On 7/05/2025 11:01 am, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2025 18:56:45 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
And then there is the World political issue: China's position has
always been that the present CO2 levels are what it took for the West
to rise to wealth. The Chinese et al will never accept arguments that
effectively require that they should forever remain poor. Who would?
The combined population of China, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh is
3.1 billion, while the combined population of the US and the EU is
0.84 billion. The corresponding figures for GDP is $15.4 Trillion for
China et al, and $38.2 Trillion for US+EU (including UK). The per
capita income (GDP divided by population) is nine time higher in the
US+EU than in China et al, so for everyone to have the same per-capita
income, China et al must increase their economic activity level by a
factor of nine per capita, with almost four times the population, for
a net factor of 4*9 = 36.
Or stop having babies, which they are doing.
In modern industrial economies, where fossil fuels replace human and
animal muscle in powering industry, economic activity is generally
proportional to energy use. Now, modern technology is far more
efficient than a century ago, but still a large factor increase in
energy demand is required for the developing world to become as rich
as the developed world.
The overall scale of economic development for the East to achieve the
per-capita wealth of the West is thus (3.1/0.84)*(9)= 33.2 to one,
call it 30:1. Said another way, the West governs only 1/(33.2+1)=
2.9% of the global story.
China et al are powered mainly by burning coal, as it's by far the
cheapest source that is workable and reliable at the needed scale.
But China is now installing more renewable power per year than fossil-carbon-burning power stations. Renewable energy is available at
the needed scale, but it takes time to make the solar cells and assemble
them into solar farms.
The Aussies are happy to sell it to them.
They'd probably invade us and take it if we didn't.
It matters little what the West does, if the East does not do at least
thirty times as much. The West is basically a roundoff error here.
Prolog: I developed the Climate Remediation Engineering largely in
2019 as a part of climate debates in the AAAS (publisher of Science
magazine). It was all about the big climate models and their
correctness, which is impossible for any civilian to assess, but being
an engineer I went straight to the engineering. JMG
But missed stuff like the CO2 reservoir in the oceans.
Do you believe the climate models? They have been mostly wrong so far.
That's what the climate change denial propaganda likes to claim. Their examples of bad predictions all turn out to be reporters snippet's from informal conversations, which the reporters had mined for dramatic claims.
The main stream estimates since the 1990's have all turned out to be
pretty good. The early predictions had a lot of uncertainty, but the
most probable ICPP outcomes have turned out to be pretty right.
https://www.ipcc.ch/
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)