Yes, Coal use is on the rise, not only on the rise it is skyrocketing, and China leads the pack, in pollution, and use. What I find interesting is that in the story the U.S. and the west is brought up as problem areas, which I find disingenuous, the West and the U.S. lead the world in clean coal technology, and clean air initiatives, but yet we in the west are lumped into the pollution mess of Asia, South Asia, and Africa, mainly China, India. Asian Growth Fuels 20 Year Climb in World Energy Use WASHINGTON, DC, April 15, 2004 (ENS) - Led by Asian economies, developing countries' demand for energy is forecast to nearly double over the next 20 years as economies and populations grow more quickly than those in industrialized countries, a U.S. government agency reports. The world will depend mainly on oil and coal, and will use more nuclear power and less natural gas than forecast last year. Carbon dioxide emissions are predicted to skyrocket, in spite of efforts to control them. Energy demand in developing countries is expected to increase by 91 percent between 2001 and 2025, according to the International Energy Outlook 2004 released Wednesday by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the analytical agency in the Energy Department. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Coal is expected to continue to dominate many national electricity markets in developing Asia, particularly in China. With abundant coal reserves and limited access to alternative fuels, coal is forecast to be the most widely used fuel in China's booming industrial sector. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sixty-one percent of the forecast increase in emissions is expected to occur in the developing countries, accompanying the large increments in energy use projected for these emerging economies. "Continued reliance on coal and other fossil fuels, as projected for the developing world," the EIA states, "would ensure that even if the industrialized world undertook efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, there would still be substantial increases in worldwide carbon dioxide emissions over the forecast period." Coal Use Grows Despite Warming Worries AP Posted: 2007-10-28 19:16:20 NY334, NY340 By ELAINE KURTENBACH AP Business Writer JUNGAR QI, China (AP) - Almost nonstop, gargantuan 145-ton trucks rumble through China's biggest open-pit coal mine, sending up clouds of soot as they dump their loads into mechanized sorters. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ And nowhere is coal bigger than in China. But the explosion of coal comes amid rising alarm over its dire consequences for workers and the environment. An average of 13 Chinese miners die every day in explosions, floods, fires and cave-ins. Toxic clouds of mercury and other chemicals from mining are poisoning the air and water far beyond China's borders and polluting the food chain. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- China mined a record 2.4 billion tons of coal in 2006, up 8.1 percent from a year earlier. But even that can't keep boilers and blast furnaces stoked in an economy growing more than 10 percent a year. So China became a net coal importer for the first time this year. While Chinese authorities are closing down older, heavily polluting plants, they can't keep up with a massive expansion in urban housing and industry and the coal that feeds them. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rising demand can be met because coal is the Earth's most abundant fossil fuel, with reserves expected to last some 250 years - far longer than forecasts for petroleum. And whether in China, India, the United States or Europe, coal is available at home, away from the instability of the Middle East. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The question is not about putting a line through coal and saying we're not going to use it," said Milton Catelin, chief executive of the London-based World Coal Institute, an industry association. "There's a future for coal. The developing world will have to use coal. They need cheap energy to get ahead."
Agreed, the developing nations will be a huge part of the global warming problem, paradoxically fueled by western outsourcing of manufacturing. We order products from China because of low labor prices, but also because those companies have little if any restrictions on using materials and techniques that are detrimental to environmental health and safety.
bufuloyou forgot about australia we last year were the biggest contirbution to global warming known by statistics is now 2007 we also are the worst nation to use water and we have the lowest rainfall in the worldPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! every one blames others but dont forget australia is bad for alot of shit that goes on we just have it covered is all well the govtment does our country or island is run like a military base yet people dont see that but us aussies do we have no choice to go to work they take our kids and make us or else we cop it or our kids do australia isnt all what is seems and howard caused it all we are now hoping for better prime minster his name is Rudd hes gonna help us back to the way australia was hes gonna stop our contribution to global warming hope is not far away
Global warming is based on bad science. Its a bunch of bull. But even if it were true we should probably look at how much coal and oil we have left to burn to see if it would be a concern if it were true. But desi! What about all these increasing natural disasters! What about people living where these natural disasters have been happening since before cro magnon man arose to prominence?
No it isn't. Stop lying! Yes, burning the remaining oil and coal will increase the disasterous effects of man-made global warming.
Spider, there have been numerous disasterous effects of things in the past that man has lived through and adapted. Why should this little warming trend be any different? THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Baron Max
So why is the Ice in the Antartic growing at record levels? I thought we had global warming? 2004 was the coldest winter in the Antartic since 1979. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/A_NEW_RECORD_FOR_ANTARCTIC_ICE_EXTENT.doc Antarctic ice grows to record levels & Over 500 scientists ... Antarctic ice grows to record levels, Over 500 scientists published ... Hemisphere (Antarctica) has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979. ... http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming091307m.htm Excerpt: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_antartic_total_ice_extent Record High Antarctic Ice Levels Ignored by Media | NewsBusters.org Record High Antarctic Ice Levels Ignored by Media ... the Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979. ... http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/12/record-antarctic-ice-levels-ignored-media http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/STATIONS//tmp.7008900900081.1/station.txt
Former Harvard Physcist Lubos Motl Weight in on Antarctic Ice Excerpt: Satellites began to measure the Earth's cryosphere in 1979. Because of a warm summer, the Northern Hemisphere sea ice area has reached new historic lows in 2007. Around August 28th, the new minimum of 2.99 million squared kilometers of sea ice easily surpassed the previous record of 4.01 million squared kilometers set in 2005. These numbers available at the web page of Dr William Chapman and his team at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign were widely publicized. Some analysts have speculated that the new record could be evidence of global warming. But is it? Even though it may sound very complicated, it turns out that the Earth is round. At the global scale, there is not one polar region but, in fact, two. There is also sea ice on the Southern Hemisphere. It turns out that the Antarctic sea ice area reached 16.2 million squared kilometers in 2007 - a new absolute record high since the measurements started in 1979: see this graph. During the year, the Southern Hemisphere sea ice area fluctuates between 2 and 16 million squared kilometers or so while the Northern Hemisphere sea ice area fluctuates approximately between 3 and 14 million squared kilometers. The climate models predict warming in Antarctica and they are increasingly inconsistent with the observations
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok.html Meteorologist Craig James explains Earth's Temperature Regulator Excerpt: It seems to me as if there hasn't really been much attention given to the fact that CO2 increases occur AFTER the temperature begins rising and therefore cannot be the initial cause of global warming. Even the most vocal proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) acknowledge this fact. The web site Real Climate states:From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release.They are well aware that CO2 does not cause the initial warming but they say it does amplify the warming once underway. The interesting thing to me though is what causes the warming to stop, even though CO2 is still RISING? Take a look at this chart from the Vostok ice core record over the last 460,000 years. The second chart is a close up of the last 18,000 years (since the last glacial maximum). The third chart is of the last 200 years, encompassing the industrial revolution. Click on the charts for full screen versions. The charts were all taken from this web page. (Sorry for the way the charts are spaced on this page, the blog editor does not handle graphics well). Notice on all three charts the recent rapid rise in CO2 on the right hand side of the chart WITHOUT an equivalent rise in the temperature. There was a rise in temperature but you would expect it to be more if the response was linear. This seems to be good evidence that the temperature response to rising CO2 levels is logarithmic, not linear. A subsequent doubling of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will not produce the amount of temperature increase the first doubling did. But what is even more interesting to me can be seen on the first chart going back 460,000 years. There are five warm periods, or interglacials, on the chart. The current one has lasted the longest. Every time the temperature has warmed to more than 2 degrees Celcius above the mid 20th century benchmark (the 0 degree line) for a significant time, cooling followed. It appears that if the +2C threshold is exceeded for some period of time, a new glacial, or cooling, phase follows. According to the authors of the web site where I got the chart: A linear trend line fitted to the temperature data would indicate that the critical +2C level would be reached in about 40 years. But we don't know that the trend is linear. I think it is logarithmic, not linear or exponential as the authors suggest, meaning it will take much longer than 40 years to reach the +2C threshold. But once it reaches that threshold, what makes the temperature start to fall again, especially if CO2 levels are still rising? Does the earth have a built in temperature regulator? Does melting of the Arctic ice slow down the thermohaline circulation enough to initiate a new ice age? Or is the "iris effect" real as described in this article? Whatever it is, there certainly seems to evidence from the Vostok ice core, which the AGW people accept, that the Earth will again regulate itself to prevent any runaway global warming. http://blogs.woodtv.com/?p=2563
Because with global warming, things swap around due to the way nature works its cycles. Think of the sun with night and day then or wind and water currents as an example. If one place is super hot, another will be super cold on the other side. Arctic melts, Antarctic freezes, etc. U.S. freezes, Europe heats up. When Europe heats up, U.S. freezes. There isn't a worldwide heatstorm all over the place at once. The currents letcha know when something will be a certain way, and the sun with night/day is where the opposites will occur. Sorta like that. - N
Even if humankind will live throught it, do you think we'll be better off for it ? And think of the rest of nature being destroyed.
A question are you a Meteorologist? maybe a Physicist? these people have a lot of knowledge about their field of expertise, do you have any knowledge in these areas? And guess what there is no consensus that man is the cause of Global Warming, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. Harvard Physcist Lubos Motl Weight in on Antarctic Ice; The climate models predict warming in Antarctica and they are increasingly inconsistent with the observations[/QUOTE] Meteorologist Craig James explains Earth's Temperature Regulator; http://infowars.net/articles/august2007/300807Warming.htm by Steve Watson A new survey of over 500 peer reviewed scientific research papers on climate change, written between 2004 and 2007, has concluded that less than half endorse what has been dubbed the “consensus view,” that human activity is contributing to considerable global climate change. In direct conflict with assertions by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a scientific consensus agrees it is 90% likely that man is responsible for warming, Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte’s survey contends that only 45% support the theory and that is only if you include papers that merely lean towards endorsement. Though the survey has not yet been released, the results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, and science blog DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy which states: Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus." The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results. People who still trust the platitudes of politicians and elitists who implore us to change our way of life, cough up more tax money, and get on board with the global warming religion save being linked with Holocaust denial, are as deluded and enslaved as the tribes of Mesoamerica who, unaware of the natural phenomenon of a solar eclipse, thought their high priests could make the sky snake eat the Sun, and therefore obeyed their every demand. Politicians are professional liars, they make careers out of deceiving people and twisting reality to fit pre-conceived agendas, yet a cascade of otherwise rationally minded people are eager to blindly trust everything they have to say about climate change, no matter how delusional it sounds. They are also willing to comply with the ridiculous overbearing "solutions" to climate change that will just coincidentally restrict mobility and freedom of travel, regulate personal behavior, empower and expand global government and reinvigorate the surveillance state - everything Big Brother ever wanted - but surely they wouldn't lie to us about global warming to achieve it, would they?
