Forum home Road cycling forum Campaign

China & India

pjhpjh Posts: 204
edited June 2008 in Campaign
I used to get annoyed by people who said "don't bother about being green as China & India are burning/consuming now at such a rate (China is building a new coal-fired power station every 2 weeks) that whatever we do here in the UK (and even the US) will make absolutely NO DIFFERENCE!

I'm still inclined to be as green as I can be and although no eco-warrior I am conscious and try to do my bit.

However ... there is an undeniable logic to my first statement about China & India's current and predicted consumption levels.

So ... do we bother being green ... or not?


It's great to be .....

Posts

  • OffTheBackAdamOffTheBackAdam Posts: 1,869
    No problem in being green, saving resources/money, reducing littering, cutting emmission of toxic waste products and generally improving the enviroment.
    But, as you've noted, we're completely wasting time & money with this obsession with Carbon Dioxide.
    It's a big con, just designed to liberate more tax from our pockets to be blown on anything but the enviroment.
    Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.
  • Alain QuayAlain Quay Posts: 534
    "It's a big con, just designed to liberate more tax from our pockets to be blown on anything but the enviroment."

    I thnk it's the cost of the Daily Mail that is being liberated from your pocket. :lol:

    The carbon increase is undeniable. We have to do our bit, and try and influence
    government policy. The alternative is a faster rate of environmental deterioration,
    food shortages particularly but not exclusively in Africa, etc etc.

    I really don't understand the climate change deniers, although I understand that it is human
    nature not to put in a pedestriain crossing till someone gets killed, i.e. it will take catastrophe and draconian government policies to change some people's thinking. :cry:
  • OffTheBackAdamOffTheBackAdam Posts: 1,869
    Alain Quay wrote:
    . The alternative is a faster rate of environmental deterioration,
    food shortages particularly but not exclusively in Africa, etc etc.
    I really don't understand the climate change deniers,
    Who's denying that the climate changes? It changes all the time, warmer during the Roman Era, cooled during the Dark Ages, warmed up during the Medieaval Warm Period, cooled again (And substantially) during the "Little Ice Age", warmed again after that, cooled between 1940 & 1970, etc, etc.
    The contentious part is the Human Race's contribution to "Global Warming". There's been no increase in mean global tempertaure since 1998, something which none of the computer models has predicted, nor is explainable by those who preach the religion of manmade climate catastrophe. These "experts" are now saying that we'll see another increase from 2015 onwards. Upon what basis have they made this prediction?
    A warmer world will mean an increase in the growing season, an increase in atmospheric CO2 content will mean more luxuriant plant growth. The food shortages we're seeing are caused by the likes of Mugabe destroying the agricultural base of his country, a vast increase in human population, the misguided drive to push biofuels upon us and the refusal to counternance genetically engineered food crops.
    To paraphrase yourself, "I don't understand the anthropomorphic climate change zealots"
    Edit, a new bit of information here.
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/rss_may_08-5201.png?w=520&h=279
    We've had a reduction of mean global temperature of 0.643C from January to May this year.
    Err, now, global warming?
    Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.
  • meagainmeagain Posts: 2,331
    "It's a big con, just designed to liberate more tax from our pockets to be blown on anything but the enviroment."

    Deep thinking, eh!
    d.j.
    "Cancel my subscription to the resurrection."
  • ParkeyParkey Posts: 303
    Gordon Brown and the current labour government are incapable of making contraversial decisions, they are more interested in generating headlines than long term solutions, and think that tax is the solution to everything.

    That doesn't mean that man made global warming isn't an established scientific fact or that mitigation isn't a global political imperative.
    "A recent study has found that, at the current rate of usage, the word 'sustainable' will be worn out by the year 2015"
  • ParkeyParkey Posts: 303
    We've had a reduction of mean global temperature of 0.643C from January to May this year.
    Err, now, global warming?

    ...Or 2008 is a La Niña year. Such short term variation doesn't prove anything really.

    'It's cold today in Wagga Wagga'
    "A recent study has found that, at the current rate of usage, the word 'sustainable' will be worn out by the year 2015"
  • OffTheBackAdamOffTheBackAdam Posts: 1,869
    And the fact that the world's been cooling since 1998 (Or have the past 10 years been El Nino?), and where's all the heat gone if it's Global Warming and there's no good correlation between CO2 levels and Global Warming and there should be more warming in the upper atmosphere than there is, and that the 1930's were warmer? It goes on and on.
    Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.
  • ParkeyParkey Posts: 303
    And the fact that the world's been cooling since 1998 (Or have the past 10 years been El Nino?) and where's all the heat gone if it's Global Warming ...
    Er... no.

    'Global warming stopped in 1998'
    ...and there's no good correlation between CO2 levels and Global Warming and there should be more warming in the upper atmosphere than there is...
    Er... no.

    'There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming'
    ...and that the 1930's were warmer?
    Er... maybe... no.

    'What about mid-century cooling?'
    It goes on and on.
    Only for the head-in-sand brigade I'm afraid.
    "A recent study has found that, at the current rate of usage, the word 'sustainable' will be worn out by the year 2015"
  • OffTheBackAdamOffTheBackAdam Posts: 1,869
    Interesting graph isn't it?
    Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
    Pity it doesn't expalin what these "Recent Proxies" are.
    Interesting to read the comments too, this one especially by "manacker"
    "Period.......Trend....Years..Change

    1860-1879 +0.196 20 +0.39
    1879-1906 -0.047 27 -0.13
    1906-1940 +0.161 35 +0.56
    1940-1976 -0.020 36 -0.07
    1976-1998 +0.175 22 +0.39
    1998-2008 0.000 10 .0.00
    Trend is linear decadal trend in degreesC/decade
    Change is linear change over period in degreesC"
    So, 1940-1976 "Mid-century cooling"?
    1998-2008 "Global Warming Stops"

    A more interesting graph is here, extends the above chart up to 2007 and lo and behold, what do we see?
    2461371188_3f2ee147fa_o.png

    "According to the National Climatic Data Center, 1936 experienced the hottest overall summer on record in the continental United States. In fact, out of 50 states, 22 recorded their all-time high temperature during the 1930s, including:

    * 110º Millsboro, Delaware, July 21, 1930

    * 100º Pahala, Hawaii, April 27, 1931

    * 109º Monticello, Florida, June 29, 1931

    * 118º Keokuk, Iowa, July 20, 1934

    * 111º Phoenixsville, Pennsylvania, July 10, 1936

    * 120º Seymour, Texas, August 12, 1936

    * 121º Steele, North Dakota, July 6, 1936

    * 117º Medicine Lake, Montana, July 5, 1937."

    Ref http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/?s=1930s

    A further quote from that same reference is highly interesting.

    "I downloaded the raw and adjusted text versions of the GISS data for Walhalla, and did a simple subtraction of annual figures: adjusted minus raw. It’s clear that they created a step-up over time. They started by subtracting 0.3 from the early record, then progressively reduced this amount by 0.1 degree a couple of times until 1990, after which there were no adjustments made. This artificial “stepping down” of the historical temperature record as you go back in time induces a false upward trend to the data where, in my opinion, one shouldn’t be. Consider that this is a rural site and the CRS was unmoved, and in the middle of a large, empty and level field in a relatively static, isolated setting from at least 1916 to 2000. There is just no justification for this whatsoever when looking at the site and the general area."

    It does seem that we have to treat data preented (On both sides of the argument?) with a degree of scepticism.
    Especially when one looks at the location of some weather stations, University of Tuscon, for example?
    hansen50.jpg
    No wonder one sees results like this.!
    grand_12.gif
    And why does this data get manipulated by GISS to produce this?
    grand_15.gif
    Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.
  • ParkeyParkey Posts: 303
    Interesting graph isn't it?
    Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
    Certainly is. It shows that for thousands of years temperature variations have been comparatively slow, happening over centuries and yet in the last 30 years they've rocketed up by a whole degree at an unprecedented rate. Your point is?
    Interesting to read the comments too, this one especially by "manacker"
    "Period.......Trend....Years..Change

    1860-1879 +0.196 20 +0.39
    1879-1906 -0.047 27 -0.13
    1906-1940 +0.161 35 +0.56
    1940-1976 -0.020 36 -0.07
    1976-1998 +0.175 22 +0.39
    1998-2008 0.000 10 .0.00
    Trend is linear decadal trend in degreesC/decade
    Change is linear change over period in degreesC"
    So, 1940-1976 "Mid-century cooling"?
    1998-2008 "Global Warming Stops"
    Cherry pick of data. There's no regular interval between those years, they have been chosen to give the impression the author desires. One could easily choose different points to come to a different conclusion. 1985-2005 for example. Means nothing; you can't extract meaningful information about trends in noisy data from single-year end points.

    I've already posted this page, which sees this one off pretty comprehensively.
    A more interesting graph is here, extends the above chart up to 2007 and lo and behold, what do we see?
    2461371188_3f2ee147fa_o.png
    What do we see? I see a continuing upward trend with variation, which is to be expected in a system as complex as the earth's climate.
    "According to the National Climatic Data Center, 1936 experienced the hottest overall summer on record in the continental United States. In fact, out of 50 states, 22 recorded their all-time high temperature during the 1930s, including:

    * 110º Millsboro, Delaware, July 21, 1930

    * 100º Pahala, Hawaii, April 27, 1931

    * 109º Monticello, Florida, June 29, 1931

    * 118º Keokuk, Iowa, July 20, 1934

    * 111º Phoenixsville, Pennsylvania, July 10, 1936

    * 120º Seymour, Texas, August 12, 1936

    * 121º Steele, North Dakota, July 6, 1936

    * 117º Medicine Lake, Montana, July 5, 1937."

    Ref http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/?s=1930s
    More single point data. Just down to local weather probably. Proves nothing.
    A further quote from that same reference is highly interesting.

    "I downloaded the raw and adjusted text versions of the GISS data for Walhalla, and did a simple subtraction of annual figures: adjusted minus raw. It’s clear that they created a step-up over time. They started by subtracting 0.3 from the early record, then progressively reduced this amount by 0.1 degree a couple of times until 1990, after which there were no adjustments made. This artificial “stepping down” of the historical temperature record as you go back in time induces a false upward trend to the data where, in my opinion, one shouldn’t be. Consider that this is a rural site and the CRS was unmoved, and in the middle of a large, empty and level field in a relatively static, isolated setting from at least 1916 to 2000. There is just no justification for this whatsoever when looking at the site and the general area."

    It does seem that we have to treat data preented (On both sides of the argument?) with a degree of scepticism.
    Especially when one looks at the location of some weather stations, University of Tuscon, for example?
    hansen50.jpg
    No wonder one sees results like this.!
    grand_12.gif
    And why does this data get manipulated by GISS to produce this?
    grand_15.gif
    Yeas....

    See: 'Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect'
    "A recent study has found that, at the current rate of usage, the word 'sustainable' will be worn out by the year 2015"
  • passoutpassout Posts: 4,425
    Nah, don't worry. Bruce Wiilis will save us.

    I used to think (as a kid) that I'd die in a nuclear holocaust, then it was AIDS as a teenager, then it was the Ozone Layer and now it's Global Warming. The ancient Chinese used to believe that Dragons flew over the houses at night and could prey on them at any time. Frankly, you shouldn't believe what you read.

    I work in a University and research has to be funded - I should say that this is not my area though. You are more likely to attract funding if you research a 'hot topic' like global warming. Also different groups select certain findings from certain studies that agree with their objectives and ignore others. I do not dispute the research itself but I am saying that you need to read a number of these reports before coming to any conclusion. Personally i think that the Earth is heating up due to natural cycles and that man's role in the whole thing has been exaggerated.

    None of this means that recycling and been environmentally aware is a bad idea - quite the opposite. Just don't believe the hype.
    'Happiness serves hardly any other purpose than to make unhappiness possible' Marcel Proust.
  • ParkeyParkey Posts: 303
    passout wrote:
    Personally i think that the Earth is heating up due to natural cycles and that man's role in the whole thing has been exaggerated.
    I'm afraid the argument that it's mostly down to natural factors just doesn't tally.
    passout wrote:
    None of this means that recycling and been environmentally aware is a bad idea - quite the opposite. Just don't believe the hype.
    I do agree with you on that point certainly. Climate Change has been in fashion for the last few years. I roll my eyes just as much as any skeptic when I hear people talking about their carbon neutral wedding (Yes! Some people are actually doing that! As though changing ones behaviour for one day out of about 25,000 in a lifetime will make a difference). As tiresome as this is though, it's irrelevant to the the scientific facts.

    I don't believe that this problem is going to be solved by a small number of middle class people indulging in changing their light bulbs (and wedding plans) and feeling smug for having saved the planet. What I think is important is that people accept the fact that man made global warming is really happening and that they appoint the right leaders with the right policies to address it. A leader who appreciates that it isn't possible to just tax global warming out of existence would be a good start.
    "A recent study has found that, at the current rate of usage, the word 'sustainable' will be worn out by the year 2015"
Sign In or Register to comment.