Thursday, December 22, 2011

A Cleantech VC not convinced of human-induced climate change

Thursday, December 22, 2011
Approach you moving - call me a hypocrite. My contention is that Cleantech Venture capitalists still I you say here and now, that I was not convinced of anthropogenic (human caused) climate change (aka global warming am). And I'll tell you bold, my beliefs on the climate in any way to run contrary to my strong belief in the need for a Cleantech revolution changes.

Many supporters of clean technologies make it seem as if anthropogenic climate change is an absolute fact. Some of them man-made climate change is almost like a religion where is no debate or doubt not tolerated. Some of them a heretic can call me just for the writing of this post.

At the same time, they are equally religious fervor and assurance that anthropogenic global warming is a scam at the other end of the spectrum. Are you sure that human emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" never our climate could affect. And they can turn this post to make than an another data point against claims of global warming and extra logic nothing other than fossil fuel increase exploration.

In both groups, little about the subject other than the popular press is my perception that most read. And I find it equally sad in their short-sighted positions both groups. If both these camps would open their eyes, I suspect, would make it much more agreement on the need for action on clean technology, rather than the disagreement that create their polarized views.

There are sound scientific theories and extensive data on climate change report, anchored Panel, indicating the possibility of the United Nations intergovernmental that could over time human-induced greenhouse gas emissions impact on the global climate and may have already begun to do so. Released them from the hand, than some reasonable doubt there is irrational.

Also is to speak to anthropogenic climate change as a certainty or to claim that it no dispute among scientists simply wrong. There are many renowned climate scientists remain unconvinced. The reality is that all predictions of global warming are based on very complex climate models. We can weather forecast of a few days with sufficient accuracy but try if you predictions temperature quickly apart fall in the summer of next year - let alone long term global climatic conditions - things. Long-term climate models, which are anything but correct.

We know the climate changes with security, which have caused significant changes in the atmosphere over to natural occurrences. So, there is little doubt about whether changes in the atmosphere can cause climate change. The question is rather whether man-made emissions are important enough to cause a change on your own and to overcome the great natural powers on our climate, which include sunspots, variations in the orbit of the Earth and volcanoes have included not in the global warming forecasts.

Often there is a focus in the media about the recent differences in climate as a source of evidence for anthropogenic climate change. Variations in climate over short periods of time are very suspicious as evidence. While most scholars seem to agree that there have been increased temperatures and other in the last century climate change or so, what can not with safety be said, that caused the more CO2 this natural climate change events held, which have and continue to regularly happen with our planet. Even the UN Intergovernmental Panel on climate change report, which is the backbone of support for anthropogenic climate change, found that the confidence in which could be as low as 50 percent for most of the events and 66 percent for the other (pages 23 and 52 of the technical summary) human contribution to the fair weather events (such as temperature, storms, sea, etc.).

Climate change is measured over very long periods of time - tens of thousands of years or a few years. Some of the best long-term data on historical CO2 concentrations and temperatures comes from the glacial ice core data that spans back 400,000 years. These data show that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere measured in the past are remarkably more than 20% higher than any level 400,000 years (see Figure 1). The recent rapid increase in is also the industrial age and temperature fluctuations are in high correlation with CO2 concentrations. This is "hard" data or simply depreciation to ignore.

But the amount of CO2 now far below the estimated levels while many times in history (Figure 2) increase the possibility that other natural have contributed the current collection is interesting over longer periods of time. And the correlation between temperature and CO2, which seems so obvious in the core data of 400,000 years ice is clearly much less if you're looking over many millions of years.

While most scientists seem to think that, isolated, increased CO2 levels create a reinforced "" greenhouse effect while CO2 acts as a ceiling above the heat radiated from Earth go back into the room, to prevent concentration and which period remains a point of uncertainty and debate on what level. In addition, the warming is, as other factors that can occur with warming like increased moisture and clouds, as well as changes in absorption of CO2 in the ocean at different temperatures is dynamic and is much more effective other climate change uncertain.

The bottom line is that we don't really know if man caused climate change has, after it has already occurred for a very long time.

And that is the rabbit in the pepper. The theoretical cost of humanity of global warming are high: sank by rising ocean levels, polar ice, storm and significant changes in the precipitation patterns increases. If it has occurred to a significant degree, could any significant economic and health impact. But there is no certainty that we pay ever so a price. More compelling is what we know with near the town of security:

Fossil fuels are a finite resource and they pollute. Reduction of environmental pollution is always a good thing. And with energy boom in demand in China and India, fossil fuels are a resource that will be scarcer and more expensive. You can argue about the pace, but few argue that it will happen. Also oil rich countries like Saudi Arabia started to accept this fact.
Increased sources of low-cost energy and more energy-efficient consumption have and continue to increase the standard of living.

Nations with greater diversity of energy sources need more economic and national security. The US Department of Defense believes that our national security climate change will affect. If anthropogenic global warming is first pays the price for the damage that we have made real, at the time it will be too late to reverse things quickly.

Surely that man caused climate change to demand or to claim that there is no risk of anthropogenic climate change are just as wrong and as well polarisierenden.

While it is not certain, there is evidence that suggests that human emissions of greenhouse gases can, change our climate in ways that could have dramatic consequences. We can do nothing and rolls the dice, which all OK can be you. Or we can steps to diversify our sources of energy from fossil fuels and increase our energy efficiency, not only reduce the risk of man-made climate change, but increase the robustness of our economy and our national defense.

Although debate about it should should the ultimate bipartisan issue without the divisive talk features how to best availability and use of the application of clean technologies for cleantech innovation support created by anthropogenic climate change, as if it is a fact or fiction.

0 коммент.:

Post a Comment