Although a climate-resilient approach is factored into the designs of hydro projects, China is still likely to suffer from hydroelectric output decline, says Yang. But the nation can seek more clean energy from the sun or wind, which won't be affected by climate change, and get the electricity generated elsewhere via a smart grid, he said, referring to an advanced transmission infrastructure China has been building.
So what's the point of keeping hydro?
"In the future, the importance of hydro projects won't be on power generation, but on water management," Yang explained. "It helps control floods, ensure ships transportation and reserve water -- a function that [water-scarce] China needs badly."
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
28 Comments
Add CommentA more honest evaluation of the situation might include the increase in potable water being used also. As China's ever increasing uses of it's river waters grows, the levels and flow rates have been dropping. Less rainfall than 'average' is normal from time to time, as is more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm getting tired of everything being blamed on global warming, from floods to droughts. I suppose we'll be 'learning' soon that it's to be blamed for all the earthquakes in Oklahoma too.
Please, more truth and less hype. We're still in the warming phase bringing us out of 'The Little Ice Age'. Manhattan still isn't underwater, however New Orleans is - as it always has been.
The kool-aid drinking global warmists are incapable of thought. As far as they are concerned their gerry rigged computer model's fantasy climate "proves" global warming exists, is human caused, is detrimental and is the cause for every single unusual event on the planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe very idea that weather changes and some years have more or less rainfall in any region is simply impossible in their computer model, so therefore is impossible in reality. They actually do not accept we even had a little ice age or the Medieval warming or he fact that we are in the Holocene interglacial warming period, which by definition means it gets warmer.
Besides your reasonable theory of reduced water availability from human, agricultural and industrial use of water rising in an area with over 1 billion people, the Chinese have probable overbuilt Hydro capacity making the incorrect assumption that the available water was normal, when in fact it probably is not. They should have built capacity based on the worst years of water levels not the best. Of course, this is hard when you are a wacko global warmist because they believe drought has never occurred in history until just the last few years.
Thank you for sharing your views.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, assuming climate change does not exist,
are you against taking care of mother earth?
(reminder: she is taking care of us)
So, given the warming we've observed over the last century, if humanity's carbon emissions aren't causing it, then what is? What can cause the poles to warm faster than the tropics and the Troposphere to warm while the Stratosphere cools? Really, what natural forcing is causing nights to warm faster than days and making animals migrate to higher altitudes and latitudes?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, considering that solar output has been flat to negative over the past 30 years that we've seen the most dramatic warming, that CAN'T be the cause. Volcanic activity isn't correlated with the temperatures we;ve seen as well. And if it's cosmic rays, how come the temperature increased during the previous solar minimum when the GCNs were supposed to be seeding clouds and cooling the planet? You have to realize that exactly ZERO denier explanations for the observed climate data make any sense. Therefore, the predictive power of the "Natural Forcings" hypothesis of recent climate change is non-existent and should be discarded!
As an apparent 'expert' it's a little disappointing to find that neither you nor the so-called experts make no obvious distinction between climate and weather. 30 years isn't even a heartbeat in the Earth's history and any actual change of temperature is nothing compared to what the planet has 'suffered' (I have yet to be convinced that to evoke moral values when talking of natural events is helpful) in the past when there were no humans to blame. The point is that the majority of 'global warming' scientists are still bandwagon hoppers in the sense that they have not themselves even tried to prove beyond destruction the carbon emission theory but merely latched onto the coat tails of 'consensus'. And as we know from the past (the ether, phlogisten, and not so long ago the 'new ice age'!) consensus is a poor servant to science. It's no wonder that the sarcastic "That'll be the global warming, then!" which accompanied the worst winter in the UK for centuries has become the very definition of the apocalypticism that has pretty much replaced sound science in climatology. A theory which cannot be negated by any contrary observation is no theory at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf scientists want us to take their word for it then it is time to stop shoving the same message out to a public already drowning in propaganda and set about proving that it is not merely AN explanation but THE ONLY POSSIBLE explanation. Just saying it doesn't make it so.
It's interesting to compare the zeal with which physicists are currently examining the observations that suggest that neutrinos might travel faster than photons for any possible flaw to the complete lack of enthusiasm for rigorous examination of observations that suggest the Earth is a little hotter. It's also well worth noting that the same physicists are not currently crowing over computer models in which said neutrinos travel twice the speed of light and filling the pages of newspapers with dire warnings of the catastrophe that will result. At the moment climatologists remind me of nothing so much as the anxious mother who reduces her children to paralysed wrecks with warnings of the dire consequences of being run over by a bus in the road outside despite the fact that the nearest bus route is five miles away!
Curmudgeon Says: . 30 years isn't even a heartbeat in the Earth's history and any actual change of temperature is nothing compared to what the planet has 'suffered'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: Tell me, If you had the entire history of the Earth's climate in detail how would it disprove or provide evidence for the current warming trend being human induced? Are you taking the illogical position that since climate change has happened in the past naturally that it precludes humans being responsible now? If so, that position is irrational.
Curmudgeon Says: The point is that the majority of 'global warming' scientists are still bandwagon hoppers in the sense that they have not themselves even tried to prove beyond destruction the carbon emission theory but merely latched onto the coat tails of 'consensus'
Trent Says: Blatantly false. The consensus derives from the evidence. Are you familiar with any of that evidence?
Sault in post #4 list some of it. You seem to feel that you are entitled to ignore. it. I wonder why?
Curmudgeon Says: If scientists want us to take their word for it...
Trent Says: They are not asking you to take their word for it. Why do you erect such blatantly transparent strawmen? The science is out there for the taking. The findings along with the methodology the data, the codes, etc. But you are not really interested in the science are you? You give every indication of being a ideologue blind to reality.
Curmudgeon Says: It's also well worth noting that the same physicists are not currently crowing over computer models in which said neutrinos travel twice the speed of light and filling the pages of newspapers.
Trent Says: Do you often engage in creating boogeymen out of the shadows? I mean you seem utterly clueless to the fact that climatologist are PHYSICIST. I think it is about time you actually read what the scientist are saying instead of parroting long debunked lies.
Whose bread I eat, his song I sing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho's bread do you eat?
For Carlyle:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Denier Song:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/men_with_day_jobs_-_the_denial.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scienceblogs%2Fdeltoid+%28Deltoid%29
Trent
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am very familiar with the evidence and very willing to go into the details with you. I do not believe that there is any reliable evidence that a warmer world is worse for humanity over the long term. Please see if you can answer the following:
1. Are you sure of the rate of warming?
2. Are you sure how much of #1 is due to humans
3. What is your evidence to show how individual areas of the planet will either suffer a “net harm” or “net improvement” improvement for humans as a result of warming identified in #1?
4. What information do you have to show that any proposed action plan you suggest is the appropriate plan to be taken for taxpayers? (to make this easier for you, you can pick the taxpayers of any country you wish)
Now as a hint to you, I will tell you that #1 seems easy to answer, but projecting forward for the next 30 years is pretty tough. On point #2 you will not be able to give a definitive answer. You can infer that the warming is due to CO2, and that the CO2 is due to humans, but you cannot prove it. Go ahead and reference isotropic data or tree rings and make me laugh. Neither can give you the answer.
Points #3 and #4 is where folks like you and sault always fail to provide answers. On point #3, you will refer to the many peer reviewed papers referenced by the IPCC. I will point out that in order to write an analysis of net harms to specific areas of the world one would need to know what will be the difference in conditions between now and the period being assessed. Writer of the papers/reports to date either guessed about the future conditions (which means their analysis are clearly without merit) or they relied upon the GCM’s available for study when they wrote their analysis.
If the GCM that was used for this analysis has subsequently been found to not be able to accurately predict the future temperature and rainfall with a reasonable degree of accuracy, is the report based on that model’s output worthy of consideration? The obvious only answer is NO. You don’t fly airplanes with flight control software with known flaws, but some are willing to rely upon GCMs that are known to be both inconsistent and inaccurate for assessing the impact of a warmer world—sorry that seems like insanity.
They also refuse to see any fault with the IPPC or its chairman claiming that humans cause tsunamis & earthquakes or that their peer review is a farce or that the leaked emails contained anything that could be faulted or that the discredited claims about Indian Glacial melt was a fabrication. In their religion, everything is perfect. It is pointless trying to argue facts. They simply do not apply unless they are their 'facts'. Prepare yourself for rehems of garbage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSisko Says: 1. Are you sure of the rate of warming?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes.php#best
Source Trend °C/century
BEST 2.79
GISTEMP DTS 2.06
CRUTEM3 2.25
RSS-land 2.25
UAH-land 2.01
The data is for land only. More than happy to supply you with a land/ocean trend. Yes, we all know that RSS and UAH have been available for only the past 30 years. Pay attention to the link says.
Got another peer reviewed temperature series? Show it.
Sisko Says: Are you sure how much of #1 is due to humans
Trent Says: Pretty Sure. Let us take a look at what the experts are saying:
Attribution of Climate Change :
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-4.html
Why can you not find this stuff yourself?
Sisko Says: 3. What is your evidence to show how individual areas of the planet will either suffer a net harm or net improvement improvement for humans as a result of warming identified in
Trent Says:
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/contents.html
And look it is broken down by continent and region.
That was ten seconds on Google finding that one.
sisko Says: 4 What information do you have to show that any proposed action plan you suggest is the appropriate plan to be taken for taxpayers? (to make this easier for you, you can pick the taxpayers of any country you wish)
Trent Says: I would suggest that a taxpaying farmer in Bangladesh has pressing need to not have his livelihood submerged. Of course, the same reasoning follows for the farmers in other low laying areas, such as the Mississippi, Niger and Nile river delta. That of course is just one small example. I have no clue what you would suggest for say ocean acidification, abandonment of entire agriculture areas because of heat and drought among other issues.
Sisko Says: If the GCM that was used for this analysis has subsequently been found to not be able to accurately predict the future temperature...
Trent Says: Blatantly false:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Why lie?
Carlyle Says: They also refuse to see any fault with the IPPC or its chairman claiming that humans cause tsunamis & earthquakes..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: You presume facts that are not in evidence. All you ever do is provide a newspaper clip without a direct quote. Did it ever strike you funny that can not find Pachauri saying this elsewhere? Oh, that is right. You have no interests in reality -my bad.
Carlyle Says: ..that their peer review is a farce or that the leaked emails contained anything that could be faulted or that the discredited claims about Indian Glacial melt was a fabrication.
Trent Says: So let me get this straight. In over a 3,000 page document a typo occurs is pointed out and corrected and from that you concluded
1. All peer review is FALSE!
2. Out right lies were told!
Talk about exaggerations... Now I wonder if Carlyle holds the same standard of disbelieving everything if anything is shown false. Let take the easy target of Anthony Watts who regularly lies:
Trent Says: Remember this?
"How about the Sunday Times being forced to issue a retraction for blatantly lying about the head of the IPCC? Another piece of propaganda that blared with gusto.
Here is the Sunday Times retraction, it is still there:
Dr. Pachuri Retraction
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7957631/Dr-Pachauri-Apology.html"
Of course Anthony Watts repeated it with the fervency of a fanatic. No lie to low to repeat no matter how debunked, huh?
How about this one:
Like the Sunday Times having to retract the utterly bogus story about the Amazon rainforest. A story given large play on WUWT. I would normally just point you to the retraction on the paper itself but apparently it has disappeared. But you know the Internet does not forget. Here is a scan of the apology.
http://www.realclimate.org/docs/ST_Correction_img007%5B1%5D.jpg
That of course just the tip of the iceberg for fake skeptics. I mean, I can name a whole slew of easily debunked lies. Yet, those facts just never ever seem to penetrate. I wonder why?
Now some questions for Sisko:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have claimed that the evidence that Sault provided is debatable. So let us begin.
Can you provide peer reviewed empirically based studies that provide coherent alternative explanation for all of the following predicted and observed phenomena.
1. Nights are warming faster than days.
2. The Arctic warming faster than the tropics.
3.The Troposphere to warming while the Stratosphere cools.
Of course their is plenty other pieces of peer reviewed evidence but this is what Sault cited and it is a good start. Now remember you can not give ad hoc answers but need to show using the peer reviewed literature an alternative explanation that explains ALL of the phenomena. AGW does this admirably well and in some of that cited evidence predicted the observed phenomena over a century before it is observed. Remember blog posts and newspaper editorials are not acceptable.
Google discriminates against sites that offer the other or sceptical side of the debate or even both sides of the debate. This is simply tested by entering the search, Climate Debat. You will see that sites like WUWT do not get a mention while many obscure pro AGW sites do. Anyone interested in following both sides of the debate should check http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100107989/gore-fakes-proof-of-man-made-global-warming-shock/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFollow the links.
Also of course Anthony Watts at : http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Of course if you are only interested in one side of the debate you can follow the likes of sault & Trent1492 & the links they provide.
I hope everyone notices that Carlyle once again failed to answer any of my charges about his repeated and flagrant lies. Lie that have forced newspapers to retract their false accusations. Perhaps Carlyle underestimates the intelligence of the casual reader and thinks that if he repeats it long enough and loud enough it will become true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle Says: Of course if you are only interested in one side of the debate you can follow the likes of sault & Trent1492 & the links they provide.
Carlyle Translated: A retired radio weather announcer with a known history of dishonesty is much more credible than the peer reviewed science found in such journals as: Nature, Science, Geophysical Research Letters, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, etc.
Yea, right.
I got one more illustration of Carlyle dishonesty. He claims that Google is biased against fake skeptics by citing one search term. Apparently the standard is that if you do not get the first 10 results as for science denialist sites like WUWT and Climate Audit then they are being suppressed. Right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI offer instead the following search terms:
"Climate Science is a fraud"
"There is no consensus"
"Climategate"
Apparently the asymmetrical standard is that anything else other the lies offered is evidence of censorship.
Check for yourselves folk. One thing you will find is that the good head of the IPCC is a Hindu. Nothing wrong with that. One little point though. Hindus believe that humans interact with nature on a spiratual as well as a physical level. They do believe we influence things in nature like earthquakes & tsunamis. Now that is fine so long as it is confined to religion & is not put up as science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee: COIMBATORE: Given that human actions are increasingly interfering with the delicate balance of nature, natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes and tsunamis will occur more frequently, said Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, director general of TERI, and the chief of the inter-governmental panel on Climate Change.
Trent tries to explain away facts. See http://www.teriin.org/index.php?option=com_teriinnews&limit=10&limitstart=50
This is the university Pachauri runs. It directs its readers to news items concerning the university & repeats the claim made above by the Dr & printed in The Times of India. Now you would not expect them to do that unless it was acurate. Also the story was repeated in newspapers across the world at the time yet there has been no retraction by the good Dr. The University do have a taped record of the particular speech. No doubt for a fee anyone interested could get a copy.
Trent
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReferring to information at skeptical science as a source of information is rather misleading. The goal of skeptical science is to defend the IPCC’c conclusions and not to fairly evaluate whether the conclusions are reasonable and accurate.
In the case of GCM’s (which I think you know are general circulation models and not climate models) the key is whether these models can accurately predict the key characteristics that impact human life. To make it very simple can the models give us reasonably accurate forecasts of whether or not it will be warmer and rain either less or more in a particular area in the future with higher CO2 levels. The fact is these models cannot do that. Skeptical science publishes articles that infer that the models can make accurate predictions as I have outlined, but in fact that is untrue. Now is you doubt what I have written, please check the facts more.
I have offered a bet on the subject with the folks at Skeptical Science, but the comment was deleted by the site. I’ll put up $100K of my money on the topic. I’ll select 30 locations around the globe and you get to pick any model you like. You predict the temperature and annual rainfall at those locations and we will see how you do in making accurate forecasts say only 36 months into the future, much less 50 years. To accept the challenge you have to pay the entry fee of $25K. That is a great return if you think you have a good model that can accurately forecast future temperature and rainfall.
Sorry, the models do not exist. Eventually we may get there with regional models, but not for a while. Once you reaseach more you will find that I am correct on this issue.
They deleted your comment because your offer is bogus! Do you have to get rainfall ALL 30 locations correct or just 16 of 30? What is your standard for correct predictions and what is your error tolerance? Since ENSO periods are not all that predictable but have HUGE variability over 36-month periods, what's your fudge factor for ENSO variability? Asking a climate model to predict what ENSO will be doing in 3 years is impossible and if you knew anything about climate research, you would understand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost importantly, how come you don't have a dog in this race? I'll offer to bet a big chunk of money that a climate model that DOES incorporate man-made climate forcing outperforms ANY model that includes ONLY natural variation. Put your money where YOUR mouth is and offer us a climate model that can hindcast and predict global average temps 10 years from now better than a climate model that does incorporate man-made climate forcing. Until you make THAT offer, you are just a scientific coward trying to derail attempts to prevent climate catastrophe.
Sault
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy initial offer was that that models had to predict temperature and rainfall within 10% of observations. Is that unreasonable? Do you actually study the outputs of the current crop of GCM's? I have.
What you do not seem to grasp is that no corrent GCM-none--zero--have the ability to accurately predict future temperature and rainfall even reasonably accurately.
If you think I am wrong than I challenge you to structure a wager about within what range of accuracy you believe your GCM of choice will be able to predict these conditions. You can set your model to the conditions to 30 years ago if you wish and forecast what conditions will be 5 years from now.
The real question that so many aviod is: If the models are not accurate to predicting what we actually observe why do we think they are reliable to use in writing reports that perdict harms to areas of the globe based on that area getting less rainfall?
The truth is I would not be offering this wager if I didn't know that the models were so bad that I am sure to win. Over at Curry's site the model developers visit there ofter and they agree that the models can not accurately predict these criteria, so why do you think they can?
You accuse me of not offering proof to back up my claims but when presented with evidence for which you have no logical explanation that fits your agenda you run. By the way your claim that the false claims about Indian glacial melts was a simple misprint is just as ludicrous. It was lifted from an undergraduate’s speculative paper from some years earlier. Anyone wishing to test your ridiculous claim can easily research the facts. Other ridiculous claims by the IPCC regarding the effects of Co2 are about to be seriously challenged. Their claims have been wildly exaggerated in this respect (not a good word choice to use for the IPCC).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStill too scared to offer your own climate model, I see. I guess all that confidence of yours is fake. What if the REAL climate models are 10% off, but the denial-based models are 50% off or more? We can settle this RIGHT NOW with a hindcasting competition. No need to wait even 5 years! I will pit several of the reality-based GCMs against whatever climate model your denier buddies can come up with. We'll see which one can better model the 20th Century. One or the other. Setting arbitrary error limits is pointless. Either your denier buddies are better at predicting the climate or the 98% of the rest of the climate scientists are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeriously, name your price and your chosen climate model. I bet that a climate model incorporating man-made warming will mop the floor with ANY climate model that doesn't!
He says just a mistake? lol and the WWF was completely unbiased in their assessments right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissault
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease try to think.
I don't write climate models. I am involved with the development and approval of many models used in the aerospace industry however and am very familar with the process that is typically followed in model development. It is not an issue of model "A" vs model "B". It is a case that we do not have ANY models good enough yet to forecast what warmer world will have as an impact on the lives of people. In spite of the unreliability of the current models some people have used them to state the know what a warmer world will be like, and it is bad bad for humanity. that is simply untrue.
Sault
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou should not put much in the ability of a model to accurately hindcast. Doing that is a part of a model’s development process and not the goal of the model. The goal of these models is to predict the future accurately. The key characteristics that these models need to be able to predict accurately is temperature and rainfall at different areas around the globe.
Bock! Bock! Bock! Chicken! Do the deniers have ANY climate models to present? Seriously, I can't find any. Until you produce one that hindcasts better than the GCMs that climatologists use to make predictions, I'll just put you in the "white flag" column.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI make thermal models for spacecraft and the BEST way to determine how well your model performs is to contrast it with thermal-vac data, i.e. how well did you "hindcast" the thermal cycling given a set of initial conditions. Don't give me crap about you make models for the aerospace industry because you CLEARLY have no idea how this process works, or maybe you don't want to know. If you make a thermal model of a component and somebody else makes a model that predicts the temperature profiles better, then the other guy's model is accepted above yours.
I say the climate models the IPCC made waaaay back in 1990 hold up rather well:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-ipcc-far.html
Please don't dismiss this article out of hand and actually READ IT. You'll find out that your criticisms of climate modeling are rather defunct. This is why people like Trent and I get so frustrated with people like you, since you keep bringing up stuff that was settled years ago (decades even).
sault
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou obviously donot want to actually learn more on the topic, you just want to continue yourreligious like belief in what you have been told.
Read about GCMs and what their limitations are from somewhere other than skeptical science.
skepticalscience.com is merely an aggregator of scientific papers. I post links to it in hopes that you would actually READ the articles on there instead of dismiss them out of hand. I COULD just post the relevant papers themselves, but considering how hard it is to get you deniers to even read an article, I would get even less response if I did that. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING on that site is backed up by peer-reviewed science. If you are such a good modeler (harharhar...), then why don't YOU develop your own GCM and see how it stacks up against the GCMs in use today. Again, considering that you couldn't even find ONE GCM to go toe to toe against mainstream climate science, I'll just assume you owe me whatever bet you supposedly wanted to place on this contest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't tell me my belief is religious. You're the one sticking your fingers in your ears, refusing to engage me on the scientific proof I bring to the argument while offering ZILCH to support your own position. All you want people to do is doubt climate science and you aren't really supporting a valid scientific alternative. You develop models, sure...I would pay you to model my bicycle with your kind of wishful thinking. But I guess if they pay you to waste my time arguing with you (like arguing with a brick wall) then I hope you enjoy all that filthy money you get from the fossil fuel companies.
Remember, when the last tree is cut down, the last fish caught and the last flower wilts, it's too late to realize that you can't eat money.