Remember me
▼ Content

COP21 - China can rule


COP21 - China can rule01-12-2015 19:20
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­
­



If China wants to reduce emissions then the rest of the wold will have to follow.

If China for instance as an extra event wants the world to halfcut emissions for one year just for science to measure the result, then the rest of the world will have to do it.

Is it not so..?

Who can say no to a China in this matter and look themselves in the mirror afterwards..?





­
01-12-2015 19:29
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Jakob wrote: If China wants to reduce emissions then the rest of the wold will have to follow.

False. China is a sovereign country that is certainly free to pursue that course of action. No decision by China in any way compells any other sovereign country, especially in major economic/industrial decisions.

Jakob wrote: If China for instance as an extra event wants the world to halfcut emissions for one year just for science to measure the result, then the rest of the world will have to do it. Is it not so..?

It is not so. China does not set the world agenda.

Jakob wrote: Who can say no to a China in this matter and look themselves in the mirror afterwards..?

Oh, oh...pick me! I'll go first.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-12-2015 22:51
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­



China has a great wish for more energy.

China has the largest population in the world.

China is the most climate sensitive country in the world.

The Chinese are at the moment in the worst dilemma and if they choose to cut emissions to save the world and themselves all other countries will have to follow or in my opinion shame on them.




­
­
02-12-2015 00:03
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(217)
Jakob wrote:
....China is the most climate sensitive country in the world.....­


How so? In what way?
02-12-2015 00:35
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Jakob wrote: and if they choose to cut emissions to save the world... ­

Get off the religion podium. You might be praying to someone "higher than yourself" but if you want others to share your beliefs in some way then you first need to clearly articulate a real problem you believe exists, and why your solution is worth the expense.

At the moment, you seem to be doing nothing but fear-mongering people into attacking capitalism against their own interests.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-12-2015 11:02
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­



still learning wrote:
Jakob wrote:
....China is the most climate sensitive country in the world.....­


How so? In what way?



I got it from a documentary series on TV and they said Australia was number two.

Now since you are asking I am of course looking for something to confirm it with.
This is maybe not enough to the 1. price but I think it helps:
https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/4618-China-s-rising-climate-risk
China is one of the countries in the world most vulnerable to climate impacts, writes HSBC strategist Wai-Shin Chan.



I guess it is also very important how you decide to measure it.




­
02-12-2015 12:25
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Jakob wrote:I guess it is also very important how you decide to measure it.­

How can I measure "climate"? What are the units of measure?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-12-2015 12:44
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1250)
IBdaMann wrote:
Jakob wrote:I guess it is also very important how you decide to measure it.­

How can I measure "climate"? What are the units of measure?


That would depend upon what aspect of the climate you were interested in.

Days of sunny weather?

Lowest temperature in winter?

Highest rainfall in 10 minutes because you were designing a roof drainage system?

The units should always be SI. Otherwise any maths is a nightmare.
02-12-2015 15:43
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Tim the plumber wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Jakob wrote:I guess it is also very important how you decide to measure it.­

How can I measure "climate"? What are the units of measure?


That would depend upon what aspect of the climate you were interested in.

Days of sunny weather?

Lowest temperature in winter?

Highest rainfall in 10 minutes because you were designing a roof drainage system?

The units should always be SI. Otherwise any maths is a nightmare.


So "climate" really is just another word for "weather"?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-12-2015 17:13
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1250)
IBdaMann wrote:


So "climate" really is just another word for "weather"?


Yes sort of. Weather implies a short period of time whilst climate implies a long period.

Bit like stepping and marching.
02-12-2015 20:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Jakob wrote:
­



still learning wrote:
Jakob wrote:
....China is the most climate sensitive country in the world.....­


How so? In what way?



I got it from a documentary series on TV and they said Australia was number two.

Now since you are asking I am of course looking for something to confirm it with.
This is maybe not enough to the 1. price but I think it helps:
https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/4618-China-s-rising-climate-risk
China is one of the countries in the world most vulnerable to climate impacts, writes HSBC strategist Wai-Shin Chan.



I guess it is also very important how you decide to measure it.




­

What a nice way to wash one's hands of the government's responsibility for producing these problems in China.

To say desert is more sensitive to climate change is ridiculous. Deserts are hardy places. Life that exists there is capable of quite a lot, and they would certainly welcome more water than they get. Australia sensitive to climate change? Don't think so. No more than anyone else at least. Probably less so.


The Parrot Killer
02-12-2015 20:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Tim the plumber wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:


So "climate" really is just another word for "weather"?


Yes sort of. Weather implies a short period of time whilst climate implies a long period.

Bit like stepping and marching.


In other words climate is weather 'for a long time'. Not very quantifiable, wouldn't you say?


The Parrot Killer
02-12-2015 21:50
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­




Into the Night wrote:
To say desert is more sensitive to climate change is ridiculous. Deserts are hardy places. Life that exists there is capable of quite a lot, and they would certainly welcome more water than they get. Australia sensitive to climate change? Don't think so. No more than anyone else at least. Probably less so.


Australian Heat Wave Is Literally Off The Color Scale
January 9th, 2013
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/01/09/australian-heat-wave-is-literally-off-the-colour-scale/





­
02-12-2015 22:02
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­



still learning wrote:
Jakob wrote:
....China is the most climate sensitive country in the world.....­


How so? In what way?


I want to show you this too:



MAP: Global Flood Damage Could Exceed $1 Trillion Annually by 2050
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/08/map-top-cities-billion-dollar-floods





­
02-12-2015 22:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Jakob wrote:
­



still learning wrote:
Jakob wrote:
....China is the most climate sensitive country in the world.....­


How so? In what way?


I want to show you this too:



MAP: Global Flood Damage Could Exceed $1 Trillion Annually by 2050
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/08/map-top-cities-billion-dollar-floods





­

Define 'flood costs'. By what method is something called a 'flood cost'?


The Parrot Killer
03-12-2015 03:10
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Into the Night wrote:Define 'flood costs'. By what method is something called a 'flood cost'?


@ Into the Night - Hold on. Step back and marvel at the big picture presented here.

We can accurately predict the weather only a few days out.

Jakob, however, has computed the flood damage for various cities out to 2050.

Truly amazing!


@ Jakob - would you mind giving us the gains for the top 10 stocks out to 2050 as well?


.
03-12-2015 04:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Define 'flood costs'. By what method is something called a 'flood cost'?


@ Into the Night - Hold on. Step back and marvel at the big picture presented here.

We can accurately predict the weather only a few days out.

Jakob, however, has computed the flood damage for various cities out to 2050.

Truly amazing!


@ Jakob - would you mind giving us the gains for the top 10 stocks out to 2050 as well?


.


Good point. I didn't notice it was a prediction of flood costs. Oh well, I guess that makes my question rather moot, doesn't it?



The Parrot Killer
03-12-2015 11:14
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1250)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:


So "climate" really is just another word for "weather"?


Yes sort of. Weather implies a short period of time whilst climate implies a long period.

Bit like stepping and marching.


In other words climate is weather 'for a long time'. Not very quantifiable, wouldn't you say?


That's why it's generally specified in the words around it what is meant.
03-12-2015 16:54
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Tim the plumber wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:


So "climate" really is just another word for "weather"?


Yes sort of. Weather implies a short period of time whilst climate implies a long period.

Bit like stepping and marching.

Yes, sort of.

All "weather" events occur over their own amount of time so "climate" is just weather events (plural) which means it really is still just "weather."

Regarding the "long time" qualifier, earth has had weather for as long as it has had an atmosphere. If I were to consider all of earth's weather events ever, I don't know if I would be considering any "climate" but I would clearly be considering a lot of "weather."

"Climate" must therefore be a subset of "weather." "Climate" therefore must be weather. As you pointed out, there is no difference between measuring "climate" and measuring "weather."


...*or* is "climate" something that cannot be measured?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-12-2015 19:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:


So "climate" really is just another word for "weather"?


Yes sort of. Weather implies a short period of time whilst climate implies a long period.

Bit like stepping and marching.


In other words climate is weather 'for a long time'. Not very quantifiable, wouldn't you say?


color=blue]That's why it's generally specified in the words around it what is meant. [/color]

What words? People say 'climate' all the time and never talk about a period of any kind. For those that do, great. For those that don't, why?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 03-12-2015 19:57
03-12-2015 20:32
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­


I hoped you were better at evaluating the sorse than me.
If the period is from now until 2050 ( more than 30 ) I think it can be fair to talk about climate change instead of just weather changing.
Anyway as a risk assessment it may if nothing else provide an indication.




­
03-12-2015 20:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Jakob wrote:
­


I hoped you were better at evaluating the sorse than me.
If the period is from now until 2050 ( more than 30 ) I think it can be fair to talk about climate change instead of just weather changing.­
It depends on who you ask and who is willing to agree using the term for this period.

So...whenever you are using the term 'climate', you mean a period of weather greater than or equal to 35 years. Anything less than that is just 'weather'. Is this correct?

Jakob wrote:
Anyway as a risk assessment it may if nothing else provide an indication.
­


Fortune telling is not risk assessment. Stay away from Las Vegas. They love 'system' players like you.


The Parrot Killer
22-12-2015 22:59
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(517)
China will never reduce CO2 emission other than by efficiency. Our policy is coal is power. We are still a developing country. One day we will rule the world.
20-12-2016 22:39
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Tai Hai Chen wrote: We are still a developing country. One day we will rule the world.


Once the chinese communist (always small letters) serial dams on the Mekong River & other rivers running into foreign countries collapse like dominoes during a future flood stage, killing millions in those countries, communist chinese (always small letters) can take over Southeast Asia, fer shore!!! Ya hear-ed et first, here, ya know!!
06-02-2017 23:48
Wake
★★★★★
(3417)
Jakob wrote:
­
still learning wrote:
Jakob wrote:
....China is the most climate sensitive country in the world.....­


How so? In what way?



I got it from a documentary series on TV and they said Australia was number two.

Now since you are asking I am of course looking for something to confirm it with.
This is maybe not enough to the 1. price but I think it helps:
https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/4618-China-s-rising-climate-risk
China is one of the countries in the world most vulnerable to climate impacts, writes HSBC strategist Wai-Shin Chan.



I guess it is also very important how you decide to measure it.
­


Jacob - you appear to be honestly concerned. That is because the media and the Global Warmists have been harping on this subject for so long.

The facts are that this is a normal warm period that occurs every thousand years of so. These are a result of minor cycles in the Milankovitch Cycles and solar cycles and flares etc.

NONE of the data they've been collecting shows any of their hypothesis to be anywhere near correct. One clue to look for is when they tell you what the conditions on Earth are going to be 50 to 100 years from now.

They cannot accurately model rainfall next week but they're going to tell you what the entire Earth is going to be like in 100 years. Some make the effort to say "if conditions remain unchanged". When have conditions remained the same in your lifetime?

CO2 follows warming it does not cause it. This is the CO2 boiling out of the ocean from warming. When the natural cooling cycle comes again it will be taken up by the oceans again.

This is what is known as an "Interglacial Period" which is a geological time in which glaciers are shrinking and the climate warms naturally between the full blown glaciation of an Ice Age and the Earth's attempt to navigate out of it in it's natural chain of events.

There have been Interglacial Periods between hard glaciation for the last 542 million years. Homosapiens only came into existance a little more than 200,000 years ago. And this Earth has technically been in an Ice Age that entire time.

We still have about 120,000 years before another full blown glaciation comes along so relax and enjoy a warmer tomorrow because this warm period is about to end and there is always the chance that we will have another Maunder Minimum or Little Ice Age that cause almost all of the glaciers that have melted over the last 120 years.

Ask these people why during the early 1800's that we had the Dalton Minimum and people in London were ice skating on the Thames River. If they can't explain the normal extremes of cold spells why should anyone believe their calls to arms about warmth?
07-02-2017 00:11
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Jakob wrote:
­
still learning wrote:
Jakob wrote:
....China is the most climate sensitive country in the world.....­


How so? In what way?



I got it from a documentary series on TV and they said Australia was number two.

Now since you are asking I am of course looking for something to confirm it with.
This is maybe not enough to the 1. price but I think it helps:
https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/4618-China-s-rising-climate-risk
China is one of the countries in the world most vulnerable to climate impacts, writes HSBC strategist Wai-Shin Chan.



I guess it is also very important how you decide to measure it.
­


Jacob - you appear to be honestly concerned. That is because the media and the Global Warmists have been harping on this subject for so long.

The facts are that this is a normal warm period that occurs every thousand years of so. These are a result of minor cycles in the Milankovitch Cycles and solar cycles and flares etc.

NONE of the data they've been collecting shows any of their hypothesis to be anywhere near correct. One clue to look for is when they tell you what the conditions on Earth are going to be 50 to 100 years from now.

They cannot accurately model rainfall next week but they're going to tell you what the entire Earth is going to be like in 100 years. Some make the effort to say "if conditions remain unchanged". When have conditions remained the same in your lifetime?

CO2 follows warming it does not cause it. This is the CO2 boiling out of the ocean from warming. When the natural cooling cycle comes again it will be taken up by the oceans again.

This is what is known as an "Interglacial Period" which is a geological time in which glaciers are shrinking and the climate warms naturally between the full blown glaciation of an Ice Age and the Earth's attempt to navigate out of it in it's natural chain of events.

There have been Interglacial Periods between hard glaciation for the last 542 million years. Homosapiens only came into existance a little more than 200,000 years ago. And this Earth has technically been in an Ice Age that entire time.

We still have about 120,000 years before another full blown glaciation comes along so relax and enjoy a warmer tomorrow because this warm period is about to end and there is always the chance that we will have another Maunder Minimum or Little Ice Age that cause almost all of the glaciers that have melted over the last 120 years.

Ask these people why during the early 1800's that we had the Dalton Minimum and people in London were ice skating on the Thames River. If they can't explain the normal extremes of cold spells why should anyone believe their calls to arms about warmth?

Yawn. Mostly nonsense, as usual.
07-02-2017 19:49
Wake
★★★★★
(3417)
[b]Surface Detail wrote: Yawn. Mostly nonsense, as usual.


For which we notice, as usual, that you haven't one single answer. How does it feel to be so stupid? Were all your family stupid or are you the genetic oddity?
07-02-2017 21:52
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
[b]Surface Detail wrote: Yawn. Mostly nonsense, as usual.


For which we notice, as usual, that you haven't one single answer. How does it feel to be so stupid? Were all your family stupid or are you the genetic oddity?

What answers is one supposed to give to a stream of incorrect statements followed by abuse? Just to take one of your points, this statement:

The facts are that this is a normal warm period that occurs every thousand years of so. These are a result of minor cycles in the Milankovitch Cycles and solar cycles and flares etc.

is simply wrong. There are no "minor cycles in the Milankovitch Cycles" that repeat every 1,000 years. The solar (sunspot) cycle repeats every 11 years or so, while flares are completely irregular. You're just making stuff up and abusing those who call you out on it.
07-02-2017 22:16
Wake
★★★★★
(3417)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
[b]Surface Detail wrote: Yawn. Mostly nonsense, as usual.


For which we notice, as usual, that you haven't one single answer. How does it feel to be so stupid? Were all your family stupid or are you the genetic oddity?

What answers is one supposed to give to a stream of incorrect statements followed by abuse? Just to take one of your points, this statement:

The facts are that this is a normal warm period that occurs every thousand years of so. These are a result of minor cycles in the Milankovitch Cycles and solar cycles and flares etc.

is simply wrong. There are no "minor cycles in the Milankovitch Cycles" that repeat every 1,000 years. The solar (sunspot) cycle repeats every 11 years or so, while flares are completely irregular. You're just making stuff up and abusing those who call you out on it.


Then you just happen to supply that handy reference about those cycles haven't you? Oh, wait, you didn't. You think that I'm going to hand them over so that you can criticize them even though you don't understand them.
07-02-2017 22:41
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
[b]Surface Detail wrote: Yawn. Mostly nonsense, as usual.


For which we notice, as usual, that you haven't one single answer. How does it feel to be so stupid? Were all your family stupid or are you the genetic oddity?

What answers is one supposed to give to a stream of incorrect statements followed by abuse? Just to take one of your points, this statement:

The facts are that this is a normal warm period that occurs every thousand years of so. These are a result of minor cycles in the Milankovitch Cycles and solar cycles and flares etc.

is simply wrong. There are no "minor cycles in the Milankovitch Cycles" that repeat every 1,000 years. The solar (sunspot) cycle repeats every 11 years or so, while flares are completely irregular. You're just making stuff up and abusing those who call you out on it.


Then you just happen to supply that handy reference about those cycles haven't you? Oh, wait, you didn't. You think that I'm going to hand them over so that you can criticize them even though you don't understand them.

That's not how it works. You made the assertions (about, for example, 1,000 year cycles), and you're supposed to provide references to support them if you want people to take them seriously.




Join the debate COP21 - China can rule:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
US Off-Course, China Leads on Climate Change6220-11-2017 19:29
Here in China, anyone who talks about global warming will be labeled a liberal and arrested and locked up5124-12-2016 03:51
COP21 - Population policy3616-01-2016 23:21
COP21 Climate Summit and carbon tax723-12-2015 11:26
COP21 - Political Fantasy Island206-12-2015 01:11
Articles
Appendix C - China's Environmental Crisis
Appendix A - Tracing China's Climate Policy
Analysis - Explaining China's Climate Policy
The Dependent Variable - How Ambitious Is China's Climate Policy
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact