I guess they just want to kill Gaia, or something. India Rejects Calls For Emission Cuts: Officials Say Growth Will Be Compromised
Days after the Obama administration unveiled a push to combat climate change, Indian officials said it was unlikely to prompt them to agree to binding emission cuts, a position among emerging economies that many say derails effective action.
“If the question is whether India will take on binding emission reduction commitments, the answer is no. It is morally wrong for us to agree to reduce when 40 percent of Indians do not have access to electricity,” said a member of the Indian delegation to the recently concluded U.N. conference in Bonn, Germany, which is a prelude to a Copenhagen summit in December on climate change. “Of course, everybody wants to go solar, but costs are very, very high.”
In other words, India is more concerned with increasing the living standards of their own people then signing on to any commitments that will have little to no affect on the proported anthropogenic global warming, but will cost lots and lots of money, increase unemployment, and reduce standards of living.
Just remember
Believers are having a tough time arguing this one.
I can’t see that image for some reason. Can you email it to me?
being just a high school grad I am having problems reading that first graph Both the x axis and the Y axis appear to be marked in calendar years. dy/dx= ????? Also in the second graph doesn’t it show that overall ( not on a daily weekly monthly yearly but decade) view shows that as the CO2 levels have gone up so has the temps ? Both show a generally upward slope
being just a high school grad I am having problems reading that first graph Both the x axis and the Y axis appear to be marked in calendar years. dy/dx= ????? Also in the second graph doesn’t it show that overall ( not on a daily weekly monthly yearly but decade) view shows that as the CO2 levels have gone up so has the temps ? Both show a generally upward slope
That’s strange, Reasic. You can see it at photobucket: http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y164/wteach/Global%20Warming/Don_Easterbrook1017-thumb-410×273.jpg
John, the point is that the temperature fluctuations trend more with the Sun rather then CO2.
I too have noticed that it is often warmer in the daytime when the sun is out and cooler ay night.
But when discussing climate change the difference between temps of days or weeks or months or years show us less than the difference in longer periods such as decades. Certainly in the second graph one can see that over the length of time (the x axis) 2 things have occured: the temps have gone up AND the Co2 level has gone up
Now that first graph is a puzzler for me. here is why: although the vertical axis (the y axis) is labeled Total Solar Irradience it seems to be actually calendar years. Now if it is not than it means that some how a total solar irradience change amounting to a meager 7/1974 or 0.003% has made a rather dramatic global temp rise. I know that this can not be true as there iis commonly much more variation in solar strength.
AS you yourself have posted the suns activity is at a low cycle, even though our temps are UP ! AS these graphs show solar irradience has decreased in the last 2 decades, but the temps have gone up. http://biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_Climate_Change.html And who made those charts that you show anyway ? was it a climatologist ? or that senile geologist ?
Teach,
You can’t just whip out a four-year-old chart from a research paper that you don’t understand, without any explanation of what it proves or how it proves it, and claim that “believers” are having a hard time “arguing” it. What are we supposed to argue? You haven’t made a point. You have a graph that compares ARCTIC air temps to total solar irradiance, and have provided no source or accompanying data to examine. For all I know, you drew that by hand, did a little photoshopping and posted it.
If you have an argument, make it, and back it up with evidence. Don’t get ahead of yourself by just presenting some random piece of evidence without the argument itself.
Share some background info on the graphs, and I’d be glad to explain to you how they prove nothing.
John, I would also suggest you research the 800 year CO2 cycle. Look, again, I do not agree with global warming: it happens. I disagree with AGW.
Well, there you go, Reasic. I give you a perfect chart, and you don’t believe it.
Teach, I would suggest that YOu actually RESEARCH the 800-year lag issue, rather than drink the kool-aid from biased, ignorant sources. Please read this carefully: The 800-year lag that deniers love to mention DOES NOT disprove the fact that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations causes an increase in global temperatures. Ask any climatologist, even the skeptical Roy Spencer, and they’ll tell you that scientific experiments have verified that a doubling of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will result in an increase of approx. 3 deg C, give or take, depending on climate sensitivity.
The lag that you have misrepresented showed up in ice core data around the time that the planet was entering an interglacial period (warming up from an ice age). We know that changes in the earth’s orbit, tilt, and eccentricity have controlled our planet’s oscillations into and out of ice ages. So, this change started very slowly, and the cold oceans, which stored a great deal of carbon dioxide began to heat up and subsequently, release CO2 into the atmosphere. Now, does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause warming? Absolutely not! The carbon dioxide that was released then stayed in the atmosphere for many decades, further increasing the planet’s temperature.
Today, we have a very different situation. First of all, we are not coming out of an ice age. Secondly, we humans are manufacturing our own carbon dioxide as a byproduct of our industrial activity. Consequently, we have had an unprecedented increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations to levels not seen in over 650,000 years, and also an unprecendented RATE of increase in temperatures. If you look at the rate of our current warming on the time scale of past warming/cooling cycles, it will look like a straight line up.
Don’t just scratch the surface, Teach. Don’t just stop at the convenient information. Actually try to learn something for a change.
A “perfect” chart? I don’t think so. What does your chart prove? Make an argument. As it stands, I have no argument, just a piece of evidence. There is nothing to argue, because you haven’t used that evidence to make a point.
C’mon, Teach! Are you really too busy broadcasting the fact that you’re actually an unpatriotic violent extremist, who hates this country, to respond to my facts about climate change? I’d LOVE to see your response to the truth about the supposed 800-yr lag. Of course, you could just ignore my argument, and let it slip into the nether regions of your blog, just like every other time I’ve proved that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Just ONCE I wish you’d pull your head out the sand and actually try to learn something. I’m not holding my breath.
The evidence is before your eyes, Reasic. Not a computer model, but actual hard evidence. If you choose to ignore it, hey, your problem.
Evidence of WHAT?!?! You STILL haven’t articulated a clear thought. You haven’t made any sort of an argument. At least tell me what you think your graphs prove. I’ve also asked for your source for this information.
You also haven’t responded to my rebuttal of your “800-year CO2 cycle” nonsense.
Evidence of WHAT?!?! You STILL haven’t articulated a clear thought. At the very least, please tell me what it is that you think your graphs prove. I’ve also asked you for the source of this information.
You also haven’t responded to me rebuttal to your “800-year CO2 cycle” nonsense.
C’mon, Teach! Explain for me what this is evidence of. What is your argument? Are you claiming that your graphs, which compare ARCTIC air temperatures to global carbon dioxide levels, disprove anthropogenic GLOBAL warming? Since you refuse to articulate a clear argument, I’m left with no other choice than to assume that this is your argument. If that’s the case, then the answer is “no”.
You can’t put a graph of ARCTIC air temps, which is oscillatory in nature, next to one of CO2 concentrations, which is fairly smooth, and claim that this means there is no correlation between the two. Arctic temperature variations are very complicated, and are caused by a number of natural factors, such as changes in oceanic circulation, wind patterns, and atmospheric pressure. This is an extremely sophomoric argument, and is very typical of what I’ve seen from other deniers.
The thing is, I actually welcome dissent and debate. I would love to be challenged by an intelligent, informed rebuttal to my own ideas. The problem is that the vast majority of the “arguments” I’ve been presented with from deniers like you are half-brained. You haven’t a clue what you’re talking about, and you haven’t even fully thought through the argument you’re presenting. It’s plainly obvious.
It does a great disservice to your collective credibility. If you would only refrain from making statements and claims about things that you do not understand, this could change. Put forth a genuine effort to understand our climate, so that you can formulate an informed argument to present in contradiction to the prevailing theory.
This nonsense of comparing apples to oranges does nothing but demonstrate your ignorance on the subject. You’re only making a fool of yourself.
Also, for what it’s worth, India actually has a plan of action for dealing with climate change:
http://pmindia.nic.in/Pg01-52.pdf
It’s not that they don’t think it’s happening or that they don’t believe they can do anything about it. Their argument is that they are still developing, which they are.
They are also going through elections soon, and climate change is going to be a major factor. Sure, their current government doesn’t want to commit to emissions cuts, but neither did Bush. However, that didn’t mean that our entire country, or our entire government for that matter, agreed with him.
Okay, Teach, now the real evidence is before YOUR eyes. Are you going to choose to ignore it?
Teach can you explain to me why in the first graph both the x axis and the y axis are labeled as calendar years ? that just doesn’t make any sense to me shouldn’t at least one axis be different ? I think that you really do not understand either
Teach,
Please tell me you’re not going to run from real evidence again! Why is it that every time I present you with a real argument, you turn and run with your tail tucked between your legs?