Did you see the piece I linked to a while back, regarding the dangers and costs of hesitating because of the uncertainty? Action is insurance. Maybe there's a one in ten chance this warming is our doing and will be catastrophic (say, to grain production). Over time, how much more expensive does responding to the catastrophe later (inventing a new strain of wheat overnight) need to be to break even with the cost of heading off, (or reducing it to 1 in 20) that one in ten chance today? Besides, the world is awash in unused labor and capital.
since the troll repeats his troll question... I will repeat the answer. "there is no relationship between the fossil carbon emissions curve and the annual carbon increase curve." do you understand that sentence FC... no relationship between man made CO2 and the overall co2 level. Therefore it is very unlikely man caused the "spike". Read the chart here is the science of it: http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/...emperature-is-driving-co2-and-not-vice-versa/ The shape of the annual carbon increase resembles the shape of the global sea surface temperature (HADSST3), especially after reliable CO2 measurements began by Keeling after March 1958. Several known events are visible. Counting backwards: the 1998 El Niño, the 1994-5 El Niño, Mt Pinatubo in 1991, the 1986-7 El Niño, Mt Ruiz in 1985, El Chichon eruption in 1982, the 1972-3 El Niño, etc. Every positive peak is an El Niño and every negative peak is associated with a major volcanic eruption. As can be seen in Figure 1, there is no relationship between the fossil carbon emissions curve and the annual carbon increase curve. That is because all the fossil emissions carbon is taken up by the biosphere or by the oceans according to Henryâs Law, and then sequestered there. The carbon in the atmosphere is controlled by temperature. This has been described by Dr. Murry Salby in this presentations at Sydney and Hamburg. He compares the CO2 curve to the integral of temperature. Here, I am going the other way mathematically, taking the differential of the CO2 curve as temperature and comparing it to known temperature data, the HADSST3 data. - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/...-co2-and-not-vice-versa/#sthash.gBOX3Ftl.dpuf[/QUOTE]
There is no spike. Before the 20<sup>th</sup> century, there are no measurements of CO2 in air. The earlier stuff is voodoo. From what I can see, your problem is that many of us arenât fools â we think. To those pushing an agenda, thatâs poison: âWhat good fortune for governments that the people do not thinkâ, uttered by one with an agenda. <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->
Government has a better track record with its investment monies than the private sector does. More oversight, probably. Solyndra's Failure Is No Reason To Abandon Federal Energy Innovation Policy By Jesse Jenkins, Devon Swezey, and Alex Trembath 9/02/2011 "Wednesdayâs news that the California solar cell manufacturer and DOE loan guarantee recipient Solyndra will be declaring Chapter 11 bankruptcy has government critics grumbling about clean tech boondoggles and failed government programs. But Solyndraâs failure, while unfortunate, is hardly an indictment of federal energy technology policy. Failure is to be expected with emerging, innovative companies, whether they are financed by the government or the private sector. The success of the Department of Energyâs Loan Guarantee Program (LGP) should thus be judged not by any one investment but by the performance of the entire portfolio. "Critics have seized on the news of Solyndraâs bankruptcy to condemn the Department of Energyâs Loan Guarantee Program, which provided a $535 million loan guarantee in 2009. The National Reviewâs Greg Pollowitz writes that Solyndraâs failure shows âwhy the government should not play venture capitalist.â Yet the fact is that, when judged by its entire diverse portfolio of investments, the LGP has performed remarkably well. Indeed, with a capitalization of just $4 billion, DOE has committed or closed $37.8 billion in loan guarantees for 36 innovative clean energy projects. The Solyndra case represents less than 2% of total loan commitments made by DOE, and will be easily covered by a capitalization of eight to ten times larger than any ultimate losses expected following the bankruptcy proceedings. "The broad success story of the LGP shows why federal investment in clean energy is necessary to help early-stage clean energy technologies achieve scale and reach commercialization. The inherent uncertainty in investing in novel technologies, coupled with the high capital costs and long time horizons, prohibits most venture capital funds from investing in large-scale clean energy projects. Financing tools and direct investment from the federal government can help bridge this well-known âCommercialization Valley of Death,â and the LGP is an effective way of doing that. "Instead of âpicking winners and losers,â as the programâs critics allege, the program actually reduces risk for a suite of innovative clean energy technologies and allows venture capitalists and other private sector investors to invest in the best technology. Rather than picking winners, the LGP enables innovative companies to compete in the marketplace, allowing winners to emerge from competition. And while Solyndra is shutting its doors, companies like SunPower, First Solar, and Brightsource Energy, which also received loan guarantees and other support from the federal government, are industry leading success stories. "With perfect hindsight, itâs all too easy to see why Solyndra proved to be a bad bet: the firmâs central innovation, a thin film technology that avoided the use of silicon, proved to be far less important when refined silicon prices collapsed after Solyndraâs founding; the remaining installation cost advantages provided by the companyâs cylindrical solar panels proved too small, and Solyndra was unable to capture the manufacturing cost reductions that have helped other U.S. thin film companies, like First Solar, thrive despite low silicon prices. Perhaps most importantly, intense pressure from heavily subsidized Chinese manufacturers is driving a surprisingly competitive solar market, forcing Solyndra to get costs down faster than the start-up firm could achieve. "It is possible that these fatal factors could have been avoided by better vetting from DOE, or that removed from the pressures of a fast-paced stimulus environment, DOE may not have made this bad bet. But to assert, as numerous conservative commentators have been quick to do, that Solyndraâs failure is proof positive of the governmentâs supposed inability to âpick winnersâ is patently absurd. After all, Solyndra received repeated rounds of investment to the tune of $1.1 billion from some of the private sectorâs biggest stars, including Richard Branson, the WalMart family, and leading venture capital firms like U.S. Venture Partners and RockPort Capital. Venture capitalists and the U.S. government both placed a bet, Solyndraâs entrepreneurs took a shot, and unfortunately for all, they missed. Such is to be expected in the high-risk but high-reward world of early-stage technology ventures. In addition, the loan commitment places the government in a senior position in the result of a bankruptcy, ensuring that DOE will get paid out before the VCs and other investors. "Critics who think the government has no place in supporting technology innovation have a tenuous grasp of U.S. economic history. In fact, the government has a long and successful history in helping Americaâs intrepid entrepreneurs succeed in new high-risk, high-reward technology sectors. As we wrote in âWhere Good Technologies Come From,â the government has played a key role, either as an early investor or a demanding customer, in the development of virtually every advanced technology we take for granted today, from aviation to biotechnology, to computers and the Internet, microchips, and now clean energy. Indeed, without a visionary government investing in key strategic industries, world-leading companies like Google, Genentech and Boeing would not exist. "The United States was able to be the worldâs technology leader in these fields because of its forward-looking investments, as well as a relative dearth of competition from economic rivals. In todayâs clean energy market, however, competition is fierce. U.S. companies compete with low-cost Chinese manufacturers who benefit from generous state subsidies and a robust and comprehensive set of policies to encourage solar manufacturing. Indeed, in 2010 the China Development Bank provided more than $30 billion in loans to Chinese solar manufacturers. Chinaâs large clean energy investments have helped reduce the price of solar cells by 42% in just the last nine months, which was one factor in Solyndraâs inability to compete. "While the United States may not be able to afford the scale of support for clean energy that China can, it can compete by focusing on what it has always done best: innovation. In the solar industry, the long-term goal must be to drive innovation so that solar can be cost-competitive without subsidy. Fortunately, the Department of Energy recognizes this imperative and has embarked on a new effortâthe SunShot initiativeâgeared toward dramatically lowering the cost of solar PV. The SunShot initiative focuses on bringing down costs by pursuing innovations in four particular areas, including solar cell technology, power electronics that optimize the performance of installations, improvements in manufacturing processes, and installation and system design. "The Sunshot initiative and other key technology innovation programs like the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E), embody the kind of smart innovation policy that holds the promise of fundamentally transforming the economy and ushering in a new era of U.S. technology leadership. "In the face of intense competition in the clean energy sector, America faces two choices. We can abandon our entrepreneurs and innovators in this new strategic growth sector, or we can redouble our efforts to invest in energy innovation, support clean energy entrepreneurs and help American firms compete and ultimately prevail in the global clean energy race. If we walk away now, America will lose out on one of the greatest economic opportunities of the 21st century." http://www.forbes.com/sites/energys...-to-abandon-federal-energy-innovation-policy/
Piehole. Salby is a fraud and a fool. Do a search on him. He has zero respect among true scientists. His diffusion theory is total bullshit. He is not an ice expert. He is a joke. What is wrong with reliable sources like the hundreds of ice scientists who have studied this issue up down and sideways? To read some the real science about ice CO2 measurements and a total takedown of Salby's stupidity read here...http://www.climatescience.cam.ac.uk/community/file/download/843 Here's just a taste. Diffusion of gases does occur in ice but (apart from the very small molecule, helium), it is of order centimetres even over 800,000 years.  This can be seen most clearly for methane for which the very sharp jumps that occur at the start of DansgaardâOeschger events (typically 40% jumps in <50 years) are preserved at similar amplitude over 800,000 years. There is no problem with the ice record of CO2. It is NOT a proxy This chart is one data set and "diffusion" is certainly not an issue. Average max ppm for CO2 is around 280 until exactly when man started burning fossil fuels when within one hundred years the levels have gone up 40% . Current levels are 400 ppm. To suggest this is natural, as you did, is beyond stupid. To rely on simply denying facts is the pathetic last gasp of someone who doesn't have a leg to stand on. You are exactly like the kind of denier propagandist employed by conservative think tanks. Basically, I have to call it like I see it. You, just like jerm, are a fucking liar.
the ice record is not a proxy? so you found a half a million year old thermometer? what don't you lie about? regarding the accuracy of the co2 measurements and diffusion... I presented an article a few pages back from another scientist. 2. Regarding the co2 lagging temps... at this stage no scientist disputes it. you don't have to rely on Salby. I presented a peer reviewed paper on the subject to you many times. CO2 acummulation and dissipation lag the change in ocean temps by 9 to 12 months. The are some agw nutter scientists trying to show that phased lag is just a coincidence and co2 really caused the lagged warming and cooling but so far there is no science... just some speculation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(climate)