Chinese doubt global warming

A reader submitted this Telegraph article

But Mr Xie, China's vice-chairman of national development and reforms commission, later said although mainstream scientific opinion blames emissions from industrial development for climate change, China is not convinced.

"There are disputes in the scientific community. We have to have an open attitude to the scientific research. There's an alternative view that climate change is caused by cyclical trends in nature itself. We have to keep an open attitude," he said.

I think the Chinese are too rational to buy into this SWPL global warming nonsense. I think that this rationality will also cause the Chinese to be the first nation to publicly come out in favor of HBD. Chinese rationality also prevents them from making money from value transference. It takes white people to create something like the iPad, for example.

Comments

[The Asian of Reason]

True. Another reason for the Chinese not buying into global warming because buying into it would constrain their economic growth, which they do not want. Are the Chinese opposing global warming because it's "rational" or are they simply acting in their own self interest?

I think emissions regulations are important for society as a whole, because polluting factories create externalities. Walking around on a hot summer day in Beijing is pure hell. I like my blue skies and clean air, thank you very much.

Most Chinese acknowledge HBD.

While Chinese rationality prevents them from making money from value transference, the majority of elites, perhaps even more so than westerners, are obsessed with name-brands, which causes them to transfer value to the West. Once they realize that there is no inherent value in a LV bag or an Apple laptop, the West is screwed.

If you are against value transference so much, what are your opinions on copyright and patent laws? The Chinese have earned a reputation as counterfeiters and copycats. Counterfeiting and faking (if the product is of identical quality) prevents value transference.

[Kevin K]

"There's an alternative view that climate change is caused by cyclical trends in nature itself. We have to keep an open attitude"

That's not a rational opinion. That's the belief in something imaginary (natural cycles) that we can't measure that's causing an effect we can measure.

The Chinese don't care about the costs of global warming because the quality of life in China is pretty low and they don't care if a bunch of people starve in some foreign country. That's probably a rational opinion on their part, but it has nothing to do with the science of AGW.

[HS: Natural cycles imaginary? Ever hear about Ice Ages?]

[J1]

Based on the Climategate emails, I'm not convinced anyone in the scientific world's "belief" in AGW is any stronger than agnostic; only that it's a useful tool to promote other agendas they support. That's not to say there aren't true believers in the environmental movement, just that the true believers lack the knowledge and/or ability to see AGW for what it is.

[Kevin K]

[HS: Natural cycles imaginary? Ever hear about Ice Ages?]

I meant that the term "natural cycles" was used to cover for things that could cause global warming, yet no one provides any evidence for.

The Ice Ages were caused by different configurations of the sun, atmosphere, oceans and continents. Since we can measure all those things very accurately now, we can isolate what's causing the temperature to increase in way that we can't during other periods in human history.

[No one really knows what causes Ice Ages. To quote Wikiepdia, "The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age." And since we don't know what causes ice ages to start and end, or what caused the recent Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, there's no way of knowing whats causing the current warm period.]

[blissignorance]

"quality of life in China is pretty low "

That is quite imaginary. Maybe it is result of brain wash for value transference.

Meat consumption per capita is reasonable measurement of life quality.

[CamelCaseRob]

You are correct, J1 -- I get the feeling that the most ardent AGW believers are English Lit and Art History majors, and the like.

Oops, Artic Ice levels are back up to the 1979-2000 levels:

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/climate_change_happening_before_your_eyes/

[Kevin K]

[No one really knows what causes Ice Ages . . . there's no way of knowing whats causing the current warm period.]

Its difficult to isolate the cause of warmer and colder periods because we didn't have scientific instrumentation to record them. But the things that could have caused them is limited to things we can measure today. For instance, if ice ages were caused by shifts in the earth's orbit we could measure it no problem today, but we have no idea how to know what the earth's orbit was 100 million years ago.

Today, we can measure everything that contributes to atmospheric temperatures and therefore can make more accurate statements about it.

"That is quite imaginary. Maybe it is result of brain wash for value transference."

I base this on the fact that I work with many Chinese people, none of whom are eager to go back to China.

[kurt9]

"I think emissions regulations are important for society as a whole, because polluting factories create externalities."

I agree with reasonable controls of real pollutants such as nitrides and sulfides. A modern car produces 3% the smog a 1973 model car did. Same with U.S, factories, the few that remain.

However, the global warming thing has nothing to do with real pollutants. It is based on the idea that made made CO2 (which is a natural product of the environment) is heating the planet as a whole.

First, global warming is bullshit, end of story. Secondly, even if it was true, a warmer planet is good for humanity and nature. More CO2 and warming produces more plant growth that is good for both us and the animals.

Thus, efforts to reduce CO2 "pollution" are stupid.

[pzed]

the chinese are the world's largest producers of wind turbines and solar panels. they're investing very heavily in new nuclear power plants. they also know air pollution from coal plants and motor vehicles (w/ help from sandstorms) can blight a city and harm growth and health.

so whether they buy into AGW or not, they buy into the need for new and cleaner energy sources.

if you haven't been to a city w/ polluted air, trust me, ppl notice. some days are bright and clear but on other days you can see air pollution at the length of a basketball court. the next day, you blow black snot out of your nose in the morning. these little things get noticed. ppl are willing to accept the situation w/ the understanding that the nation is developing, but when more ppl get wealthy, they aren't going to put up w/ crap like that.

[HS: 1. The Chinese are building the wind turbines and solar panels for export, for use by SWPLs in the west. Everything is cheaper to manufacture in China. Being rational people, they are building nuclear power plants for their own needs:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html

2. Carbon dioxide is not pollution; it is colorless and odorless and completely harmless to breathe in. It's also necessary for plants to grow.]

[pzed]

yes HS, i know CO2 isn't pollution. but burning coal and gasoline releases particulates which lead to smog. clean energy isn't just for AGW is what i'm saying. there are reasons to want clean energy besides AGW and air pollution is one of them.

yes, chinese are building some of these turbines for export, but they are also putting up wind farms all over china. the wind turbine installations have gotten ahead of other infrastructure to support it such as transmission lines.

[AshAndMistyInLove]

"However, the global warming thing has nothing to do with real pollutants. It is based on the idea that made made CO2 (which is a natural product of the environment) is heating the planet as a whole."

Actually, no because higher temperatures would increase photorespiration (where Rubisco has an increased affinity for oxygen over carbon dioxide.)

[WRB]

Another point of view is that even if CO2 increases Earth's temperature, capping emissions makes no sense because the Chinese will cheat on caps (as will Greeks, for that matter). Better to focus on inventing new technologies.

[Unsophisticated]

"I base this on the fact that I work with many Chinese people, none of whom are eager to go back to China."

No shit, I also know a lot of Chinese also move to Africa and West Indie. None of them eager to go gack to China. You know why?

Your mind must be very simple.

[Justin M]

Chinese ambivalence to global warming is at least 80%, if not 100% due to the fact their economic growth depends on lax environmental standards. To attribute it primarily to their great intrinsic faculty of rationality is pretty ludicrous. Oil companies, and politicians from fossil fuel producing states are also ambivalent about global warming, but no one would say that this is due to their pursuit of truth for truth's sake and or their clear, rational view of the world.

[Gil]

Likewise the West needed pollution during the Industrial Revolution. The West couldn't have it both ways. If pollution controls were put upon the West during the late 1700's then we'd be still on the family farm.

BTW: Water is not pollution as it's necessary for life therefore insurance companies don't have to pay up for flood damage.

[sabril]

"Today, we can measure everything that contributes to atmospheric temperatures and therefore can make more accurate statements about it. "

As I noted previously, the critical flaw in your reasoning is that the warmist position is based on Process of Elimination. i.e., warmists claim that CO2 must be responsible for late 20th century warming because every other possible cause has been eliminated.

That argument holds water only if every other possible cause is reasonably well understood, including possible causes of other warming periods.

As noted before, the flaw in your reasoning can be revealed with a simple question:

How do we know that whatever was responsible for early 20th century warming is not also responsible for late 20th century warming?

[OneSTDV]

"I think that this rationality will also cause the Chinese to be the first nation to publicly come out in favor of HBD."

I'm pretty sure HBD is a widely held view amongst the Chinese.

[DT]

Believing that there's no real value in a Mac or an iPad is about as ignorant as believing in global warming.

[mentalculus]

"I think the Chinese are too rational to buy into this SWPL global warming nonsense. I think that this rationality will also cause the Chinese to be the first nation to publicly come out in favor of HBD. Chinese rationality also prevents them from making money from value transference."

China is a country that puts antifreeze in toothpaste to save money. As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[DT]

"Today, we can measure everything that contributes to atmospheric temperatures and therefore can make more accurate statements about it."

That you said this proves beyond reasonable doubt that you've never seriously studied the Earth's climate, and should refrain from any climate change debates until you learn the basics.

We can't even come to a common model of how to measure global average temperatures. See any of the debates regarding data sets, station siting, urban heat islands, data adjustments, ground vs. sea vs. balloon vs. satellite data, etc, etc. And you state, with confidence, that we can measure "everything" affecting those temperatures? Please. I would argue that the margin of error for historical ground data is greater than the supposed warming of the 20th century! When you get into the factors affecting those temperatures, you get into margins of error and gaps of knowledge large enough to drive an oil tanker through.

* We do not have a global system for monitoring the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere at any given point, time, and altitude.

* Our ability to measure solar output and Earth's reflectivity, while present, is minimal.

* Our ability to monitor and track CO2 in the atmosphere has improved (thanks to Japan) but historical data is minimal/poor.

* We have no way of discerning natural from man made CO2, or monitoring flow to confirm/deny our carbon budget models.

* We actually have decent monitoring of cloud cover and ice extent because of our natural interest in day to day weather. But we do not yet fully understand clouds and are unable to model them.

* We have nothing approaching continuous monitoring of cosmic rays suspected of playing a role in cloud formation.

* We have no way to precisely monitor urban heat island effects or apply accurate corrections to temperature data. All corrections are based on guesstimates and theory.

* There are massive gaps in our knowledge of how everything on Earth interacts with and affects the atmosphere. We're not talking about precision here, we're talking about whether or not something has a warming or cooling influence! Or whether or not something has a net positive or negative impact on CO2 levels. One year a paper will be published claiming a particular forest is a carbon sink, the next year another will claim it's a net CO2 producer. One year it is said that a particular thing has a warming influence, and the next that it has a cooling influence. One year something is an overwhelming input, the next it's insignificant. It's absolutely ridiculous to watch climate scientists go back and forth in their estimates.

Shall I go on?

The only certain thing in the climate debate is that we know maybe 1/100th of what we need to know to accurately model climate, or how our planet might respond to theoretical changes in this or that variable.

[Kevin K]

So we don't know anything, yet its definitely all cosmic rays and clouds. Well that settles that.

[JGP]

Even if AGW were 100% rock solid science (it isn't) the State would prove about as competent to address the problem as they have solving poverty in Africa.

As for the Chinese, they are acting rationally in the interests of the power of the Chinese state (not necessarily the same as the interests of the people.) This is precisely what we should be doing. Bangladesh being flooded doesn't bother me even slightly. We in the West can adapt to climate change and I simply don't care whether the third world can or can't. A non-issue.

[sabril]

@Kevin K, yet again my question:

How do we know that whatever was responsible for early 20th century warming is not also responsible for late 20th century warming?

[Matt]

Possibly of interest to some here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8594000/8594561.stm

"Professor James Lovelock, the scientist who developed Gaia theory, has said it is too late to try and save the planet."

Lovelock - "Renewable technology 'doesn't really work'"

Lovelock - "Trying to save the planet 'is a lot of nonsense'" "enjoy life while you can"

[DT]

"So we don't know anything, yet its definitely all cosmic rays and clouds. Well that settles that."

Where did I say "it's definitely all cosmic rays and clouds"?

Come back when you've learned at least the basics of climate and the climate change debate.

[Kevin K]

"How do we know that whatever was responsible for early 20th century warming is not also responsible for late 20th century warming?"

The lack of instrumentation before WWII makes statements about the climate more challenging, but the short answer is in this plot:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ammann2003/fig3.jpg

Volcanic activity cools the earth, solar intensity warms the earth. Solar and Volcanic activity are based on independent measurements which you can find on this page (with references) :
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/forcing.html

Of course, DT is going to point out that someone forgot to round a zero and therefore all science is impossible and accuse me of not understanding the "basics". I can hardly wait!

[sabril]

"'So we don't know anything, yet its definitely all cosmic rays and clouds. Well that settles that.'

Where did I say 'it's definitely all cosmic rays and clouds'?"

It would be interesting to understand the thought process which led Kevin K to so completely mischaracterize your post.

I think a lot of warmists have trouble wrapping their minds around the fact that the debate is fundamentally assymetrical. As a skeptic, I'm not claiming that I understand the climate better than the warmists. I'm claiming that they don't understand it and I don't understand it either.

The burden of proof lies firmly and squarely upon the warmists, particularly since every change in the climate of late is well within the range of natural variation.

[sabril]

"The lack of instrumentation before WWII makes statements about the climate more challenging, but the short answer is in this plot:"

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that it's known to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that volcanism and solar activity caused early 20th century warming?

[sabril]

"but the short answer is in this plot:"

Oh, and to make sure I understand your answer correctly, your answer to my question is that there exist climate simulations which rely on substantial anthopogenic forcings in the latter half of the 20th century and which match temperature history for the past 100 years or so.

Is that about right? Or did I misunderstand you?

[Kevin K]

"It would be interesting to understand the thought process which led Kevin K to so completely mischaracterize your post."

The thought process was that "this guy think because we don't understand third and fourth effects like UHI and cosmic rays we don't understand 99% of what goes into global climate temperature. I could spend an hour correcting this or I can go do something else."

[Kevin K]

"I think a lot of warmists have trouble wrapping their minds around the fact that the debate is fundamentally assymetrical."

Maybe some, but I don't because I've been reading about AGW since 1995 or so and I've gone back and forth for and against it ever since then. I still read the anti-AGW stuff like Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer and Steve McIntyre, but I find their best arguments are on fringe stuff and not the main argument.

[Kevin K]

"The burden of proof lies firmly and squarely upon the warmists, particularly since every change in the climate of late is well within the range of natural variation."

You are making a positive assertion in this post ("the climate of late is well within the range of natural variation"), yet you deny the accuracy of any data or any physical theory that might support it. That is not a persuasive argument.

[Kevin K]

"Oh, and to make sure I understand your answer correctly, your answer to my question is that there exist climate simulations which rely on substantial anthopogenic forcings in the latter half of the 20th century and which match temperature history for the past 100 years or so."

No, I was more intersted in the bars on the plot of the 25-year averaged forcings which are roughly proportional to the actual intensity of the sun and volcanic activity.

Its a useful shorthand that makes the point that the temperature got warmer when the sun got more intense and cooler when volcanic activity increased, just as you would expect. The fact that the simple model he used fits the temperature data so well means that those are the first-order effects during that time period.

[Kevin K]

"I'm a little confused. Are you saying that it's known to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that volcanism and solar activity caused early 20th century warming?"

To first order and probably second order, yes.

[sabril]

Since Kevin K seems to have disappeared, I will explain the flaw with his reasoning.

If you look at the paper which incorporates his graph, you will see that the graph was produced by a climate simulation.

The trouble with simulations is that it's very easy to tailor them to fit reality and then fool yourself into thinking that the simulation actually means something.

How much would you pay for a stock market simulation which fits historic stock market trends for the last 100 years?

The only way to know if a simulation is valid is to test it by having it make predictions in advance and then seeing if those predictions come true. Further, the predictions must be interesting. e.g. it's not enough to predict that there will be snow in Alaska next winter.

As far as I know, no climate simulation has been validated in such a way. Thus, they belong in the category of stock market simulations someone might try to sell you.

[sabril]

""this guy think because we don't understand third and fourth effects like UHI and cosmic rays we don't understand 99% of what goes into global climate temperature."

That doesn't make any sense at all. You flagrantly mischaracterized his post. Why?

"yet you deny the accuracy of any data or any physical theory that might support it"

Please show me where I did so. Please QUOTE me.

[sabril]

"The fact that the simple model he used fits the temperature data so well means that those are the first-order effects during that time period. "

My guess is that the "simple model" is actually not so simple. That it contains sufficient parameters that it can easily be tuned to fit the temperature record.

But here's my challenge for you -- and it's a chance for you to win this argument utterly and completely.

(1) Describe with particularity this "simple model" to me. (This should be easy if the model is truly "simple.")

(2) Since the paper came out in 2003, I will update the model using data from 2003 to 2010.

(3) We will then compare the updated model to the actual temperature record from 2003 to 2010.

I will predict right now that the model will diverge significantly; that it will obvious just from eyeballing it that the pre-2003 fit is far far better than post 2003.

If my prediction is wrong, I will concede that I have completely lost the entire debate.

[sabril]

Since Kevin K seems to have disappeared, I will summarize the fatal flaw in his argument for any lurkers.

His argument is based 100% on a simulation of the climate. Although he refers to it as a "simple model," this is basically a lie. Climate simulations are normally computer programs containing many lines of code.

Why does this matter? Because a simulation can be tweaked and tailored to match history. It's very easy to look at the output of such a simulation (in the form of a graph) and convince yourself that your simulation actually means something. But it usually doesn't. The most obvious example is the stock market.

As I asked above, how much would you pay for a stock market simulation which matches the stock market's history for the last 100 years? Unless you are a fool, you would not pay anything at all.

And as I noted elsewhere, the acid test for a simulation is to have it make actual, interesting predictions and see how well it does. As far as I know, no climate simulation has ever passed such a test.

Which means that Kevin K's argument is based completely on wishful thinking and self-deception.