Stacy Summary: These are two articles I read while getting my haircut this morning; the line I highlight in the second article is what I have maintained will probably sort out the problems in the first. Most empires / new powers emerge with a new energy source. It makes sense that the US, which became a superpower through oil will fight tooth and nail to preserve this. But it makes zero sense for China to tie their future to an energy source that the US has and will continue to destroy to control. Also, trying to solve the problem of energy will give China the home-grown technological knowledge that they will need if they want to become a serious global power. So, two interesting reads, look forward to your thoughts . . .
- There are lots of uncertainties in climate science. But that does not mean it is fundamentally wrong. [The Economist]
- It’s China’s World, We’re Just Living in It [Newsweek]
The same principle explains the country’s overall drive to move ahead of the rest of the world: to make sure it gets a real say in setting its future rules and standards. It knows it can climb the economic ladder more easily in new and developing technologies than in traditional industries, and that’s why China, the world’s biggest polluter, has also become the single biggest state supporter of green technology. Thanks to massive government subsidies, it’s now a world leader in solar- and wind-energy hardware and is moving fast to set the standard in the next generation of clean-energy vehicles. Batteries made by the Chinese firm BYD are already used in at least a quarter of the world’s mobile-phone market; now the battery maker is leading the global race to adapt these batteries for cars, the biggest remaining hurdle in creating a viable market for electric and hybrid automobiles.
  |
 |
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.weblinks247.com/indexes/idx24_usd_en_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/t24_ag_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/platinum/t24_pt_en_usoz_2.gif)
OLd News
Nothing newer?
Mike
Really. Science is science. Not opinion. Not belief. Not speculation.
I don’t understand the dogged ideology behind the climate movement. A sensible individual, without ideological bias, would concentrate on those things that are verifiable about our environment, like resource depletion, and overpopulation. These are verifiable facts. The science of climate change however is simply not a science.
Pseudo-scientific goo. It’s either science or it’s not ? Where is the real data ?
China and the rest of the world will be going heavy into natural gas and nuclear. Problem solved. The world is loaded with nat gas, the Bakken in N America and now new discoveries in Europe. All the industries that run on nat gas can run on nuclear and then the nat gas can be run in cars.
This comment nails it perfectly, misapplication of Greenhouse theory..
I do not believe the scientific illiteracy of the so called scientists, writers and public who comment here.
LOOK at the GREENHOUSE EFFECT.
Arrhenius et al said that you MUST, HAVE TO, ARE REQUIRED TO have a photon be absorbed by a Greenhouse gas to get the Greenhouse warming effect. The IPCC says (AR4 WG1, Ch1 p116) just adding a GHG to the air results in warming.
You can’t have it both ways. Either you have to add the photon of energy or miraculously adding a GHG results in warming without adding energy in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and conservation of energy. The IPCC AND the computer models are mis-applying the GHE. They can’t do the science properly.
Now it is very understandable, but still wrong, how this mis-interpretation came into being. Arrhenius in his 1896 thought experiment, basically said 1 GHG plus a photon produces some GHE warming, 2 GHGs produces twice as much, 10 produces 10 times as much etc etc. And the results were presented such that as more GHG is added then there is more warming (ie the doubling od CO2 produces 1C rise in the article). What they failed to do is evaluate what happens in reality on the Earth, when you use up all the available incoming energy, when the energy in equals the energy out at equilibrium conditions, and when all of the absorbable outgoing photons are already being absorbed (because there is excess GHGs water vapor and CO2 still in the air and the ocean), which is basically all the time that the atmosphere is at or near equilibrium. Remember, the Earth temperature goes from absorbing more energy to radiating more energy , passing exactly through equilibrium exactly twice every day. At all other times it is chasing that equilibrium at the speed of light as it absorbs energy or radiates it away. At this equilibrium point if you add more GHGs the GREENHOUSE EFFECT CHANGES. Since there is no available photon energy to be absorbed,(its all already in use for the current equilibrium GHE) then the added GHGs just sit there as excess. There is NO more GHE warming, unless more energy is introduced, which it is every morning. BUT it is also taken away every night. The temperature goes down, the amount of the GHE reduces, the GHGs, Water Vapor and CO2 methane etc that were producing more daytime GHE warming, now reduce and there is more nighttime cooling, and more GHGs, including CO2, are released to become excess sitting in the air, waiting for the energy to increase again the next morning.
So if the GHE requires a photon, and if there are excess GHGs in the air (as in the water vapor that does not increase in temperature whenever the humidity increases), then it is THE number of photons available that limits the GHE warming. If all the absorbable photons ARE already continuously absorbed (for example by the excess of water vapor and CO2) and then leave even more excess water vapor available in the air. Then, adding any more WV GHGs does not have an impact on the temperature. It “don’t” warm when it rains!!
So ask yourself the following question: if the energy is not limited, then just why does the GHE WAIT until man adds more CO2 which results in more WV feedback to generate more GHE warming instead of using the excess of GHGs that are already available in the air and in the ocean? The IPCC models do NOT make sense.
If all the WV absorbable photons are already in use then any feedback WV GHGs that are created by the computer models do NOT add to the GHE since there are no more absorbable photons available to be absorbed. Feedback effects do NOT exist. just more excess WV molecules. The computer models and IPCC are wrong. Since the so-called forcing functions for processes are derived from computer model runs, they too are invalid.
The error introduced in the models and IPCC reports far far exceeds any melting of the snow in the Himalayas, or missing CRU temperature data, or drying out of the Amazon rainforest. The IPCC analysis is just plain wrong. There is no increase in future warming due to adding more excess CO2, unless there is more external energy added. The Scientific Journals and peer review scientists are extremely incompetent. The research grants for studying temperature impacts of added CO2 emissions are fraudulent. The bureaucrats who granted the research grants are negligent. The politicians who attended the IPCC etc meetings did so under false pretences. The political initiatives to reduce CO2 emissions in order to reduce global warming are in error, the laws to impose more expensive “clean” energy instead of coal and oil are unjustified . The professors are teaching erroneous science to the students. All the textbooks about global warming are in error. and the newspapers and blogs are a pure waste of time, not to mention the misinformation being distributed. AND my taxes paid for all this. I WANT MY MONEY BACK.
@EB
They need a new bubble racket. In the 90′s the emerging markets and then the internet. In 200 it was the war on terrror, military spending and real estate bubble. And in 2010 it’s the END OF THE WORLD because of global warming. Credit carbon market is dying. Wonder who lost all this money ? The CO2 bubble is a great excuse for taxing and practise extorsion exactly like they do with credit default swaps. Externalize pollution is still a good idea but not this way specially when you KNOW where the money was going. Follow the money.
@ EB
I am not sure if you are a believer in global warming or not, if you are then lets convert everything to nuclear then…. No C02
@ EB
I am not sure if you are a believer in global warming or not, if you are then lets convert everything to nuclear, No C02
Solar is still a cool toy. In reality the bulk of the money for energy in China but also in India, is going to nuclear energy. Same thing in Iran. Naturally USA and Israel wants to keep Iran and the Iran world in the Middle Ages. No nuclear energy for the arab and iranian USA /Israel colonies. Solar is still a nice toy. And it’s one the most polluting form of energy. No joke. In the manufacturing process solar energy is UGLY. I know it may seem incredible. But it’s true. Burning coal directly is less polluting ! than using tons and tons of coal to fabricate a solar panel. The notion of product cycle is totally ignored by everyone here. With solar you NEVER recuperate ALL the energy used in the process to manufacture your panels. I know. You don’t believe me. But it’s true.
Science is a process…
The valid scientific inquiry of climate change has been captured by political, economic and ideological terrorists.
To say China is the worlds biggest polluter, is a sort of misnomer in a sense.
Western Corporations were sent over there to inject stimulus into the economy. Remember China was a communist country before we started merging seamlessly with it!
I hear the Brits are sending there troops over to Moscow to march alongside the Ruskies under a huge banner of Stalin,..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91kdwxFsthI
@Max and Stacy
Your favourite Bundesbank admits…. money created out of thin air…
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/german-central-bank-admits-credit-created-out-thin-air
This is a better link,.listen to the words,..hilarious!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFPw5NTi1NQ&feature=related
China will not be able to solve the climate change problem any more than anyone in the west could. They may lead in solar and wind technologies but they are a drop in the energy bucket and have problems of their own.
The agenda is 3%deficit to GDP and caps on greenhouse emissions. The means will be the advantage retained by the monetary authorities to control global liquidity via the enablement of the new reserve system. The ‘science’ is forwarded political agenda. The result will be a depopulated post-industrial world. All the words are a nuisance: the power lie with those that hold propriety over the currency. They don’t need science to back up their tyranny: it is a bid to control until the time comes for shock and awe. And the time is coming.
Fairy tales have always been useful.
The problem is rare earths..
Green technology needs these materials and guess who owns 85% of rare earths..
China..
The US is fucked..from foreign oil dependence to rare earths dependence
Developing Green tech only make you more dependent on China…
Oh, i don’t have anything against green tech, just pointing out hypocrisy and lies
@WL
The Germans too going communists ? Communism, facism and banksters go hand in hand. Out of nothing we create and destroy the existence of people. Quantum central banking.
Well. In their case it’s national socialist all over again. National socialism was financed by the FED to the tune of 30 billion dollars in the 30′s. Another very very dirty little secret that only a few know about the FED, that horrible creature. The FED financed the Nazis. Absolutely.
Just look at the FED and it’s architecture. Even the building transpire nazi architecture. It’s all true about the 30 billion to nazi Germany. That’s what fun with these facts. People are soo ingnorant and cultureless that they don’t remember things like these. They are vital to understand the nature of central banking and its role as a war monger and the main financial machine that fed the World Wars.
The FED, the Nazis and the BIS. There an absolute connection.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread544068/pg1
There is a very good book out by Robert Allen as to why the industrial revolution occurred in Britain. In it you will note why it did not happen in China. It comes down to relative wage costs and relative energy costs. I contend that China cannot industrialize if decoupled from the USA.
The penchant for energy conservation is a deeply rooted one in China, and is nothing new. China has historically had high energy cost and low wage cost. Consider the diagram of comparable lime kilns in China and the UK from several hundred years ago in the following informative article:
http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3570
If you have the time, Paul Kedrosky has a presentation by Robert Allen that is also very interesting.
http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2009/10/robert_allen_on.html
You will quickly see that, when it comes to energy conservation, the Chinese have a natural propensity, just like the Japanese have had a natural propensity for electrical/electronic goods long before the western economies. I expect that the Chinese will be (if not already) world leaders in this area just like the Japanese were in electronics.
@ stacy: What if there is no new energy source left to discover in this universe? No empires anymore?
The trouble in my opinion is growth! Steady growth of anual x% makes a doubling every 70/x years, be it population or consumtion. How long can we double anything, till planet earth gets too small?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=related
Describes the limits of all (empires, ressources, population, earnings!
@EB
Half of MIT graduates also speak mandarin. We do not live in a static world. The China of the 19th century is NOT the China of the 21st century. Things change you know. Forgot the number again ? How many chinees engineers per year ?
@Marc : Let’s not forget the Y2K scare. That made a few computer giants a few bucks.
Lets see how China makes out when the Western World abandones buying their goods. Huge trade war will rear its ugly head later this year.
@Marc. I could be wrong. China seems to be doing the right things, they are concentrating on the physical world, although perhaps investing too much there in some cases. But I cannot reconcile, as energy costs increase, that in China it will be more profitable to employ hoards of cheap labour, rather than develop plant and equipment. Unless they can export to make a profit off the arbitrage. That is why the USA/North America/Europe is so important for them.
Major holder in The Economist magazine is Fabian socialist Lynn Forester de Rothschild:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economist_Group
@Authier – re: solar technologies; if what you say is true, then the technology can perhaps evolve into something cheaper and less polluting as per this story today on Business Insider: http://www.businessinsider.com/producing-solar-energy-on-a-large-scale-2010-3
@solipsist – instead of a new energy source, we could have more advanced energy conservation? humans evolved not by having to use more energy, but by evolutionary changes that allowed us to use less energy, for example . . . just an idea
The lull before one of the greatest economic storms to ever hit mankind is now in progress. The sheeple are being guided by sirens of the gods. The jagged rocks are now at hand, and a crushing collision can no longer be avoided. GREECE and BEYOND . Dont bother crying out for help, its to late.
“China seems to be doing the right things, they are concentrating on the physical world”
http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2254
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g7wv0eo5eoz5m7jhnU24w4NIk6GQD9EG6I783
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-05/30/content_604228.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/world/asia/27iht-china.1.10466115.html?_r=1
If this is true about Hanson’s Nasa temperature set how can global warming political orthodoxy just march on? This is absolutely insane!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsQfr7wRZsw
@francis : The same sorts of headlines could have been printed in the US during the 1960′s and 1970′s. Recall that Lake Erie was a dead body at one stage.
Then you look at areas of the UK that were nothing more than slag heaps of heavy metals. Some of these areas today are forested, indeed in South Wales these areas are now the largest urban forest in Europe, and Lake Erie been brought to life once again.
But China is focusing on the physical world, the source of real value, rather than the financial world, as the US is, which creates nothing more than waste and corruption.
@Matt
I’m a practitioner of conservation, and I’m a strong supporter of a clean environment, but I’m not convinced that climate change is underway, on the basis of the evidence that has been presented. I’m not shy about Nuclear energy either. I think it’s a good idea. Contrary to popular belief, there are ways to encapsulate the waste, I’ve been involved in developing materials for this purpose.
@EB:
China displays a exploitive, dominating mercantilism in their governance:
“The first essential fact to be aware of is that most news stories about China’s greentech gains are about manufacturing. China is becoming the wind-turbine factory to the world for much the same reasons it has long been the TV and t-shirt factory to the world: lower wages, lower land prices, fewer regulatory and other requirements, etc. This isn’t particularly surprising, and it shouldn’t be seen as a reversal of the status quo. What’s changed most dramatically in the last five years has been growing global demand. With significant government investment, Chinese factories have planned for and stepped up production accordingly.”
http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2238
China has a horrendous history of abuse of its people via pollution.
The global system is an international financial system. China’s green program is fueled by US consumer demand.
The problematic with defining a nation/state as a solitary entity within this system is that the system must be understood as whole entity: the success of China was compelled by the securitization vehicle within the US/UK.
The people of China are the ‘real value’ to the Chinese leadership: yet the equal rights abuses and the lack of social service for the people is comparable to the medieval state.
The tangibles are reliant on that paper money (dollar paper standard) you disparage: just try separating the two.
Nuclear power reliant upon uranium is not only not green, it is not sustainable:
“It’s not clear how the shortfall can be made up since nobody seems to know where the mining industry can look for more.
That means countries that rely on uranium imports such as Japan and many western countries will face uranium .shortages, possibly as soon as 2013. Far from being the secure source of energy that many governments are basing their future energy needs on, nuclear power looks decidedly rickety.”
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24414/
The stories about China are ignoring the role of the central bank and the CBRC in regulation of capital flows in China:
“The CBRC and the People’s Bank of China (PBC) have been working in cooperation very well. A provisional leading group set up by the two institutions has formulated and issued the relevant notices and regulations, which spell out the explicit requirements for the work of organizing the CBRC’s branch organs.”
http://english.people.com.cn/200305/29/eng20030529_117391.shtml
China is not acting in a unilateral way outside the G20 monetary authority. Indeed, it is China which sought the further diversification of the sdr within the reserve system as a replacement for the dollar.
Stories about China fabricate agency where none exists.
China has a people problem that can’t contain – you think an American middle class family can be pushy – you’ve not dealt with a Chinese middle class family yet
____
Anyone up for building more nuke planets needs to start digging a big hole in their own backyard where we can bury the waste.
There are better things emerging, and we will know they are ready to be implemented when big oil starts asking for bailouts.
Got some money? buy land convert your home to solar, wind, hydro, et al and sell your excess electricity to the government, while you can.
We should be building these types of energy-self-sufficient communities instead of bailing out Wall Street bankers.
___
Still can’t figure out why Americans hate their hard working neighbors and love and protect the crooks on Wall Street
Is there some kind of queen/king, lord/lady gene build into some people, like in the UK and Thailand?
1.Its OK. Whatever the Chinese invent we will just steal like they steal from everyone else. What goes around etc
2. I still have yet to see despite repeated requests any observational evidence that C02 is affecting climate. If anyone has this evidence, please present it.
BOULDER — A nudist in Boulder who was threatened with eviction last spring for gardening outside wearing only pasties and a thong has caused another stir by gardening topless.
At least four callers told police 52-year-old Catharine Pierce was in her yard topless Wednesday. State law prohibits exposed genitals, but Pierce was wearing a thong.
http://www.gazette.com/articles/boulder-95853-topless-call.html
with photos …
just kidding.
@stacey:
Yes! What we see in nature is truely very, very efficient and sophisticated, but let’s keep in mind, that nature is a very brutal inventor: myriads of mutated prototypes all dead.
Could well be, that the selfextinction of human mankind by pushing ab bit too many buttons turns out to be the most energyefficient way of existing on this planet: as a historical narrative!
you said ”
Stacy Summary: These are two articles I read while getting my haircut this morning”
why did I then imagine you sitting on the barbers chair with a face full of shaving cream getting shaved with a cut throat razor , and when the barber said “anything for the weekend madam you replied yes gag for Max so that I can get a word in edgeways
time for a cuppa
“There are lots of uncertainties in climate science. But that does not mean it is fundamentally wrong.”
YES IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG!
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 – 14 February 2010 (MailOnline) http://tinyurl.com/yb2loyt
UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article 30 January 2010 (Telegraph.UK) http://tinyurl.com/y8ku7pm
Water vapour is a major cause of global warming and cooling find scientists 29 January 2010 (Telegraph.UK) http://tinyurl.com/yem267d
Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data 28 January 2010 (The Times) http://tinyurl.com/yc8pbfp
Global Warming Fraud Collapses Amidst Deception And Scandal 27 January 2010 (Infowars) http://tinyurl.com/yatw34z
Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn’t been verified 24 January 2010 (MailOnline) http://tinyurl.com/yck7vg7
“The Science is Scuttled” – NASA climate page, suckered by IPCC, deletes their own ‘moved up’ glacier melting date reference 23 January 2010 (Watts With That?) http://tinyurl.com/yk9f836
IPCC officials admit mistake over melting Himalayan glaciers 20 January 2010 (Guardian.UK) http://tinyurl.com/yl3bny2
Told ya so…IPCC to retract claim on Himalayan Glacier Melt – Pachauri’s “arrogance” claim backfires 17 January 2010 (Watts With That?) http://tinyurl.com/yzvjvzo
Climategate goes American: NOAA, GISS and the mystery of the vanishing weather stations 16 January 2010 (Telegraph.UK) http://tinyurl.com/yjdc9ny
MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: The professor’s amazing climate change retreat 13 February 2010 (MailOnline) http://tinyurl.com/yc3yvub
“It’s going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries ‘uncle” Conservatives mock Al Gore on snowstorms 10 February 2010 (Politico) http://tinyurl.com/yaxywdw
Al Gore’s “DEAD SNOW” still on the rogue 10 January 2010 (FPP) http://tinyurl.com/ydyk72d
IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri: India ‘arrogant’ to deny global warming link to melting glaciers 9 November 2009 (Guardian.UK) http://tinyurl.com/yzsanqa
CO2 Contributed by Human Activity: 12 to 15ppmv / version 1 Vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYLmLW4k4aI
@Metoo – “sitting on the barbers chair with a face full of shaving cream getting shaved with a cut throat razor” – — wtf?
Nothin good came out of the eighties…..not even nuke power.
Solar will not be dominant until the last drop of oil is used.
What china DOES have is coal, and vast amounts. The easily recoverable coal is being mined, but the ” low-grade and deep coal ” is what is needed.
UCG ( underground coal gasification ) can retrieve it.
Cheap to set-up. Can be used for electricity generation, ultra clean diesil, and fertillisers.
http://www.cougarenergy.com.au/interactive.html
Disclosure; no stock held
Cheers
if you are anything like my wife once you reach an age past forty you start to grow a moustache
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_fHm_O3J5M6Y/Rv90FKr90oI/AAAAAAAABPg/cNCcQQjSY5k/DSC01648.JPG