That's a sentiment with which the NDRC agrees—ordering Chinese coal mines to boost output in order to stabilize prices in early December as well as raising the total amount of coal to be sold under contract to 769 million metric tons. The NDRC will also freeze such contract coal prices for 2011 at 570 renminbi ($85.50) per metric ton. The price of such coal in the market is currently closer to 800 renminbi ($120) per metric ton.
That will not help greenhouse gas emissions—or any of the other problems associated with coal, from pollution to the hundreds of miners who still die each year in Chinese collieries. "In the near future, it is our priority to increase the proportion of nuclear and renewable energy in our energy mix," Zhang says, both of which combined—not including dams—currently make up less than 3 percent of China's electricity supply. But "for the foreseeable future, coal will continue to take up a big part of our energy mix."
Editor's Note: Reporting for this feature took place as a result of a Jefferson Fellowship from the East–West Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.
See what we're tweeting about
47 Comments
Add CommentThe article states:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...China is now the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, along with all the other noxious by-products of coal burning. At the same time, the Chinese government has committed to reducing its CO2 emissions per economic unit by at least 40 percent by 2020."
It is not explained what is meant by reducing co2 emissions "per economic unit". I would have to guess that may mean, for example, that as their GNP continued to grow co2 emissions would also be expected to increase, but at a proportional rate 40% lower than existing emissions. Monitoring and confirmation may be complicated...
That China's per capita energy consumption is one fifth of the U.S. is more a function of energy economic availability that any measure of their efficiency of usage. It is likely a strong indicator of unfulfilled demand: large segments of the population that are now insufficiently served by power generation infrastructure or who cannot yet afford electricity and other forms of energy. This should be considered the potential increase in energy consumption and GHG emissions resulting from intended economic development.
Presuming that global warming is the product of over 200 years worth of accumulated atmospheric GHG emissions by humanity, even a 100% reduction in total future GHG emissions would still not eliminate global warming for the next perhaps 100 years.
What's now being politically addressed is the national allocations of additional global warming that will be imparted to the ecosystem.
@Jtdwyer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Presuming that global warming is the product of over 200 years worth of accumulated atmospheric GHG emissions by humanity, even a 100% reduction in total future GHG emissions would still not eliminate global warming for the next perhaps 100 years."
Ever heard the phrase: When you find your self in hole, stop digging.
The price of coal in China? About $200 per ton. That should keep it price advantaged vs. solar or wind for several centuries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Soccerdad,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The price of coal in China? About $200 per ton. That should keep it price advantaged vs. solar or wind for several centuries."
The cost of dessicated agriculture regions and flooded Chinese coast lines? Priceless.
I am not a big fan of the Chinese Communist party and their leadership but I do not regard them in any way as being less intelligent than us. Its a safe bet that they are balancing the threat of these doomday scenarios you mention against current energy costs and economic development. The fact their calculations come out different than yours - well as I like to say, their leadership are almost all trained as engineers as opposed to the lawyers we mainly get here in government.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEstimates of future 14 trillion dollar economy in China are based on energy demands that won't be met. Energy and environmental concerns will one day cap China's economy the same way it did ours.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have read it. Looks promising, but I'll wait until proven hydrogen generation technology is available to replace coal fired generation facilities. Hydrogen has been my favorite fuel of the future since the early 1970s.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"In the near future, it is our priority to increase the proportion of nuclear and renewable energy in our energy mix," Zhang says, both of which combined—not including dams—currently make up less than 3 percent of China's electricity supply. But "for the foreseeable future, coal will continue to take up a big part of our energy mix."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this===================
Unfortunately, with the current price of coal at 800 renminbi ($120) per metric ton, the Chinese must weigh health hazards due to out-of-control air pollution as well as the enormous greenhouse gas emissions from their huge coal usage, as part of the real cost of coal. All fossil fuels are dirty, but coal is the worst, and the one that needs to be replaced the quickest.
I try to keep an open mind about China also, but they are rushing into the future similarly to the U.S. in the early 1900s. I recently watched a documentary movie (title unknown, sorry) that presented video of dozens of industrial sites in China (not in the party's tourist brochure). One entire major city, for example, had been focused on buy our high tech junk and removing all of the valuable metals. After some number of years, this entire urban region has been completely environmentally contaminated. Based on this brief evidence, I am not confident that China's communist government is making only wise decisions for the country' citizens.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only solution, if the species is interested in its survival, is to control population and restore biodiversity. Non-religious education with a focus on science and ethics is the key.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChina works hard to do that and at the same time tries to lower pollution. India on the other hand does nothing and her population is growing, with two religions trying to out-populate each other.
Population densities: India 362 people per sq Km, china 139. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
@Outside the Box,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Its a safe bet that they are balancing the threat of these doomday scenarios you mention against current energy costs and economic development."
Which is why they are investing so heavily in renewables, no?
The most telling comment? Their government is engineers, ours lawyers. I'm feeling that China is going to come out of the global warming mess (that is surely coming) much better than we will.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur income disparity speaks volumes. The power elite in this country has already bunkered down, and expects food riots, shortages and general rebellion. Will they wisely allow Obama to rectify some of the vast discrepancies? Likely not. They've given up, since any real change would cause them psychic pain as their perks were extracted. They're acting desperate, but we'll suffer with them as the ship goes down. China cut their population growth, increased their production capabilities, and is going all out for nukes. Soon, I think, nukes will be modularized and placed everywhere in China, cutting greatly transmission problems and inefficiencies. As the skies clear, solar electric and space heating will become even more efficient.
No sane population needs to consume energy like Americans do. That's the fact. But we'll be dragged kicking and screaming into complying with reality. Face it, Americans are spoiled rotten.
Go shopping.
@jtdwyer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"One entire major city, for example, had been focused on buy our high tech junk and removing all of the valuable metals. After some number of years, this entire urban region has been completely environmentally contaminated. Based on this brief evidence, I am not confident that China's communist government is making only wise decisions for the country' citizens."
This sort of dirty business if not done in China would be in some other third world countries. If they could afford the expensive high technology to recycle cleanly, the junk probably would be recycled in the US from the outset. But now, those people have employment, a better start in life and to create a better future for themselves and for the environment.
I am aware that China has a processor that can utilize Pa. hard coal ( antricate ). This process does not have any enviromental impact. This processor is well beyond development stages. China itself,ranks Pa. hard coal as the best in the world ( their study ) There are other " hard coals " about the planet that would give off enviromental issues.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf China developes and " sells "it's process to other countries along the European and Sth and Central Amercias,Pa. could " follow " along and export Hard coal into this market place. EXPORT. A plan would be to follow behind China,Export the Coal,use TASI to manage the Venture,Oh by the way An aunnal conference is held by MIT that matches Monies and plans for future gains for all involved ( apprx 7 trillon is available),Use the conglomerent Haliburton to protect the investment,use Accenture to sell the coal across the world.
The state of Montana has a similar process,but does have an envirmonetal issue.Carbon Dioxide.China has a process the utilizes Carbon Dioxide..Google-- China Coal Process--Google Tasi--Google Haliburton--Google Mit Review--Google Accenture...All will amaze you as to some hidden sources of energy futures.......Google Fission reactors....Princeton. Thank You for your Time
We are now in the second cold war,This time it's with China,and it is less about military power than it is about economic power.The Chinese who watched the USSR lose the first cold has no intention of losing this one,nor do they want us to lose.They fully hope to profit off our national debt and they know they can't do that by our fall.So it is by our mutual success that we will both win unless Congress doesn't do something stupid and this is why North Korea is doing what it is.They cannot simply can't see the big picture,and it' and it;s about someone showed them before they are smoked off the face of the Earth as a matter of both our self interest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm so sorry I can't remember the name of the documentary: I think you'd have to see it to appreciate the scale of the devastation - miles of literally poisonous, uninhabitable land. I can only dismiss your point. Sorry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think there is something in what you say, but China's economy may be more of an abandonment of economic control to avoid the complete economic and political collapse of the Soviet Union.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think this is not so much a strategically run national economy as a return to economic feudalism, ruled by financial magnates (from the party) with the blessing of the party. Kind of like the U.S. economy of the early 1900s, ruled by the barons of industry who wielded monopolistic control of their designated segments of the economy.
"In Manhattan, lights are lit 24 hours and China will never do that," says NDRC vice chairman Zhang Guobao via a translator
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess this guy has never been to Hong Kong or Macau.
The true cost of China's dependence on dirty coal can be experienced by a few hours in Beijing or any other major northern city in winter.
Why the scientists in this article only notice the greenhouse gas emission of china without paying any attention to the situation of the world that China produce more than 50% of things in our life?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Fundamentally, however, a good portion of China's air pollution is simply outsourced smog: industry that has migrated from the U.S. and E.U. to China to help maintain low prices or clean Western skies. A full 23 percent of China's greenhouse gas emissions can be linked to Western exports, according to an analysis by researchers at the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research in England. And researchers at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh put the percentage even higher: 33 percent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat doesn't absolve China of responsibility to cut back on noxious emissions and it is clear that the fate of the world's climate will be forged in the crucible of its industrial cities. "Gradual warming of the earth's atmosphere is caused by the developing countries as well as the developed countries," says English professor Wang Xiansheng of Zhengzhou University, which is also facing rolling blackouts as a result of the current coal shortage. "The whole world should get united to deal with the problem.""
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-coal-and-clean-air-coexist-china
The observation that China has more engineers than lawyers is probably true, which may be why they are (correctly) rejecting the carbon-dioxide-as-cause theory of global warming. News Flash: Despite decades of searching, the greenhouse gas signature has been determined to be non-existent and there is still no empirical evidence that doubling (or tripling) of atmospheric CO2 will produce warming of any significance. Brace yourself: climate change is predominantly driven by natural forces and effects of CO2 are miniscule.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe policy of ignoring empirical evidence while relying on speculative models, cherry-picked data, and a catastrophe-obsessed press is not practiced in China. You may expect China to continue to voice a politically correct position while continuing to utilize fossil fuels in whatever way they deem most economic. Unfortunately for the rest of us, wasting money on the global warming non-problem leaves less money to deal with real problems.
I'm just guessing, but I doubt the ratio of lawyers to engineers in China has the same cultural significance that it does to Westerners. How are civil disputes settled in China? I've read that those convicted of relatively small crimes are summarily executed, after their organs have been harvested... I have no direct evidence for such claims, but I suspect there are few court appeals by those who are convicted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf China rejects the hypothesis of increasing atmospheric co2 producing global warming, I suspect it is based not on any scientific evidence but an assessment of their own self interests, economic and otherwise. Likewise, I do not think that China's investment in renewable energy technology any acceptance acceptance of global warming evidence. We cannot assess other cultures through the prism of our own values.
@rplowsmith,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...which may be why they are (correctly) rejecting the carbon-dioxide-as-cause theory of global warming."
You did not read the article did you? If you had you would have read about the various efforts that China is undertaking to cut CO2 emissions.
"News Flash: Despite decades of searching, the greenhouse gas signature has been determined to be non-existent..."
Sorry but you have been terribly misinformed. Perhaps it is time you read about the evidence?
"I think you'd have to see it to appreciate the scale of the devastation - miles of literally poisonous, uninhabitable land."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this=================
Chernobyl Becoming a Tourist Destination Next Year
While 2,500 technicians maintain the irradiated remains of Chernobyl, the entire area is virtually a ghost city (with good reason). However, if you still want to visit one of the most eerie and potentially medically dangerous places in the world, the Ukrainian government will be officially opening Chernobyl up to tourism next year - a quarter-century after the original accident - said government representatives.
The Chernobyl disaster is regarded as the worst accident in the history of nuclear power. After the explosion at reactor #4, the fire burned for 10 days, releasing 400 times more radioactive material into the atmosphere than the U.S. nuclear bomb at Hiroshima, Japan in 1945.
Because there was no containment building, a plume of radioactive fallout drifted over parts of the western Soviet Union, Eastern and Western Europe, Scandinavia, the British Isles, and the eastern United States. Large areas of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia were badly contaminated, resulting in the evacuation and resettlement of over 336,000 people.
Chernobyl remains an environmental problem. Radioactive materials have leaked into underground waters and are carried far and wide by the waters of the Pripyat River.
The Russian news service Pravda reports today that a 2005 study of radioactive pollution in a 30 kilometer (20 mile) radius around the Chernobyl plant showed that 90 percent of the cesium-137 lies at a depth of just 10 to 15 centimeters (4 to 6 inches) below the soil surface.
Strontium-90 is embedded 20 to 30 centimeters (8 to 10 inches) under the ground, about the depth of plant roots that animals and birds use for food, this research shows.
Have a nice trip! I hear the wild onions there are great in salads...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's all take a deep breath and loudly say
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNEWW.....
Once again and say
CLEARR....
Once again, put them together and loudly say the
n-word.
Yes, I read the entire article, but I am wondering if you did. I stand by my comments. China will continue to state support for reducing CO2 emissions, while pursuing maximum industrial expansion in order to grow its economy as fast as possible. Note the last paragraph: "China's energy growth is unpredictable in the short term ... and that means even efficiency will not prevent increasing greenhouse gas emissions." China has no real intention to cut back growth and coal is their cheapest way to grow. I would prefer they expanded electricity with nuclear power, but its capital costs are higher and anyway they didn't ask me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou should not assume that I am misinformed simply because you do not agree with my conclusions. You state that I should read the "evidence" but you do not mention what that evidence is. Please be specific and cite empirical evidence, not speculation.
There are indeed environmental problems in the world, but CO2 is not one of them. Wasting money on a non-problem (carbon dioxide emissions) leaves less money to deal with real problems of industrial pollution.
America will trade China about $1 trillion of very clean coal from Staircase Escalante, UT, in return for some of our IOUs. We're not using the coal anyway, and Bill Clinton isn't president, so his relationship to protect the financial interests of the Riady Group isn't relevant anymore.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTry to understand the Chinese. They really don't mean they'll reduce emissions from manufacturing, their savings will come from the increase in their services industry such as banking. It's a shell game that westerners aren't as good in playing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChina is a leader that will determine its own CO2 status. It probably already realizes that CO2 has no effect on climate. For example, it probably realizes that CO2 already stops all 15-micron photons from escaping into space. More CO2 from burning more coal will not stop any more photons, no matter how much propaganda politicians regurgitate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChina probably already realizes that the real problem is the sulfur and smoke, not the CO2.
China could easily switch to solar power since it makes most solar panels and batteries already. All it needs is an electric grid to move the power around, so that the power can be stored and used. I think the real problem is that China does not realize it needs a power grid. I think China will fuel its growth with coal without warming the world; China will rule the world instead.
"CO2 has no effect on the climate"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShows that you people have no clue on the basics of how the Earth works. The Earth basically breathes CO2 but humans have pumped so much CO2 in the air that Earth is suffocating cause it can't process all that extra CO2 that we saturated Earths natural process with.
Its really that simple we've disrupted Earths natural process and saturated its natural CO2 sinks like the rain forrests, oceans, plants, soils etc.
There's undeniable proof, like the oceans have gone more acidic cause they are trying to absorb all that CO2 but they can't.
Anybody that says CO2 has nothing to do with it has an awful lot to learn. CO2 has absolutely everything to do with it.
The shear Ramdomness of Climate change proves beyond a doubt it it due to Humans. The extra energy source for the atmosphere is coming from us. Our major cities are scattered randomly around the world. The pollution we pump in the air causes local wind patterns around the cities to change and in turn causing global wind patterns to go whacky. There's your climate change,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you can argue with that and give me a plausible cause for what caused climate change to start happening and global average temperatures to start rising after the start of the industrial revolution, more power to you!
By the way saying it happened in the past is a copout, it may have happened in the past but it spanned millions of years. Humans should be congratulated, we've done it in 200 years!
By the way China is not exactly like America in the 1900s they have the benefit of modern technologies and efficiencies. Their government on a whim will force , among other things, random blackouts on their people to reduce energy usage. They believe in climate change cause it affects them big time.
Hair-on-fire alert! Someone please pass rajk123 a fire extinguisher. Sir (or madam), your comments are so full of misinformation it is difficult to know where to begin. It is obvious you have no understanding of the carbon cycle, earth's radiation budget, or how the greenhouse effect works. Throughout most of the earth's existence the atmospheric CO2 levels have been many times those of today and no thermal runaway resulted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe oceans are highly buffered solutions. Increased ocean acidity in any meaningful way will not occur from doubling or even tripling atmospheric CO2. R.Blakely is correct in that CO2 is active as a greenhouse gas only in several very narrow wavelengths and those are already saturated, therefore more CO2 cannot cause more tropospheric warming because it is already doing all it can do. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, it is plant food, and historically, we are CO2-impoverished.
The earth began its modern warming following the end of the Little Ice Age, which followed the Medieval Warm Period, one of many cycles during the current Holocene Interglacial period. If you want something to be worried about, be concerned that we are much nearer the end of the current interglacial period and will continue to trend - in cyclic variation - towards a colder and colder climate. We have been cooling for the last 8,000 years. The last Ice Age produced ice sheets several thousand feet thick over much of North America - goodbye Canadian wheat farms.
Predominant climate drivers are solar cycles, ocean current cycles, orbital orientation cycles, and tectonic plate movement. We have entered Solar Cycle 24, which is a weak one, and the current cooling trend that began around 1995 will continue for another 20 or so years. The effect of increasing CO2 is miniscule, and cannot even be distinguished against the force of nature.
We should of course pursue conservation and efficiency in the use of fossil fuels not because they produce CO2, but because they are finite. Fossil fuels are, and should be, our bridge to a future of energy sources that are economic and sustainable. Nuclear power is our best bet for electricity, technology is underway for liquid fuels from biological processes (not ethanol) but we have quite a way to go there. Wind is costly and unreliable, so is solar. Technology and common sense - not scare speculation - will get us to that future.
"Hair-on-fire alert!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh I see common sense is misinformation to you. When did I ever mention a thermal runaway? The CO2 levels in the past rose gradually over millions of years not like we rose them in the past 200 years.
"The oceans are highly buffered solutions"
What a bunch of gibberish. Who said anything about tropospheric warming. The CO2 sinks are saturated so they can't absorb CO2. The CO2 in the air can cause pressure gradients to change in the lower atmospere and so causing wind patterns to change. There was enough of an increase in ocean acidity for us to know it was from increased CO2 levels
Is CO2 part of the greenhouse effect? The greenhouse effect is why life evolved on Earth, keeping the atmosphere warm enough for life. How can you think that increasing GHGs won't enhance the effect? CO2 impoverished not a chance!
"The earth began its modern warming following.."
And so what, is that supposed to impress me?
So then all of a sudden the CO2 levels exponentially rose and the global ave temps went up nearly a degree celcius at the fastest rate they ever did by medieval magic huh?
"If you want something to be worried about..."
Did I say I was worried? We have been cooling for the last 8000 years, but I just thought you said there was a Medieval warming period? Is that why the last 12+ years have been warmer than the last 200 years?
"Predominant climate drivers are..."
This ought to be good, so exactly what tectonic activity caused our warming???
We have been through the low cycles and high cycles of sunspot activity and we have still risen in temperature. Why over 200 years have global ave temps steado;y risen? You're the one trying to sound like you're smart but not saying anything meaningful.
Tell you what you go and tell me NASA is full of misinformation.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
"The effect of increasing CO2 is miniscule, and cannot even be distinguished against the force of nature."
Like what and so what! Examples through out some examples instead of your gibberish so I can laugh at you!
"We should of course pursue conservation..."
Ah I see so simple little facts scare you. SO you stick your head in the mud and are afraid to face the real world. Well the real scary thing is when little itty bitty challenges scare you to death. I have one suggestion for you, face the challenge and fix the issue instead of hiding under the bed cause we're going to have tougher challenges then even this one.
Dear rajk123. Okay, one example, pay attention here: tectonic plate activity is what moves continents around (slowly of course) and the current position of continents is why we have been in a glacial period for the past 30 million years. The earth has been much warmer (including no polar ice caps) for most of the last 650 million years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease don't take these facts, misunderstand them, and treat us to another episode of your extraordinary but unfounded conclusions. Go read up and find out for yourself and check back in after a year or so of study.
Gaining a good understanding of all the factors involved in climate dynamics takes a lot of time and I really don't think you are interested in that.
But I do think you should consider the fire extinguisher.
CO2 emissions from China cannot "overwhelm the world". Only 15-micron photons are stopped by CO2. Water vapor stops many other photons. Increasing CO2 emissions will not stop more photons since all of the 15-micron photons are already stopped.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe above facts should not be ignored if we want to reduce air pollution. China should be persuaded to switch to solar power. It needs an electric grid to move the power around, so that the power can be stored and used. I think the real problem is that China does not realize it needs a power grid. China makes most solar panels and batteries already.
"Dear rajk123. Okay, one example, pay attention here: tectonic plate activity is what moves continents around (slowly of course) and the current position of continents is why we have been in a glacial period for the past 30 million years. The earth has been much warmer (including no polar ice caps) for most of the last 650 million years."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDUHHH I know that but what has that got to do with anything. Thats not an example of what happened now. Did Antarctica collide with Australia again??? Did a huge asteroid hit us just before the industrial revolution? If you know so much you can't just dance around doing your pretty Moonwalk! Any climate change from continental breakups and collisions take millions of years! What could have suddenly raised the temperatures in 200 years. Until you can give me an example of that you're full of crap amd a fine purrrty dancer!
You're a typical BS'r your facts don't mean anything cause they don't apply to us!!!!
"Only 15-micron photons are stopped by CO2"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcuse me, pardon me but would you to tell us how you came to that conclusion??? Since you know that you should be able to tell us how many of those photons are in our atmosphere in a given day!
By the way since your so smart, tell us the energy of that 15-micron photon, and here I'll make it easy for you:
The wavelength of a 2 eV photon is given by:
l = h c / Eph = 6.625 x 10-34 x 3 x 108/(1.6 x 10-19 x 2) = 621 nm.
where the photon energy was multiplied with the electronic charge to convert the energy in Joule rather than electron Volt.
The kinetic energy of an electron is related to its momentum by:
T = p2/2m
from which we find the momentum, p:
p = (2mT)1/2 = (2 x 9.1 x 10-31 x 1.6 x 10-19 x 2)1/2 = 7.63 x 10-25 kg m/s.
The de Broglie wavelength of the electron is then obtained from:
l = h/p = 6.625 x 10-34 / 7.63 x 10-25 = 0.87 nm
Enjoy
Dear rajk123 -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact that you are unwilling or incapable of understanding what R.Blakely and I have been trying to point out about CO2 longwave radiation absorption in the 15 micron band speaks volumes about your lack of understanding of the greenhouse effect.
Your theory of "randomly scattered cities" and their effects upon global wind patterns was amusing until I realized that you were serious. Point of fact: cities are not "randomly scattered" since 2/3 of the planet is ocean where there are no cities, and on land large cities tend to be concentrated in certain areas, not randomly scattered.
You have been provided with more than enough to get your climate education underway, but to recap: solar cycles; ocean cycles (ENSO, PDO, NAO, etc.); orbital cycles; and of course, tectonic plate dynamics. Google those for a start and resist returning to your climate alarmist websites. I look to hear back from you in about a year, if you work hard at it and don't waste any more time.
And do consider the fire extinguisher. Seriously.
"The fact that you are unwilling or incapable of understanding what R.Blakely and I have been trying to point out about CO2 longwave radiation absorption in the 15 micron band speaks volumes about your lack of understanding of the greenhouse effect."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGive me a break you can't even provide any evidence. You want me to belive you give me proof. Both you and your friends rants are humourous. R Blakely says all the 15 Micron photons have been absorbed and there are non let what a joke!!! The Sun brings plenty of new photons in all the time. Their frequency and wavelength are not fixed as no doubt their energy decreases as they get into the atmosphere.
Oh so now you're going to say that cities aren't located randomly. Yeah I guess the cavemen planned out where they were going to live and spread out their tribes evenly.
By the way it doesn't really matter if they are perfectly spread out the extra source of crap and pollution is coming from ground level and causing havoc to our wind patterns and climate.
By the way I noticed you haven't put out attempt at explaining any of your crap except for your continued gibberish!
Later clown
He/She said there are no 15 Micron wavelenth photons left is what I meant. HA HA HA. Photons, particles of light, you're telling me you know everyting about them huh? How much do you know about physics anyway? What do you know about Einsteins theory of special relativity an general relativity? What do you know of wave particle duality or electron spins? If you can answer any of those reasonably I might give you a pass on your naivety. If you really knew so much you would know we know nothing, and especially not enough to deny whats happening in the real world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisP.S. there's more to pollution than CO2. If you know something about chemistry you know that other compounds particles, atoms or whatever may change that absorption band drastically. Then just cause photons don't always get absorbed proves nothing. There are a lot of other ways to generate heat and increase pressure. Particles can bump into each other to ya know. You narrow your focus on one little thing when there're are so many pieces of the puzzle you may be overlooking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLets do some simple math (it applies to all emitters, not just to those in China!). China's proposal is simply this; for every 'unit of GDP', it will reduce its carbon footprint by 40% over current levels by 2020.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChina proposes to overtake the USA when measured by GDP. Assuming that their current GDP is 1/4 of that of the USA; and further assuming that their current rate of growth (10%) remains constant (meaning that their "economic units of output as measured by units of GDP) then under the 'rule of 72's', their GDP will double in 7.2 years and double again in another 7.2 years. (I do not think the worlds resources will sustain this and other such growth rates if only from a logistical and not quantitative point of view.) this will mean that China will be producing 180% more carbon gases in 14.4 years than they are currently producing (leading that of the USA). If you throw in India and Brazil, the world will be still be producing percentages of increase of greenhouse gases of several hundred percent more than what it is now produciing. In a word, that spells doom even to those who deny "doom".
Well yes there is doom in the picture if GDPs keep doubling at those rates. You have to wonder though India and China have no real highway infrastructures and probaly not much of a refueling structure so will their populations really all have cars. Maybe people in the major cities but I imagine they have a lot of people in the country side that will remain poor. India has no civil engineers cause they all went into other fields so who is going to build their highways?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen what level of doom are we talking about? A lot of people may die or get displaced but at some point the population will have reduced to where there is a significant decrese in CO2 output.
The thing that I really want to know and it seems to me is an unknown is that with all the wind and solar projects going up around the world we have to be talking a decent chunk of energy taken directly out of the atmosphere. In other words 100% of the sun and wind energy that hits those panels and turbines is getting dissipated by them. If the amount of energy that we put in the atmosphere is somewhere near that is it possible we may have started to compensate?
I am chinese who work in a coal mining company in north china, I seriously doubt whether china government can cut greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution anytime soon.As much as I know,chinese government statistical is not exact at all.For example, in my living city, environmental protection agency oversee chemistry industry,though the harmful substances is over the national standards , however,if the company bribe the officals of EPA, the statistical figures of harmful substance figures would become legal.The phenomenon is very ubiquitous in china.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo ,I think chinese center goverment can not actually get true statistical figures.The vaules of greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution in china should be auditted stringently by international organization.
if you go to north china,you will learn how serious environmental pollution is in china ,especially non-metropolitan.
Naaaaaow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAssuming the current 8% annual economic growth rate compounded for the next 9 years, the Chinese economy should be twice as big in 2020. Even if it only takes 60% of the energy per unit (40% improvement), 60% of 2 is 120% of the current useage, or a 20% increase in the largest burner of coal. This will indeed swamp anything we wreak our own economy to accomplish. Indeed, if we keep shutting down our factories (and putting our producers out of work)the replacement factories in China will more than double their really dirty CO2 output!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this