Dont Blame The Chinese

[bpw]

There is an alarming tendency here in the USA for poorly informed or biased people seek to place blame for all economic and climate change woes on the Chinese. The most obvious are the protectionists who want the US government to 'tell' China to devalue the Yuan. After all, they are taking OUR jobs arn't they!? And, look at the number of coal fired power stations they build per day. Given the boom in China it must be they who are the cause of global warming and, as such, they should be made to pay to mitigate the problem just like the rest.

As ever there are two points of view. And I side with the Chinese on these two points.

Who after all caused businesses to close all over the EU during the 60s and 70s? Well the good ole' USA of course, who sang the mantra of free trade and corporate efficiency. They were right then, so what about now? If the chinese can make stuff - a lot of stuff - cheaper than we can, then yes, factories and offices should close in the USA and EU. This time 'tough love' has to be doled out to less productive and more expensive workers in the west.

And what of climate change. Get real yankies and limeys. If Green House Gas (GHG) was refuse and there were huge piles of it created by the west, and the refuse was most likely causing a global catastrophe then why should someone else be made to pay to sort out the problem, the fact is the chinese are adding to the problem, they didnt create it. The only fair way of addressing this problem is for the IPCC to assess the amount of GHG emitted by each member Nation, and for them to pay in proportion to clear up the problem. That would be fair in the case of a pile of refuse, and is fair in the case of GHG too.

Of course, who created the biggest mess, and who is most reluctant to pay their dues....... which nation has increased its emissions since 1990 beyond the savings made by a of the Annex B countries? Well i shall let you guess.

Edited June 22, 2007 by bpw

[Jay76]

Good post.

Also remember that most of China's emissions are as a result of making cheap goods for the USA and Europe

[Orbital]

There was a nice pretty graph in Time mag of CO2 emissions produced by countries around the world. China was at the top im afriad.

I dont buy the "blame it on China" argument either. Of course China will produce more - its bigger! Dur! China, like us, needs to do its bit. We all do. The idea we shouldnt bother because China is bigger is just daft in my eyes.

China is doing its bit. I was reading an article regarding how the coal power stations they are building are massively more efficient than ours with far less emissions. Infact we are looking to use this technology! They are also pushing forward green technologies. Why wouldnt they? They can sell the tech to the West and more efficient techs are better for them too, they get more from their resources.

[surfcat]

I don't think many other nations are doing as much as the Chinese to combat climate change.

Their one child policy, running since the 70s I believe, will one day pay dividends (it also has quite serious consequences according to my Chinese colleagues if one child is breached).

Also their 3 rivers dam etc etc.

I presume no one will question their right to bring millions of their people out of dire poverty so we in the west can maintain our economic pecking order?

[MarkG]

Their one child policy, running since the 70s I believe, will one day pay dividends (it also has quite serious consequences according to my Chinese colleagues if one child is breached).

Duh. The only reason they need a 'one child policy' is because of Mao's 'have as many kids as you can pump out' policy in the 60s.

The 'one child policy' has also reportedly produced an excess of 30,000,000 Chinese men over women; and that's going to have global implications in the next decade or two. Young men without women tend to start wars.

Edited June 22, 2007 by MarkG

[sossij]

I don't think many other nations are doing as much as the Chinese to combat climate change.

Their one child policy, running since the 70s I believe, will one day pay dividends (it also has quite serious consequences according to my Chinese colleagues if one child is breached).

How does one breach a child? No don't answer that....

[surfcat]

Duh. The only reason they need a 'one child policy' is because of Mao's 'have as many kids as you can pump out' policy in the 60s.

Which doesn't alter the fact that if continued long term, the policy will allow each global citizen a larger size of whatever carbon pie is decided upon as the global emissions level.

[laurejon]

Has not anyone yet smelt the coffee

The failed economic policy that has led the west into an unsustainable downhill spiral of debt and homelessness is going to be blame primarily on Global Warming, thus excusing those who mastermined this deed.

It is so bl00dy obvious, its staring you all in the face.

[mfp123]

although china is the biggest polluter their co2 per head is less than a quarter of the US so you cant directly compare total output.

theyre also investing a lot of money into bio fuels and are fast becoming the world leaders in developing solar technology not to mention that they are buliding the worlds first eco city- in the uk youd be lucky to find a street that can be called eco friendly.

[RichB]

How does one breach a child? No don't answer that....

I don't know... but I heard that gaffer tape is the way to ensure a no breach policy on hamsters...

[OLDFTB]

Yet Aanother Anti-American diatribe from someone with a short memory. Read the following text and learn what the yanks have done for us all in the past:

The Marshall Plan (from its enactment, officially the European Recovery Programme [ERP]) was the primary plan of the United States for rebuilding and creating a stronger foundation for the allied countries of Europe, and repelling communism after World War II. The initiative was named for Secretary of State George Marshall and was largely the creation of State Department officials, especially William L. Clayton and George F. Kennan.

The reconstruction plan was developed at a meeting of the participating European states on July 12, 1947. The Marshall Plan offered the same aid to the Soviet Union and its allies, if they would make political reforms and accept certain outside controls. However the Soviet Union rejected this proposal with Vyacheslav Molotov describing the plan as dollar imperialism.

The plan was in operation for four years beginning in July 1947. During that period some $13 billion dollars in economic and technical assistance were given to help the recovery of the European countries that had joined in the Organization for European Economic Co-operation.

By the time the plan had come to completion, the economy of every participant state, with the exception of Germany, had grown well past pre-war levels. Over the next two decades, many regions of Western Europe would enjoy unprecedented growth and prosperity. The Marshall Plan has also long been seen as one of the first elements of European integration, as it erased tariff trade barriers and set up institutions to coordinate the economy on a continental level. An intended consequence was the systematic adoption of American managerial techniques.

In recent years historians have questioned both the underlying motivation and the overall effectiveness of the Marshall Plan. Some historians contend that the benefits of the Marshall Plan actually resulted from new laissez-faire policies that allowed markets to stabilize through economic growth. It is now acknowledged that the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, which helped millions of refugees from 1944 to 1947, also laid the foundation for European postwar recovery.

The Americans may have their bad points but i reckon they are vastly outweighed by their good ones!

[Frank Mason]

Anyone watch the program on C4 regarding Global Warming?

Great global warming swindle...

Looks like greenhouse gases are irrelevant, VI spin and all that.

Frank

[WSG]

Anyone watch the program on C4 regarding Global Warming?

Great global warming swindle...

Looks like greenhouse gases are irrelevant, VI spin and all that.

Frank

yes i watched it but it was bolllocks

Edited June 22, 2007 by WSG

[bpw]

although china is the biggest polluter their co2 per head is less than a quarter of the US so you cant directly compare total output.

thanks you beat me to it. There are 1.3 billion Chinese and 300mln people in the USA (not sure I should call all of them residents!!)

[better-than-expected]

Whatever people thought of that program on channel 4, that was on a few months ago. The fact is there is no proof that CO2 causes temperature increase or visa versa. Though listening to the tripe that is pumped out from the media you would think that this is fact, it isn't!

Why shouldn't the Chinese use their natural resources, we did along with all other industrialised countries. Maybe the powers that be are panicked by their development and what better way to hinder it than global warming.

[whitemice]

The plan was in operation for four years beginning in July 1947. During that period some $13 billion dollars in economic and technical assistance were given to help the recovery of the European countries that had joined in the Organization for European Economic Co-operation...The Americans may have their bad points but i reckon they are vastly outweighed by their good ones!

…And that was when $13 billion dollars was a lot of money.

The USA of today is very different to the USA of the 1940’s. It’s no longer the world’s largest oil exporter; its workers are no longer the most hard working, hard saving, etc.

In fact through its inherently corrupt political system (and some down right stubbiness) it is now very vulnerable to the end to cheap energy (or any oil shocks). Add that old empires don’t like the rise of new ones (i.e. world war one).

Luckily globalized economies make conventional war between the major powers unworkable, although I wouldn’t rule out economic warfare if and when resources get tight.

[the end is a bit nigher]

yes i watched it but it was bolllocks

thought it was great myself - global warming is an excuse to raise more taxes as usual - back in the 80s many scientists predicted that we would lose a mile of coast inwards every year for the next 50 years - guess what? - we haven't - once again we humans flatter ourselves as to the importance we play in the development of the planet

p.s. the ozone layer is repairing itself, or have we managed that?

[WSG]

thought it was great myself - global warming is an excuse to raise more taxes as usual - back in the 80s many scientists predicted that we would lose a mile of coast inwards every year for the next 50 years - guess what? - we haven't - once again we humans flatter ourselves as to the importance we play in the development of the planet

p.s. the ozone layer is repairing itself, or have we managed that?

Ozone layer is quietly repairing itself as scientists identified the problem and politicians took action to prevent further deterioration despite industry squealing like a stuck pig. AN interesting example don't you think.

we're doing the whole global warming thing on the "no point in getting a mortgage thread"....If you are interested in Climate Change past present or future drop in there rather than getting two threads going. - you might learn something.

[WSG]

Whatever people thought of that program on channel 4, that was on a few months ago. The fact is there is no proof that CO2 causes temperature increase or visa versa. Though listening to the tripe that is pumped out from the media you would think that this is fact, it isn't!

Why shouldn't the Chinese use their natural resources, we did along with all other industrialised countries. Maybe the powers that be are panicked by their development and what better way to hinder it than global warming.

Bolllocks there's a vast body of literature on this starting with Arrenhius in the 19th Century and the effect can be demonstrated in any university chemistry lab.

A statement like that is the same as saying the Earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese....there is really no excuse.

[cells]

you need to ask yourselves more than is global warming happening

1: is man made CO2 a major green house gas

2: is the temperature change natural or really from these GHGs

3: IF man made CO2 is a major cause of global warming IS THE WARMING actually a NEGATIVE???

4: IF there are strong negatives, is it WORTH SPENDING TRILLIONS tackling it? or would that money be better spent on lifting billions out of poverty, improving schools education, and going to the moon and back again

5: are there no cheap options to "fight" global warming?

6: if CO2 is a major cause of Global warming, and this warming is a bad thing, how much do we need to cut? 100% certainly? is this feasible??

im sure there are many more questions, the problem is that it looks like they are only attacking the "CO2 is bad mkay" without discussing the other very very important aspects.

[WSG]

you need to ask yourselves more than is global warming happening

1: is man made CO2 a major green house gas

2: is the temperature change natural or really from these GHGs

3: IF man made CO2 is a major cause of global warming IS THE WARMING actually a NEGATIVE???

4: IF there are strong negatives, is it WORTH SPENDING TRILLIONS tackling it? or would that money be better spent on lifting billions out of poverty, improving schools education, and going to the moon and back again

5: are there no cheap options to "fight" global warming?

6: if CO2 is a major cause of Global warming, and this warming is a bad thing, how much do we need to cut? 100% certainly? is this feasible??

im sure there are many more questions, the problem is that it looks like they are only attacking the "CO2 is bad mkay" without discussing the other very very important aspects.

1: Yes and this has been known to be true for over 100 years

2: Yes the recent warming since the middle of the 20C is due to Anthropogenic emissions

3: That's a good one.....it'll depend on your timeframe, location on the planet and your species

4: Well the only proper study into this - the Stern Review said equivocally "yes and the earlier you spend the cash the more you will save"

5: See answer to 4

6: The political consensus (well the UK Cheif Scientific Advisor has implied) is starting to build around an atmospheric concentration 0f 450-500ppm as a line in the sand, hoping that will hold temps below +2C warming to minimise the risk of catastrophic feedbacks developing.

[kagiso]

yes i watched it but it was bolllocks

The programme was clearly made by a non-scientist, and as a result it was very mixed. Some of it was certainly bolllocks, some of it wasn't.

The bit on malaria for example was spot on, yet the IGCC reports, and media as supposedly learned as the New Scientist, claim that malaria is a 'tropical' disease and is going to spread with climate change. This is bolllocks.

The most interesting part of the C4 programme was right at the begining, but they didn't really capitalise on it.

They claimed that the ice core data on CO2 and temperature, a key feature of 'An Inconvenient Truth' actually had global temperatures leading CO2 changes.

I was so surprised by this that I checked it out, you can look at the source data here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

Now look at this data very carefully. There is a patch of faulty readings between 350 & 400 thousand years ago, which would have been the very bottom of the Vostok ice core, where the temperature reading goes adrift, and so fails to link up with the EPICA data.

Apart from this section, consistently through the whole of the rest of the plot, the temperature goes up first then the CO2 follows up, and the temperature goes down first, then the CO2 follows down. The lag between the two movements is often thousands of years apart.

So ask yourself. If CO2 drives temperture change, how does the earth know that it must start heating itself up thousands of years before the CO2 starts going up? Also how does the earth know to start cooling itself down thousands of years before the CO2 level starts dropping?

Does the earth have psychic powers?, the ability to look thousands of years into the future and gauge the future direction of CO2 movements?

When you have two variables that are very closely linked (as temperature and CO2 clearly are on this graph) then causality is in the direction from the leading variable to the lagging variable.

So, global temperature drives global CO2 levels, the scientific evidence is clear.

Now basic controls theory. A strong driving link from temperature to CO2, as demonstrated in the ice core data, is known as positive feedback. Increase temp, CO2 goes up. Decrease temp, CO2 goes down. Positive feedback.

If it was also the case that increasing CO2 increased global temperature, and decreasing CO2 decreased global temperature, then you would have a second positive feedback system.

And the two positive feed back systems would make a positive feedback loop as follows:

temp up, CO2 up, temp up, CO2 up, ad infinitum.

Or it could go down ad infinitum.

Either way, if CO2 had any significant effect on global temperature, we would have a runaway positive feedback loop and the planet would either have ended up as snowball earth, or another Venus, a very long time ago.

The very best you could hope for with two positive feedback systems working together is a bistable system which flipped between two extremes. A good example of this is the changes associated with glaciation in the ice ages, where it is either hot or cold in the temperate regions, caused by the positive reinforcement of albedo, as sun reflects off the ice.

But again look at the data, the peaks and troughs of the temperature are very sharp, no sign at all of bistability.

The scientific evidence is clear.

Global temperature strongly effects global CO2 levels.

Global CO2 levels do not effect global temperatures.

It is no coincidence that we are now at the peak of a cycle of record solar activity, the highest since at least the middle ages, when it was also very warm.

And temperatures have gone up on Mars at the same time as they have gone up on the earth (possibly due to CO2 emissions from the voyager spacecraft):

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...rs-warming.html

It is very likely that solar activity will ramp down starting somewhere in the next few years, and global warming will turn once again into global cooling.

And when that happens, will we get an apology from the woolly addle-headed environmentalists and climatologists that pass themselves off as scientists, yet can't read the most basic of graphs, or understand the simplest of control systems?

I personally believe we are more likely to get an apology from Gordon Brown for the forthcoming crash in the housing market.

Man made global warming is bolllocks.

[better-than-expected]

Bolllocks there's a vast body of literature on this starting with Arrenhius in the 19th Century and the effect can be demonstrated in any university chemistry lab.

A statement like that is the same as saying the Earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese....there is really no excuse.

What i like best about this forum is the nice friendly people

I would like to rephrase my point:

There is no proof whether CO2 increases Temperature or Temperature increases CO2.

[mfp123]

The programme was clearly made by a non-scientist, and as a result it was very mixed. Some of it was certainly bolllocks, some of it wasn't.

The bit on malaria for example was spot on, yet the IGCC reports, and media as supposedly learned as the New Scientist, claim that malaria is a 'tropical' disease and is going to spread with climate change. This is bolllocks.

The most interesting part of the C4 programme was right at the begining, but they didn't really capitalise on it.

They claimed that the ice core data on CO2 and temperature, a key feature of 'An Inconvenient Truth' actually had global temperatures leading CO2 changes.

I was so surprised by this that I checked it out, you can look at the source data here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

Now look at this data very carefully. There is a patch of faulty readings between 350 & 400 thousand years ago, which would have been the very bottom of the Vostok ice core, where the temperature reading goes adrift, and so fails to link up with the EPICA data.

Apart from this section, consistently through the whole of the rest of the plot, the temperature goes up first then the CO2 follows up, and the temperature goes down first, then the CO2 follows down. The lag between the two movements is often thousands of years apart.

So ask yourself. If CO2 drives temperture change, how does the earth know that it must start heating itself up thousands of years before the CO2 starts going up? Also how does the earth know to start cooling itself down thousands of years before the CO2 level starts dropping?

Does the earth have psychic powers?, the ability to look thousands of years into the future and gauge the future direction of CO2 movements?

When you have two variables that are very closely linked (as temperature and CO2 clearly are on this graph) then causality is in the direction from the leading variable to the lagging variable.

So, global temperature drives global CO2 levels, the scientific evidence is clear.

Now basic controls theory. A strong driving link from temperature to CO2, as demonstrated in the ice core data, is known as positive feedback. Increase temp, CO2 goes up. Decrease temp, CO2 goes down. Positive feedback.

If it was also the case that increasing CO2 increased global temperature, and decreasing CO2 decreased global temperature, then you would have a second positive feedback system.

And the two positive feed back systems would make a positive feedback loop as follows:

temp up, CO2 up, temp up, CO2 up, ad infinitum.

Or it could go down ad infinitum.

Either way, if CO2 had any significant effect on global temperature, we would have a runaway positive feedback loop and the planet would either have ended up as snowball earth, or another Venus, a very long time ago.

The very best you could hope for with two positive feedback systems working together is a bistable system which flipped between two extremes. A good example of this is the changes associated with glaciation in the ice ages, where it is either hot or cold in the temperate regions, caused by the positive reinforcement of albedo, as sun reflects off the ice.

But again look at the data, the peaks and troughs of the temperature are very sharp, no sign at all of bistability.

The scientific evidence is clear.

Global temperature strongly effects global CO2 levels.

Global CO2 levels do not effect global temperatures.

It is no coincidence that we are now at the peak of a cycle of record solar activity, the highest since at least the middle ages, when it was also very warm.

And temperatures have gone up on Mars at the same time as they have gone up on the earth (possibly due to CO2 emissions from the voyager spacecraft):

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...rs-warming.html

It is very likely that solar activity will ramp down starting somewhere in the next few years, and global warming will turn once again into global cooling.

And when that happens, will we get an apology from the woolly addle-headed environmentalists and climatologists that pass themselves off as scientists, yet can't read the most basic of graphs, or understand the simplest of control systems?

I personally believe we are more likely to get an apology from Gordon Brown for the forthcoming crash in the housing market.

Man made global warming is bolllocks.

i would agree with you on all of these points. the fact that rises in temperature triggers rises in co2 levels is lost on some people,and changes in solar activity are probably a much stronger influence on our climate.

people that argue that to not believe in co2 causing global warming makes you a denier however they fail to realise that the arguement for man made global warming is not a clear case. the idea that co2 is a greenhouse gas therfore man made co2 must create global warming isnt necessarily true.

as temperatures rise the ocean releases (or absorbs less) co2 , if co2 casues more global warming, this would create a runaway feedback effect and would have happened already in the past 500,000 years.

Edited June 22, 2007 by mfp123

[WSG]

What i like best about this forum is the nice friendly people

I would like to rephrase my point:

There is no proof whether CO2 increases Temperature or Temperature increases CO2.

Here's an experiment you can do at home yourself to verify that as you increase CO2 concentration the temperature willl increase if all other variables stay the same. You can get some CO2 out of a sodastream canister thingy.

Try it and see what happens.....it says data logger....just use two thermometers and check the temperatures every 5mins or so.

http://www.chemsoc.org/networks/LearnNet/j...2green/home.htm

Co2 causes temperatures to rise.......Earth is round........Moon is cheese....dammit I'm getting confused now.