.html

 

Sounds good but do wake me up when these models and "scientific" prophesies match the reality. OK?

Lol, libs are so much fun

 

Yep. I figured he would talk about cloud cover, and try to pretend that meant satellites couldn't get temperature data at all. But his refusal to even source his claim meant we never even got there.

 

First, I'm not a "lib". Second, model predictions already match reality within a reasonable margin of error.

Tell me, how close did Easterbrook, et. al get with their denier based predictions of the global mean temperature?

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...hy-you-chose-it.481445/page-3#post-1066795746

 

Not to mention the billions per year being spent on ACC research - presumably trying to find real evidence that it exists - while the public is told over and over that the science is settled.

 

1. Then you agree libs are so much fun lol

2. I already gave you a link with hundreds of examples of huge discrepancies and the reality doing the opposite of what these models predicted. You can pretend they are minor deviations all you want but in virtually all cases these prophecies have been horribly wrong.

 

Yogi Berra said, "Its hard to make predictions, especially about the future".
Climate predictors, warmist or skeptic, should save themselves a lot of embarrassment and make sure their predictions are far enough in the future to ensure they will be dead before they are proven wrong and often ridiculous.

 

No, now you said you could be specific so do so. By type, list the variation caused naturally, and then the added anthropogenic component. We aren't talking about the "warming" which is a BS generic generalization. You listed specific observations. Now quantify it.

 

You're going to call anything I post as being crap because you were told to believe otherwise.

When it's warm outside and you want to know why I would suggest you look up and take a gander at that big bright solar furnace and wonder if it has anything to do with it. I would also suggest you ask yourself why the rest of the solar system is warming, a fact that doesn't get much attention. You have Google, look it up because anything I post you'll write off as crap.