China is now the world’s number one emitter of carbon dioxide, so other countries are trying to browbeat it to fall into line with the CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) theory. So the the Chinese Academy of Sciences is taking up the global warming debate, which is more than you can say for similar professional organizations in the U.S. and Europe. The Science and Environmental Policy Project reports on what is going on in China; we can only hope that China will not choose to cripple its economy for the sake of purported climate benefits. SEPP proposes a list of questions that should be posed to those who want to put China in the alarmist camp:
As mentioned earlier, the Chinese Academy of Sciences is planning a September symposium in Beijing to rally the pro-IPCC arguments and try to convince their government that humans make an important contribution to global warming. In anticipation of this symposium, one would like to ask the organizers the following kinds of questions:
1. Can you explain why there has been no significant warming observed in the last 15 years — in spite of a rapid increase in the atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide?
2. Can one explain why the tropical atmosphere has shown no warming between 1979 and 2000 (ignoring the 1-yr long temperature spike of 1998, caused by a Super-El-Nino), and then again between 2002 and 2012-while models predict that the atmosphere should warm faster than the surface?
3. Can one explain why the Antarctic has been cooling, with Antarctic sea ice growing steadily–while models predict a global warming with most of the effects at high latitudes?
4. Why is there is a striking difference in observed temperature trends between Northern and Southern hemispheres, not exhibited by climate models?
5. There is also a striking disparity between observed and modeled latitude dependence of clouds and of precipitation. Why is that?
6. Can one explain what caused the observed strong warming between 1910 and 1940? It is unlikely to be anthropogenic, since the level of greenhouse gases was quite low before World War-II.
7. Can current climate models account for the observed Multi-decadal Oscillations of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans?
8. Finally, can one explain the existence of the so called Little Ice Age, between about 1400 and 1800 AD, and the apparent coincidence of extreme cold with low sunspot numbers?
It is quite remarkable that computer models that cannot account for either 1) the Little Ice Age, which lasted for several centuries, or 2) the current flat global temperatures, are taken seriously by anyone. SEPP closes with a few words about carbon dioxide:
A quick word about carbon dioxide: It is an odorless, non-toxic natural constituent of the Earth’s atmosphere. As the basic food for all plants, it is absolutely essential for maintaining life on our planet. CO2 should not be called a “pollutant.” In the geological past, its level has been ten times or more higher than its present value; in fact, our major food crops developed when CO2 levels were about five times higher. China is now the world’s largest emitter of CO2 and thereby making an important contribution to increasing agricultural yields at a time when much of the global population is still hungry. The world should be grateful to China.
That’s right: deserts are now becoming more fertile as a result of higher (but still low, by historical standards–we are living in a carbon-deprived era) levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. But that is a post for another day.