Maybe I am too stupid, but I did not really understand how financing environmental technologies in poorer regions, keeps those regions poor.

Perhaps you can help me with this...

PS:
Not only poor can benefit. Companies in rich countries can profit as well, in case they manage it to cut down their emissions through innovations or investments.

__________________
When the Nazis came for the communists I remained silent, I was no communist.
When the Nazis came for the Unionists I remained silent, I was no Unionist.
When the Nazis came for the Social Democrats I remained silent, I was no Social Democrat.
When the Nazis came for the Jews I remained silent, I was no Jew.
When the Nazis came for me, there was no one left who could protest.

Before you give in to the scare tactics, consider the following, all of which are true and all from credible sources which I have links to (and have linked to in other discussions here about climate change):
1) The temp changes hundreds of years before the CO2 changes in those Ice core graphs of CO2 and temp. In my opinion, this fact alone makes the whole argument about CO2 causing temp change moot.
2) CO2 is a minor greenhouse gase and humans only contribute a few percent (2 to 3%) of the total in the atmosphere. Of this, Americans are only responsible for 0.5% to 0.75%.
3) There is historical evidence that indicates sunspot activity may have influenced temperature changes on earth. For example, the Maunder minimum coincided with the little ice age and the medieval maximum coincided with the medieval warm period. There are other high and low periods that also coincide with higher or lower temps on earth.
4) The last 70 years of the sun has seen more sunspot activity than at any other time going back to 8000 years ago.
5) Both ice on mars and earth is melting and the heating on both planets started at the same time AND they both have heated by about the same amount.
6) There is evidence that also indicates sunspot activity could affect the surface temperature of the ocean.
7) The energy output of the sun has been increasing by 0.05%/year since the 1970's.
8) The climate of the earth has always been changing.

Regarding Kyoto, it wouldn't have reduced the worldwide amount of CO2 if it was fully implemented. In addition, there are people using Kyoto warming scare tactics to try and force developing countries to transfer wealth from developed countries to developing countries. And you can verify that this is indeed one of the goals of the UN by reading it for yourself in the UN's earth charter, which happens to be the same organization that the IPCC is from.

Finally, it's been reported that the earth's temp has been in stasis (hasn't increased or decreased) for the last 7 or 8 years while the CO2 has been increasing. This to me, is evidence that the ice core data is right (where it shows that CO2 changes lag temp changes).


That could (and probably does) mean severely reducing our economy as well as transferring wealth from us to other countries. Is this really what you think is needed when there is evidence of a natural cause or causes and when the end result would be pretty much he same amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere but on a more equitable basis (per nation) when viewed globally?


Nothing wrong with finding alternative sources of energy. Nuclear would be one I would like if there was a way to safely store the waste.

Kramer

__________________
“It's time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody's role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It's no surprise that our school system doesn't improve; it more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy."
Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers

You're 19,000 number sounds suspiciously like the claim set out by the Oregon Petition. Which has been shown to be a completely misleading document on this board and elsewhere.

If you want to build you're argument on that document, you should know it's some really shaky ground on which to do so.

__________________
He who learns but does not think is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger. --Confucius

Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.
--Sun Tzu

Smooth seas do not make skillful sailors.
--African proverb

As i have already explained to you in another thread this gap is completely expected in the theory. It should be there. Temperature increase from the milankovitch cycle and temperature increase from the 'greenhouse' effect are not exclusive to each other. Indeed, the fist lowers the solubility of co2 in the oceans ultimately leading CO2 emissions from the ocean and to an enhanced greenhouse effect (which is required to melt ice sheets and the end of a glacial period). The length of the gap is roughly the length of time required for this process.


Water vapor is the most significant GHG. Any increase in the other GHGs increases the significance of water vapor. I.e., if we add more CO2 (even a little) to the atmosphere it has a warming effect which causes more evaporation and more water vapor, and hence, more warming. You cannot separate the two. Our emissions only increase the effect of water vapor.

As far as the argument that human emissions are tiny one needs to understand the carbon cycle. For simplicity sake lets say that CO2 emission and CO2 absorption are equal; every year there are 1 million tons of carbon emitted and 1 million tons of carbon absorbed by plants and oceans. This is a basic carbon cycle. Now, if we add 1000T of carbon to the emissions side of that equation, and we cut down 1000T of trees worth of CO2 we have actually added 2000T of carbon to the atmosphere. Now consider we do this more and more every year. As the oceans warm up they begin to lose their ability to absorb CO2. (happening as we speak according to two recent studies). All of a sudden what appeared to be a tiny amount of CO2 emissions from humans, when combined with landbase destruction and warmer oceans, begins to double and triple and quadruple as we destroy the ability of the earth to absorb carbon.

And on top of all this we are increasing the warming brought by water vapor for every bit of CO2 we put into the atmosphere.


I have already showed you on two occasions that the current warming trend is not correlated to any solar activity. I even provided you will many studies that conclude this. Yet you keep harping on it... why?

http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publ...lanki/c153.pdf
http://www.aimes.ucar.edu/MEETINGS/2...mel%20copy.pdf
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media...pa20071880.pdf

At least rebut those studies if you can.
Except, as i have already explained to you, solar activity, (brightness, sun spots, etc..) have leveled off since the 50s, whereas the recorded warming of earth has been since the 70's. Explain that. Are you deliberately being misleading?

Another one i have explained. Of the dozens and dozens of bodies in the solar system soem are heating and some are cooling at any given time. In fact Jupiter is also warming if you want to add that to your skeptic repertoire...

The only known force large enough in the solar system to be the single cause of simultaneous climate change in all bodies is the sun. Since the sun has been ruled out by numerous studies that only leaves the particular climates of of each individual body as the likely culprit. On mars an increase in storms has 'darkened' the planet leading to more heat absorption and hence more planet warming.


Except sun spot activity has not increased since the 50's. Yet ocean surface temps have increased over the least 3 decades. Explain that?

Here is what the energy/temp graph looks like:


Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research

Obviously the sun does not explain the temperature increase on earth, as any solar or climate scientist would tell you. There is no evidence that the warming over the last three decades is caused by any solar activity.

This statement is of course very true. But it in no way whatsoever excludes human industrial civilization from causing current warming. Past cliamte change is understood to be caused by milankovitch cycles, a more active sun, increased volcanic activity, changes in the circulation of ocean currents. None of those things are currently 'in play'. Essentially, the best theory to explain current warming is in fact anthropogenic.

True. Kyoto was and is totally inadequate to deal with the problem, indeed, implementing it would have done the same as not implementing it, an increase in CO2 emissions.

But, if we are to tackle this problem there is no doubt at all that some of the wealth from developed countries will be used to adopt zero-emission technology in developing countries. This would be an absolute requirement. Given that much of the problem comes from the developed nations, this is more than fair and reasonable.

Kyoto might have at the very least ushered in a new era if international cooperation, but instead it saw the entire world behave like selfish stubborn children, as per our long history of serious stupidity.

Except the lag is in the hundreds of years.

Regardless, you are reporting another misleading 'skeptic' report. If the 1998 el nino is removed as an aberration (which it was) we see the same warming trend over the last seven to 8 years. Only if we include the extreme el-nino year of 1998 in our graphing does it appear as though there has been no warming since 1998. Here:


It hasn't warmed since 1998


Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Andrew, I don't buy this at all. First of all the Milankovitch theory is just that: A theory. In fact, while looking up this cycle (in response to when you brought it up last time), I've read on a few sites that it has fallen out of favor as a theory a while ago but is now being looked at again. So they don't even know. And how could the Milankovitch theory explain the other lags when the temp rose and fell in between the 100K year cycles? Again, I believe that the CO2 is rising and falling due to a warmer earth causing more life to form and a cooler earth resulting in less life.

Regarding that 100K year cycle, I think it's possible that the sun has some kind of large cycle and here is a link that reports evidence of it:

100,000-Year Climate Pattern Linked To Sun's Magnetic Cycles
An excerpt from the above link:
And because of the lag, I have a problem when Al Gore uses those ice core graphs of temp and CO2 in his movie to show CO2 causing temp to change. This to me is somewhat disingenuous.

I agree that if the temp gets warmer, water vapor will be increased. I don't know if water vapor is the strongest GH gas but I do know that it's over 700X more powerful than CO2.

I don't dispute that the CO2 has risen and that we have added to it. But, I believe that a fair amount of the CO2 is resulting from a warmer earth (exposing more land resulting in more life) which is being warmed by the sun.



No, I am not deliberately being misleading.
For example, here is the link (a NASA link BTW) where it says the energy output of the sun has been increasing since the 1970's:
NASA - Top Story - NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE - March 20, 2003

Here is the excerpt:

This is news to me.

I understand how a planet's albedo can make it warmer and cooler. Fair point. But, I find it rather unlikely that the heating of mars and earth are not connected in some way. Both planets started heating up in roughly the same time frame and by the same amount.


Huh???
Explain the picture below (from a NASA site) as it clearly shows sunspots increasing after the 50's followed by a dip in the next cycle and then each new cycle getting larger than the last.

And from the above graph, take a guess as to where the little ice age occurred. Should be easy to find...

Another site where I get sunspot information from is below.
Sunspots at 8000 year high


My response:
NASA - Top Story - NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE - March 20, 2003



From Al Gore's movie:
source

Now here is a picture from NOAA (another credible site) that shows how sunspots and surface ocean temp have correlated:

(b) The globally averaged sea surface temperatures are plotted with the sunspot numbers (Reid; 1999). Both sunspot number and solar cycle length are proxies for the amount of solar energy that Earth receives. The similarity of these curves is evidence that the sun has influenced the climate of the last 150 years.

Did Al Gore note this in his movie? I don't think so.
And again, notice the increasing sunspots after the 1950's. I don't know why you keep saying they haven't increased when I've got these and other credible sources that have counted them and reported the results!




I said earlier that the Milankovitch cycle is a theory and it wasn't too long ago that it fell out of favor. True it's being looked at again but that's about it. And refer to a link above where it says there is evidence of a 100k year cycle in the sun.

I don't dispute that humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere and that it's a GW gas (but a weak one) and that volcanos and other natural factors have shaped the past climate. What I dispute is the 9/10 chance that the IPCC scientists are right and I base this on the natural phenomenon I have posted above, the way Kyoto was set up, and recent quotes from prominent Americans and some world leaders that are tying reducing poverty to GW. All of the above things I noted (and a few more I haven't yet noted) poke holes in the pro human caused GW movement which is causing me to doubt whether or not the IPCC scientists are right.

Kramer

__________________
“It's time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody's role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It's no surprise that our school system doesn't improve; it more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy."
Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers

Excuse me for jumping in without discussung the excellent points being made in this discussion. But I've got to know one thing, Kramer. Are you really somewhat dismissing the scientific validity of a concept such as Milankovitch cycles just because it's a "theory". Because that's really what science is all about, right? We really don't get many laws from it. And if I've got it wrong, my apologies in advance for misunderstanding.

__________________
This land was made for you and me
-Woody Guthrie

I was being somewhat dismissive of it in regards to the effect from it on the temp-CO2 lag seen from graphs of ice core data. As far as what read on this theory, there is evidence that supports it but I get the impression that it isn't high on the list as far as being an important theory.

I probably should have phrased my thoughts a little more clearer.

Kramer

__________________
“It's time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody's role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It's no surprise that our school system doesn't improve; it more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy."
Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers

you could take all of the greenhouse gas emissions mankind has been resposible for from the Man's first appearance on the planet add it all together

and it would be a miniscule , inconsequential fraction of the amounts naturally released by the planet in one day.

man has not one damn thing to do with global warming , and has no chance in hell of effecting a change in it.

__________________
I just neutered the cat , now he is a Liberal

Another new study by NASA shows that the arctic current changes in the last 3 decades (at least) are not due to Global Warming as claimed by Algore and various other nutcases.

__________________

Current changes <> ice melting

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Human activity has caused co2 levels to increase over 30% in the last 200 years. That's the time period of issue.

It says:

"Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more"

A change of 0.1% in TSI would not be enough to explain the rate of warming in the last 30 years.

I don't believe it is known whether Mars is warming globally, and if so by how much.

The graph shows there was an increase in the early 20th century, but since then it has gone no higher.