It would be an interesting study I think and that’s just going by the people we get on here.
I wonder if you got down to brass tacks its more about the monetary costs than the science you agree or don’t agree with.

Cymek said:

It would be an interesting study I think and that’s just going by the people we get on here.
I wonder if you got down to brass tacks its more about the monetary costs than the science you agree or don’t agree with.

No Cymek, its about the science, & if you read anything I posted you would understand & hence,

not post such a biased, ignorant & derogatory comment.

I can tell you why I believe that co2 is not the problem made out by activists, the media, & scientists funded by the scare.

Can you tell me what it would take to convince you that it’s not a problem.

PS I don’t care, I’m not trying to change anyones views, just having my say.

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

It would be an interesting study I think and that’s just going by the people we get on here.
I wonder if you got down to brass tacks its more about the monetary costs than the science you agree or don’t agree with.

No Cymek, its about the science, & if you read anything I posted you would understand & hence,

not post such a biased, ignorant & derogatory comment.

I can tell you why I believe that co2 is not the problem made out by activists, the media, & scientists funded by the scare.

Can you tell me what it would take to convince you that it’s not a problem.

PS I don’t care, I’m not trying to change anyones views, just having my say.

Didn’t you mention you think the world is spending too much money tackling the climate warming problem when you think the science doesn’t back up the worst case scenarios. Maybe for you it is about the science but you can bet that those in power who don’t agree have vested money interests. Humans ruin the planet and kill each other for money.

I’ve read very little about climate change, so my knowledge about that is extremely limited.

I did have someone tell me once that the climate changes over a period of time anyway, and the current increase in worldwide temperatures is pretty much the same that happened a long time ago (no idea how long?). Since that time, it’s cooled down, and now it’s warming back up again, and we’re just measuring it now more than it was measured back then, whenever it was… 50 years, 300 years, no idea…

Don’t know how much truth there is to this theory tho.

Cymek said:

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

It would be an interesting study I think and that’s just going by the people we get on here.
I wonder if you got down to brass tacks its more about the monetary costs than the science you agree or don’t agree with.

No Cymek, its about the science, & if you read anything I posted you would understand & hence,

not post such a biased, ignorant & derogatory comment.

I can tell you why I believe that co2 is not the problem made out by activists, the media, & scientists funded by the scare.

Can you tell me what it would take to convince you that it’s not a problem.

PS I don’t care, I’m not trying to change anyones views, just having my say.

Didn’t you mention you think the world is spending too much money tackling the climate warming problem when you think the science doesn’t back up the worst case scenarios. Maybe for you it is about the science but you can bet that those in power who don’t agree have vested money interests. Humans ruin the planet and kill each other for money.

>>Didn’t you mention you think the world is spending too much money tackling the climate warming problem when you think the science doesn’t back up the worst case scenarios.<<

the IPCC syas that 2 x co2 or equivalent = 1.5 C to 4.5 C. If in reality it is 1.5 C, how much money do you think we should spend trying to hold temperatures to an arbitary figure of 2 C ?

And Tim Flannery for example, has vested interested in renewables which the tax payer is paying for!

The debates on climate warming on this forum turn very nasty with threats, insults and derogatory comments flying back and forth, can people honestly tell me that’s healthly and the product of a health psyche. I’ve gotten annoyed on occasion with comments from people on here, but thats its annoyed, I wouldn’t resort to using the f and c words on what is essentially a stranger whom you have no emotional connection with.

Cymek said:

The debates on climate warming on this forum turn very nasty with threats, insults and derogatory comments flying back and forth, can people honestly tell me that’s healthly and the product of a health psyche. I’ve gotten annoyed on occasion with comments from people on here, but thats its annoyed, I wouldn’t resort to using the f and c words on what is essentially a stranger whom you have no emotional connection with.

it sure does. I cope heaps from certain people here for no reason other than my views on the subject.

Warming enthusiasts believe it is their right & duty to be as aggressive & as rude as they like to people like me.

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

The_observer said:

No Cymek, its about the science, & if you read anything I posted you would understand & hence,

not post such a biased, ignorant & derogatory comment.

I can tell you why I believe that co2 is not the problem made out by activists, the media, & scientists funded by the scare.

Can you tell me what it would take to convince you that it’s not a problem.

PS I don’t care, I’m not trying to change anyones views, just having my say.

Didn’t you mention you think the world is spending too much money tackling the climate warming problem when you think the science doesn’t back up the worst case scenarios. Maybe for you it is about the science but you can bet that those in power who don’t agree have vested money interests. Humans ruin the planet and kill each other for money.

>>Didn’t you mention you think the world is spending too much money tackling the climate warming problem when you think the science doesn’t back up the worst case scenarios.<<

the IPCC syas that 2 x co2 or equivalent = 1.5 C to 4.5 C. If in reality it is 1.5 C, how much money do you think we should spend trying to hold temperatures to an arbitary figure of 2 C ?

And Tim Flannery for example, has vested interested in renewables which the tax payer is paying for!

Doesn’t it make sense to switch to renewables regardless of climate warming or not

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

The debates on climate warming on this forum turn very nasty with threats, insults and derogatory comments flying back and forth, can people honestly tell me that’s healthly and the product of a health psyche. I’ve gotten annoyed on occasion with comments from people on here, but thats its annoyed, I wouldn’t resort to using the f and c words on what is essentially a stranger whom you have no emotional connection with.

it sure does. I cope heaps from certain people here for no reason other than my views on the subject.

Warming enthusiasts believe it is their right & duty to be as aggressive & as rude as they like to people like me.

I won’t though

Cymek said:

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

Didn’t you mention you think the world is spending too much money tackling the climate warming problem when you think the science doesn’t back up the worst case scenarios. Maybe for you it is about the science but you can bet that those in power who don’t agree have vested money interests. Humans ruin the planet and kill each other for money.

>>Didn’t you mention you think the world is spending too much money tackling the climate warming problem when you think the science doesn’t back up the worst case scenarios.<<

the IPCC syas that 2 x co2 or equivalent = 1.5 C to 4.5 C. If in reality it is 1.5 C, how much money do you think we should spend trying to hold temperatures to an arbitary figure of 2 C ?

And Tim Flannery for example, has vested interested in renewables which the tax payer is paying for!

Doesn’t it make sense to switch to renewables regardless of climate warming or not

Not if they are inefficient & expensive.

Cymek said:

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

The debates on climate warming on this forum turn very nasty with threats, insults and derogatory comments flying back and forth, can people honestly tell me that’s healthly and the product of a health psyche. I’ve gotten annoyed on occasion with comments from people on here, but thats its annoyed, I wouldn’t resort to using the f and c words on what is essentially a stranger whom you have no emotional connection with.

it sure does. I cope heaps from certain people here for no reason other than my views on the subject.

Warming enthusiasts believe it is their right & duty to be as aggressive & as rude as they like to people like me.

I won’t though

then I wouldn’t be rude to you!

The_observer said:

it sure does. I cope heaps from certain people here for no reason other than my views on the subject.

Warming enthusiasts believe it is their right & duty to be as aggressive & as rude as they like to people like me.

rofl

Must be a tough life.

I thought observer was probably sponsored by Exxon, but now I’m thinking Kleenex.

…… propositions are loaded…..

……for starters not everyone is equally induced or aversive (what induces them or otherwise are a mixed bag too) toward or to dabble in worldy views, those that aren’t are a mixed bag, and those that are a mixed bag….and then there’s healthy indifference, and I suppose unhealthy indifference, but of the latter I’m not in the business of pathologizing.

So maybe a starting point could be that a pluralizing of psychology might be helpful, and make that ‘psychologies’, that way the normative nonsense and distortions can go to hell where they belong.

I have noticed that ‘world’ has become a word some use instead of ‘we’, and just the latter along with ‘us’ has some problems. Same maybe applies to country/nation/Team Australia….

As things go too countries and regions can be as different as individual people.

Somewhere back no question what all the individual humans on the planet are doing became a ‘force of nature’, but what each of those individuals arrive at is a ‘plurality of views’, and probably wont lend to neat convergence, or necessarily even trending convergence.
What is done or to be done with ‘man/or man’s culture as force of nature’ is in the field of ideology (very broadly speaking) and is on the table.

So, crudely put maybe, it’s what of ‘culture as force of nature’ goes to ‘natural order of things’.

no inhabitable planet has ever been found that can rival the earth

if we stuff this place up there is no where else to go – not that we could get to it anyway

who should be listened to, someone telling you that something is wrong and something needs to be fixed OR someone telling you theres nothing wrong, nothing needs fixing and to go away and forget all about it?

if its a manager telling you to not worry about anything , that is exactly when you should be worried

wookiemeister said:

no inhabitable planet has ever been found that can rival the earth

if we stuff this place up there is no where else to go – not that we could get to it anyway

who should be listened to, someone telling you that something is wrong and something needs to be fixed OR someone telling you theres nothing wrong, nothing needs fixing and to go away and forget all about it?

if its a manager telling you to not worry about anything , that is exactly when you should be worried

Yes climate warming whether you believe in it or not is part of a bigger picture and that’s not wrecking this planet with pollution, fishing/hunting animals into extinction, etc.

Cymek said:

wookiemeister said:

no inhabitable planet has ever been found that can rival the earth

if we stuff this place up there is no where else to go – not that we could get to it anyway

who should be listened to, someone telling you that something is wrong and something needs to be fixed OR someone telling you theres nothing wrong, nothing needs fixing and to go away and forget all about it?

if its a manager telling you to not worry about anything , that is exactly when you should be worried

Yes climate warming whether you believe in it or not is part of a bigger picture and that’s not wrecking this planet with pollution, fishing/hunting animals into extinction, etc.

.

.
.
Yes, here’s the problem
.
.

.
.

As a climate change agnostic I watch the debate with interest.
The one glaring thing that I have noticed is that the fundamentalist AiGW faithful don’t know the skeptics argument or choose to misrepresent it.
They call these skeptics Deniers and think they are all the AntiGore incarnate.

Cymek said:

wookiemeister said:

no inhabitable planet has ever been found that can rival the earth

if we stuff this place up there is no where else to go – not that we could get to it anyway

who should be listened to, someone telling you that something is wrong and something needs to be fixed OR someone telling you theres nothing wrong, nothing needs fixing and to go away and forget all about it?

if its a manager telling you to not worry about anything , that is exactly when you should be worried

Yes climate warming whether you believe in it or not is part of a bigger picture and that’s not wrecking this planet with pollution, fishing/hunting animals into extinction, etc.

one of the ideas I’ve had in the past is creating a huge solar array in Australia and using it here to lure back manufacturing, metal reprocessing like refining, a huge refinery using cheap electricity would employ hundreds of people

just the availability of cheap power then creates more jobs in turn as new machines and processes start appearing to take advantage of cheap power.

eventually a huge HVDC network would encircle the planet providing renewable solar power 24 HOURS a day no need for batteries because the energy from the lit side is transferred to the dark side

cheap power is the key to prosperity

notice that as power rises have been happening everything has been getting worse?

>>> cheap power is the key to prosperity <<<

agree 100%

eventually a huge HVDC network would encircle the planet providing renewable solar power 24 HOURS a day no need for batteries because the energy from the lit side is transferred to the dark side

and where are we going to get the metals from to build this? i believe this has been shown to be not feasible many times before.

ChrispenEvan said:

eventually a huge HVDC network would encircle the planet providing renewable solar power 24 HOURS a day no need for batteries because the energy from the lit side is transferred to the dark side

and where are we going to get the metals from to build this? i believe this has been shown to be not feasible many times before.

Australia has the metal to do this – even if they refuse to use recycled materials

you could build thick / wide busbars made from iron instead of copper and aluminium

the iron busbar would be housed in a tunnel that remains dry, the exterior of the busbar coated with anti rusting treatment

if you are using DC then the current passes through the entire CSA not through the skin of the busbar

we have the metal, we have the technology

we don’t have this mad idea of poles and live cables flapping around in the wind being exposed to the elements

you’d use a thick flat busbar

its easier to make

easier to handle

easier to work upon

flat surfaces make better contacts for connections

easier to drill through

provides a greater surface area to release heat (though this might be negligible as even though its a long route the busbar is thick enough to carry current with little resistance – you just use more materials )

you could build a linear motor train that uses the hug busbar to carry current to the next city where the train is going

you use the bus bar current to provide power for a train and send it on to elsewhere.

if you built them as part of a road network you could use electric cars that charge up on the way easily by tapping into the power network

if you had an electric truck the driver would stop for 15 minutes and let the truck charge up for 15 minutes

wookiemeister said:

you could build thick / wide busbars made from iron instead of copper and aluminium

I doubt this would be practical, Iron has 5.7 times the resistivity of copper

Aquila said:

wookiemeister said:

you could build thick / wide busbars made from iron instead of copper and aluminium

I doubt this would be practical, Iron has 5.7 times the resistivity of copper

no doubt you could make an alloy

show us the figures then that say it can be done. yell us how much will be needed and what the world production figures are. i am supposing that you have these numbers to back your claim.

show us the figures then that say it can be done. tell us how much will be needed and what the world production figures are. i am supposing that you have these numbers to back your claim.

fixed.

From reading this thread it is all about me, me, me or us, us, us, as if we were the sole occupants of this planet to do with it as we wish. But sorry to disillusion the self-obsessed, but we are but a single organism among millions, all of which we are apparently willing to sacrifice so we can get a bigger house, faster cars and electrical gadgets. Can’t people see what we are doing to what makes this planet liveable? I really despair at our stupidity.

ChrispenEvan said:

show us the figures then that say it can be done. yell us how much will be needed and what the world production figures are. i am supposing that you have these numbers to back your claim.

ok consider this

think about this AC creates impedance and other effects on the line that cause loss

ever seen the thickness of those cables using 270,000 volts/ 330KV? remember that’s a steel cable inside for strength

now imagine using DC at higher voltages like 500KV or more , if you were using iron can you see how by bumping up the voltage and dropping the current through thick busbars would negate any normal problems?

if you were using 1MVDC you’d get bugger all losses

Cymek said:

Doesn’t it make sense to switch to renewables regardless of climate warming or not

Let’s say for a moment the AGW is complete horse shit and there is absolutely no connection between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature; or even further that even if this link did exist, that these was no relationship between increasing atmospheric temperatures and increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events. OK… so in this world we can continue to use inexpensive and relatively abundant and carbon intensive energy source to generate energy irrespective of its byproducts. The problem here is that this energy source is finite, and thus unsustainable over the long term. Even under this scenario it makes sense to transition to more sustainable energy sources (albeit at a slower rate).

Now let’s look at the converse… if we assume that it’s incontrovertible that increases in atmospheric carbon, leads to increases in temperature, leads to increases in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events; it’s safe to assume that this could very likely impact on the productivity of the land we now occupy. As a result continued use of inexpensive and carbon intensive energy sources would only exasperate the problem (not to mention that it’s still unsustainable in the long term) and thus it would make sense to transition towards more sustainable energy sources.

So where is the truth? Most likely it exists somewhere along the continuum between the two cases (and in the opinion of most experts, most likely toward the latter then the former). So if a transition is inevitable it makes sense to start that transition as soon as possible and to minimise the impacts that any changes to the climate might have on our continued productive existence by reducing levels of atmospheric carbon production.

In my view it’s simple engineering risk management strategy.

PermeateFree said:

From reading this thread it is all about me, me, me or us, us, us, as if we were the sole occupants of this planet to do with it as we wish. But sorry to disillusion the self-obsessed, but we are but a single organism among millions, all of which we are apparently willing to sacrifice so we can get a bigger house, faster cars and electrical gadgets. Can’t people see what we are doing to what makes this planet liveable? I really despair at our stupidity.

the crazy thing is we don’t need to sacrifice anything , we just need better management and spend tax dollar wisely

PermeateFree said:

From reading this thread it is all about me, me, me or us, us, us, as if we were the sole occupants of this planet to do with it as we wish. But sorry to disillusion the self-obsessed, but we are but a single organism among millions, all of which we are apparently willing to sacrifice so we can get a bigger house, faster cars and electrical gadgets. Can’t people see what we are doing to what makes this planet liveable? I really despair at our stupidity.

That what I was arguing against, the self entitlement of the human race to do as we want to the planet. Fair enough that we eat other living things, its part of the food chain but not to the extinction of other species and not in a manner that is cruel.

wookiemeister said:

PermeateFree said:

From reading this thread it is all about me, me, me or us, us, us, as if we were the sole occupants of this planet to do with it as we wish. But sorry to disillusion the self-obsessed, but we are but a single organism among millions, all of which we are apparently willing to sacrifice so we can get a bigger house, faster cars and electrical gadgets. Can’t people see what we are doing to what makes this planet liveable? I really despair at our stupidity.

the crazy thing is we don’t need to sacrifice anything , we just need better management and spend tax dollar wisely

You deserve the Nobel Prize for solving the world’s environmental problems Wookie, and all without a single hitch.

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

Doesn’t it make sense to switch to renewables regardless of climate warming or not

Let’s say for a moment the AGW is complete horse shit and there is absolutely no connection between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature; or even further that even if this link did exist, that these was no relationship between increasing atmospheric temperatures and increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events. OK… so in this world we can continue to use inexpensive and relatively abundant and carbon intensive energy source to generate energy irrespective of its byproducts. The problem here is that this energy source is finite, and thus unsustainable over the long term. Even under this scenario it makes sense to transition to more sustainable energy sources (albeit at a slower rate).

Now let’s look at the converse… if we assume that it’s incontrovertible that increases in atmospheric carbon, leads to increases in temperature, leads to increases in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events; it’s safe to assume that this could very likely impact on the productivity of the land we now occupy. As a result continued use of inexpensive and carbon intensive energy sources would only exasperate the problem (not to mention that it’s still unsustainable in the long term) and thus it would make sense to transition towards more sustainable energy sources.

So where is the truth? Most likely it exists somewhere along the continuum between the two cases (and in the opinion of most experts, most likely toward the latter then the former). So if a transition is inevitable it makes sense to start that transition as soon as possible and to minimise the impacts that any changes to the climate might have on our continued productive existence by reducing levels of atmospheric carbon production.

In my view it’s simple engineering risk management strategy.

I should say the other alternative is to continue to use the inexpensive energy source but to bank the savings hoping that we can buy our way out of the problem later through some sort of technological innovation or geopolitical solution.

diddly-squat said:

In my view it’s simple engineering risk management strategy.

Yes, and this is the point accepted by virtually all of those in favour of action on climate change (the true sceptics). It is appoint that the pseudo-sceptics resolutely ignore or misrepresent, proving yet again their pseudo-scepticism.

>From reading this thread it is all about me, me, me or us, us, us, as if we were the sole occupants of this planet to do with it as we wish. But sorry to disillusion the self-obsessed, but we are but a single organism among millions, all of which we are apparently willing to sacrifice so we can get a bigger house, faster cars and electrical gadgets. Can’t people see what we are doing to what makes this planet liveable? I really despair at our stupidity”

……any chance you can rewite that without the generalizing inclusive terms, like “our” and “we”, you know here and there in which case the terms seem to indicate you are speaking for the entire species, or some portion of.

transition said:

>From reading this thread it is all about me, me, me or us, us, us, as if we were the sole occupants of this planet to do with it as we wish. But sorry to disillusion the self-obsessed, but we are but a single organism among millions, all of which we are apparently willing to sacrifice so we can get a bigger house, faster cars and electrical gadgets. Can’t people see what we are doing to what makes this planet liveable? I really despair at our stupidity”

……any chance you can rewite that without the generalizing inclusive terms, like “our” and “we”, you know here and there in which case the terms seem to indicate you are speaking for the entire species, or some portion of.

are humans single organisms or part of a collective spread over the planet?

me – ……any chance you can rewite that without the generalizing inclusive terms, like “our” and “we”, you know here and there in which case the terms seem to indicate you are speaking for the entire species, or some portion of.

permeate – are humans single organisms or part of a collective spread over the planet?

I don’t have an opinion regards that, exactly as you put it, whatever exactly it means, or intends, you likely are in a better position to fill in the details regards whatever you’re proposing.

You don’t from time to time see something a bit dodgy about the way some individuals chuck around terms like “we” and “us”……

transition said:

>From reading this thread it is all about me, me, me or us, us, us, as if we were the sole occupants of this planet to do with it as we wish. But sorry to disillusion the self-obsessed, but we are but a single organism among millions, all of which we are apparently willing to sacrifice so we can get a bigger house, faster cars and electrical gadgets. Can’t people see what we are doing to what makes this planet liveable? I really despair at our stupidity”

……any chance you can rewite that without the generalizing inclusive terms, like “our” and “we”, you know here and there in which case the terms seem to indicate you are speaking for the entire species, or some portion of.

Try reading the thread, I think you will find the sentiment expressed.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

>From reading this thread it is all about me, me, me or us, us, us, as if we were the sole occupants of this planet to do with it as we wish. But sorry to disillusion the self-obsessed, but we are but a single organism among millions, all of which we are apparently willing to sacrifice so we can get a bigger house, faster cars and electrical gadgets. Can’t people see what we are doing to what makes this planet liveable? I really despair at our stupidity”

……any chance you can rewite that without the generalizing inclusive terms, like “our” and “we”, you know here and there in which case the terms seem to indicate you are speaking for the entire species, or some portion of.

Try reading the thread, I think you will find the sentiment expressed.

Borg

transition said:

me – ……any chance you can rewite that without the generalizing inclusive terms, like “our” and “we”, you know here and there in which case the terms seem to indicate you are speaking for the entire species, or some portion of.

permeate – are humans single organisms or part of a collective spread over the planet?

I don’t have an opinion regards that, exactly as you put it, whatever exactly it means, or intends, you likely are in a better position to fill in the details regards whatever you’re proposing.

You don’t from time to time see something a bit dodgy about the way some individuals chuck around terms like “we” and “us”……

That is true we arent speaking for a borg collective

Cymek said:

transition said:

me – ……any chance you can rewite that without the generalizing inclusive terms, like “our” and “we”, you know here and there in which case the terms seem to indicate you are speaking for the entire species, or some portion of.

permeate – are humans single organisms or part of a collective spread over the planet?

I don’t have an opinion regards that, exactly as you put it, whatever exactly it means, or intends, you likely are in a better position to fill in the details regards whatever you’re proposing.

You don’t from time to time see something a bit dodgy about the way some individuals chuck around terms like “we” and “us”……

That is true we arent speaking for a borg collective

True

but you never know

:)

The_observer said:

.

.
.
This, I like.

:)

transition said:

me – ……any chance you can rewite that without the generalizing inclusive terms, like “our” and “we”, you know here and there in which case the terms seem to indicate you are speaking for the entire species, or some portion of.

permeate – are humans single organisms or part of a collective spread over the planet?

I don’t have an opinion regards that, exactly as you put it, whatever exactly it means, or intends, you likely are in a better position to fill in the details regards whatever you’re proposing.

You don’t from time to time see something a bit dodgy about the way some individuals chuck around terms like “we” and “us”……

You don’t see something a bit dodgy about the way some individuals chuck around terms like the most important thing is the economy?

>…a collective spread over the planet..”

I suppose you’d mean ‘the sum of’ the activities and efforts of many individuals….but can’t be sure.

Anyway, music time.

Michael V said:

The_observer said:

.

.
.
This, I like.

:)

+1

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

me – ……any chance you can rewite that without the generalizing inclusive terms, like “our” and “we”, you know here and there in which case the terms seem to indicate you are speaking for the entire species, or some portion of.

permeate – are humans single organisms or part of a collective spread over the planet?

I don’t have an opinion regards that, exactly as you put it, whatever exactly it means, or intends, you likely are in a better position to fill in the details regards whatever you’re proposing.

You don’t from time to time see something a bit dodgy about the way some individuals chuck around terms like “we” and “us”……

You don’t see something a bit dodgy about the way some individuals chuck around terms like the most important thing is the economy?

Joe smokes cigars

transition said:

>…a collective spread over the planet..”

I suppose you’d mean ‘the sum of’ the activities and efforts of many individuals….but can’t be sure.

Anyway, music time.

Lydia Lunch?

CrazyNeutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

me – ……any chance you can rewite that without the generalizing inclusive terms, like “our” and “we”, you know here and there in which case the terms seem to indicate you are speaking for the entire species, or some portion of.

permeate – are humans single organisms or part of a collective spread over the planet?

I don’t have an opinion regards that, exactly as you put it, whatever exactly it means, or intends, you likely are in a better position to fill in the details regards whatever you’re proposing.

You don’t from time to time see something a bit dodgy about the way some individuals chuck around terms like “we” and “us”……

You don’t see something a bit dodgy about the way some individuals chuck around terms like the most important thing is the economy?

Joe smokes cigars

Whoa there!

I have difficulty understanding what you mean. Could you expand or explain, please?

CrazyNeutrino said:

Michael V said:

The_observer said:

.

.
.
This, I like.

:)

+1

Interesting. I wonder if you like it for reasons different to Observer?

Michael V said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

You don’t see something a bit dodgy about the way some individuals chuck around terms like the most important thing is the economy?

Joe smokes cigars

Whoa there!

I have difficulty understanding what you mean. Could you expand or explain, please?

sure

smoke and mirrors

Witty Rejoinder said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Michael V said:

.
.
This, I like.

:)

+1

Interesting. I wonder if you like it for reasons different to Observer?

Different reasons

:)

Michael V said:

The_observer said:

.

.
.
This, I like.

:)

That cartoon is not very realistic. The average live span has been suggested around middle age, but what you fail to appreciate is infant mortality in those societies (as it was in ours until recently), was exceptionally high, so many lived way past that period. Aborigines did not die when they reached 30, nor I suggest did many other indigenous peoples, in fact hunter/gathers were usually a great deal more healthy than people who took up agriculture..

CrazyNeutrino said:

Michael V said:

The_observer said:

.

.
.
This, I like.

:)

+1

:)
Maybe they should have stopped chasing mammoth returns?

PermeateFree said:

Michael V said:

The_observer said:

.

.
.
This, I like.

:)

That cartoon is not very realistic. The average live span has been suggested around middle age, but what you fail to appreciate is infant mortality in those societies (as it was in ours until recently), was exceptionally high, so many lived way past that period. Aborigines did not die when they reached 30, nor I suggest did many other indigenous peoples, in fact hunter/gathers were usually a great deal more healthy than people who took up agriculture..

What is the world average?

CrazyNeutrino said:

are humans single organisms or part of a collective spread over the planet?

No.

They are both.

roughbarked said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Michael V said:

.
.
This, I like.

:)

+1

:)
Maybe they should have stopped chasing mammoth returns?

I’m really trying to enjoy this wine

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

are humans single organisms or part of a collective spread over the planet?

No.

They are both.

Your right

Witty Rejoinder said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Michael V said:

.
.
This, I like.

:)

+1

Interesting. I wonder if you like it for reasons different to Observer?

I don’t really even get the joke… I mean the answer is ‘science’… that’s way why people live longer now.

diddly-squat said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

+1

Interesting. I wonder if you like it for reasons different to Observer?

I don’t really even get the joke… I mean the answer is ‘science’… that’s way why people live longer now.

Well, engineering rather than science by itself, but the message is much the same.

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Interesting. I wonder if you like it for reasons different to Observer?

I don’t really even get the joke… I mean the answer is ‘science’… that’s way why people live longer now.

Well, engineering rather than science by itself, but the message is much the same.

well yes.. ‘technological advancement’ but in any case I still don’t find it funny, but then maybe you’re not meant to..??

diddly-squat said:

I don’t really even get the joke… I mean the answer is ‘science’… that’s way why people live longer now.

That is the joke I think. Many people who espouse new age ideas like organic food are anti-science.

Witty Rejoinder said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Michael V said:

.
.
This, I like.

:)

+1

Interesting. I wonder if you like it for reasons different to Observer?

Possibly, but I don’t know. I’m not even sure I know why I like it.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Michael V said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Joe smokes cigars

Whoa there!

I have difficulty understanding what you mean. Could you expand or explain, please?

sure

smoke and mirrors

Thanks.

Witty Rejoinder said:

diddly-squat said:

I don’t really even get the joke… I mean the answer is ‘science’… that’s way why people live longer now.

That is the joke I think. Many people who espouse new age ideas like organic food are anti-science.

OK… still not LOL type funny though…

Witty Rejoinder said:

diddly-squat said:

I don’t really even get the joke… I mean the answer is ‘science’… that’s way why people live longer now.

That is the joke I think. Many people who espouse new age ideas like organic food are anti-science.

Organic food is hard work

PermeateFree said:

Michael V said:

The_observer said:

.

.
.
This, I like.

:)

That cartoon is not very realistic. The average live span has been suggested around middle age
Aborigines did not die when they reached 30, nor I suggest did many other indigenous peoples

Life expectancy 1961
Malawi 30
Afghanistan 31
Angola 33
Gambia 33
Cameroon 36

Papua New Guinea (Indigenous) 38

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=wb-wdi&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:ETH&dl=en&hl=en&q=average+life+expectancy+of+ethiopia#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:ETH:AGO:AFG:CMR:CAF:TCD:ZAR:GMB:IND:LBR:MDG:MWI:MLI:NPL:NER:NGA:OMN:PNG:RWA:SEN:SDN:YEM:AUS&ifdim=country&tstart=-291294000000&tend=1255006800000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

diddly-squat said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

+1

Interesting. I wonder if you like it for reasons different to Observer?

I don’t really even get the joke… I mean the answer is ‘science’… that’s way why people live longer now.

Obesity is the new age disease that might change your opinion.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Michael V said:

.
.
This, I like.

:)

That cartoon is not very realistic. The average live span has been suggested around middle age
Aborigines did not die when they reached 30, nor I suggest did many other indigenous peoples

Life expectancy 1961
Malawi 30
Afghanistan 31
Angola 33
Gambia 33
Cameroon 36

Papua New Guinea (Indigenous) 38

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=wb-wdi&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:ETH&dl=en&hl=en&q=average+life+expectancy+of+ethiopia#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:ETH:AGO:AFG:CMR:CAF:TCD:ZAR:GMB:IND:LBR:MDG:MWI:MLI:NPL:NER:NGA:OMN:PNG:RWA:SEN:SDN:YEM:AUS&ifdim=country&tstart=-291294000000&tend=1255006800000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

Even with those figures the indigenous people lived longer than those from agricultural countries. However you need to go back to pre-European times to get a better appreciation, plus from wholly hunter/gather groups, PNG native peoples are settled and do farming if only on a smaller scale.

The_observer said:

So you picked two graphs with similar projects, even though they are not even related. Very good.

projects + projections

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

That cartoon is not very realistic. The average live span has been suggested around middle age
Aborigines did not die when they reached 30, nor I suggest did many other indigenous peoples

Life expectancy 1961
Malawi 30
Afghanistan 31
Angola 33
Gambia 33
Cameroon 36

Papua New Guinea (Indigenous) 38

well those figures for life expectancy in 1961 give an excellent indication that life expectancy back in the ‘cartoon’ era was lower

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=wb-wdi&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:ETH&dl=en&hl=en&q=average+life+expectancy+of+ethiopia#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:ETH:AGO:AFG:CMR:CAF:TCD:ZAR:GMB:IND:LBR:MDG:MWI:MLI:NPL:NER:NGA:OMN:PNG:RWA:SEN:SDN:YEM:AUS&ifdim=country&tstart=-291294000000&tend=1255006800000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

Even with those figures the indigenous people lived longer than those from agricultural countries. However you need to go back to pre-European times to get a better appreciation, plus from wholly hunter/gather groups, PNG native peoples are settled and do farming if only on a smaller scale.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

So you picked two graphs with similar projects, even though they are not even related. Very good.

but they are related

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

So you picked two graphs with similar projects, even though they are not even related. Very good.

but they are related

No the top one is more closely related to global warming, whilst the bottom is more closely related to medical science, although I have no doubt other factor could also be included.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

So you picked two graphs with similar projects, even though they are not even related. Very good.

but they are related

No the top one is more closely related to global warming, whilst the bottom is more closely related to medical science, although I have no doubt other factor could also be included.

cheap abundant electricity is definitely one main reason reason people now live longer

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

but they are related

No the top one is more closely related to global warming, whilst the bottom is more closely related to medical science, although I have no doubt other factor could also be included.

cheap abundant electricity is definitely one main reason reason people now live longer

I see.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

No the top one is more closely related to global warming, whilst the bottom is more closely related to medical science, although I have no doubt other factor could also be included.

cheap abundant electricity is definitely one main reason reason people now live longer

I see.

I thought it was preservatives in food

CrazyNeutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

cheap abundant electricity is definitely one main reason reason people now live longer

I see.

I thought it was preservatives in food

refrigeration

*However you need to go back to pre-European times to get a better appreciation

I would suggest that there is SFA data from that time.

jjjust moi said:

*However you need to go back to pre-European times to get a better appreciation

I would suggest that there is SFA data from that time.

yeah, the conservatives were busy with other matters

jjjust moi said:

*However you need to go back to pre-European times to get a better appreciation

I would suggest that there is SFA data from that time.

There were still aborigines living in the bush with no contact with white men in 1961. As is the case in South America and possibly Africa, etc.

Peak Warming Man said:

The one glaring thing that I have noticed is that the fundamentalist AiGW faithful don’t know the skeptics argument or choose to misrepresent it.

If anyone here was unfamiliar with the “skeptics” argument, this can no longer be the case as observer has repeated it over and over and over … It’s been debunked here a hundred times but he still comes back for his daily rinse cycle.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The one glaring thing that I have noticed is that the fundamentalist AiGW faithful don’t know the skeptics argument or choose to misrepresent it.

If anyone here was unfamiliar with the “skeptics” argument, this can no longer be the case as observer has repeated it over and over and over … It’s been debunked here a hundred times but he still comes back for his daily rinse cycle.

you’ve debunked nothing.

exactly

Sorry, what exactly?

SCIENCE EXACTLY

diddly-squat said:

Let’s say for a moment the AGW is complete horse shit and there is absolutely no connection between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature; or even further that even if this link did exist, that these was no relationship between increasing atmospheric temperatures and increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events. OK…

From the latest IPCC report -

(from Chapter 4):
“There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change”

“The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados”

“The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses”

The report even takes care of tying up a loose end that has allowed some commentators to avoid the scientific literature:

“Some authors suggest that a (natural or anthropogenic) climate change signal can be found in the records of disaster losses (e.g., Mills, 2005; Höppe and Grimm, 2009), but their work is in the nature of reviews and commentary rather than empirical research.”

.
.
A new paper appeared in Climatic Change by Visser et al. 2014 which looks at disasters and climate change (open access here). Like other studies and the IPCC assessment, Visser et al. find no trends in normalized disaster loses, looking at several metrics of economic and human losses.

They conclude:
“The absence of trends in normalized disaster burden indicators appears to be largely consistent with the absence of trends in extreme weather events. This conclusion is more qualitative for the number of people killed. As a consequence, vulnerability is also largely stable over the period of analysis.”

The conclusion here is not surprising. It is consistent with previous data and analyses (e.g., Bouwer 2011, Neumayer and Bartel 2011, Mohleji and Pielke 2014) as well as with the conclusions of the recent IPCC assessments (SREX and AR5).

A recent study by Sheffield et al. (2012) reports little change in global drought over the past 60 years.

2013 – Global integrated drought monitoring and prediction system (below graph)

Zengchao Hao, Amir AghaKouchak, Navid Nakhjiri & Alireza Farahmand

.
.

.
.
Australian Region Tropical Cyclones 1970–2011

.
graph from the US Climate Extremes Index shows the sum of the percentage of the United States
with a much greater than normal number of days with precipitation plus the percentage with a much
greater than normal number of days without precipitation. Five year mean is shown in green.

Cymek said:

It would be an interesting study I think and that’s just going by the people we get on here.
I wonder if you got down to brass tacks its more about the monetary costs than the science you agree or don’t agree with.

Yes, I think so. It was the basis of my non-belief in human-induced global warming. That the market could have any negative outcome.

OCDC said:

SCIENCE EXACTLY

Science is never, exact.

Michael V said:

OCDC said:

SCIENCE EXACTLY

Science is never, exact.

Usual based on fact though.

PermeateFree said:

Michael V said:

OCDC said:

SCIENCE EXACTLY

Science is never, exact.

Usual based on fact though.

Based on the best facts available :)

Here is Warren Buffett on CNBC today talking insurance and climate change:

“The public has the impression that because there’s been so much talk about climate change that events of the last 10 years from an insured standpoint and climate have been usual,” he continued. “The answer is they haven’t.”

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/no-climate-change-impact-insurance-150023173.html

The_observer said:

Here is Warren Buffett on CNBC today talking insurance and climate change:

“The public has the impression that because there’s been so much talk about climate change that events of the last 10 years from an insured standpoint and climate have been usual,” he continued. “The answer is they haven’t.”

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/no-climate-change-impact-insurance-150023173.html

—

While the question of climate change “deserves lots of attention,” Buffett said in a “ Squawk Box “ interview, “It has no effect … the prices we’re charging this year versus five ….

still too expensive

ha ha

The_observer said:

still too expensive

ha ha

Most people know about global warming by now and the die-hard deniers wouldn’t be seen dead improving their knowledge on the subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCnf46boC3I

The_observer said:

still too expensive

ha ha

Yeah, poorly written work of fiction.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

still too expensive

ha ha

Most people know about global warming by now and the die-hard deniers wouldn’t be seen dead improving their knowledge on the subject.

“improving their knowledge on the subject”

yet you couldn’t answer the simple question “what’s you estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity for 2 x co2?”

or

“whats the IPCC’s figure for climate sensitivity, & how has it changed since the last report????”

doesn’t get much simpler than that

jjjust moi said:

The_observer said:

still too expensive

ha ha

Yeah, poorly written work of fiction.

I haven’t read the book but I watched the movie

still too expensive

you could probably get it free online somewhere. it’s a bit dated now though.

The_observer said:

jjjust moi said:

The_observer said:

still too expensive

ha ha

Yeah, poorly written work of fiction.

I haven’t read the book but I watched the movie

Best ignore them as they know no better poor souls.

ChrispenEvan said:

still too expensive

you could probably get it free online somewhere. it’s a bit dated now though.

garage sale

This is the first book I read on the subject of climate change

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=jyD4sBCg11EC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

climate process & change

Edward Bryant

quite a bit of the book can be read on that link

(fixed)

The_observer said:

jjjust moi said:

The_observer said:

still too expensive

ha ha

Yeah, poorly written work of fiction.

I haven’t read the book but I watched the movie

One of these days I’m going to make up a time-chart of apocalypses that were supposed to happen – with the second axis showing the volume of debate in scientific circles. Such apocalypses include:

Earth’s going to be hit by Halley’s comet (1910)
Pollution is going to kill tens of millions of people
World War III
We’re heading for an ice age
…
Ozone hole
Crown of thorns
El Nino
Millennium bug
End of the Mayan calendar
Giant asteroid impact
Supervolcano
Earth’s magnetic field is weakening
SARS
H5N1 becomes human-human transmissible
etc.

Only one predicted apocalypse DID happen – AIDS/HIV.

mollwollfumble said:

One of these days I’m going to make up a time-chart of apocalypses that were supposed to happen – with the second axis showing the volume of debate in scientific circles. Such apocalypses include:

etc.

…
Malthusian starvation
Finish all non-renewable resources
Population explosion
Economic collapse
…
Copper-chrome-arsenic timber
Lead poisoning from car exhausts
Build-up of mutations in the human genome
Increased crop uniformity leads to destruction of food resources
etc.

mollwollfumble said:

One of these days I’m going to make up a time-chart of apocalypses that were supposed to happen – with the second axis showing the volume of debate in scientific circles. Such apocalypses include:

Earth’s going to be hit by Halley’s comet (1910)
Pollution is going to kill tens of millions of people
World War III
We’re heading for an ice age
…
Ozone hole
Crown of thorns
El Nino
Millennium bug
End of the Mayan calendar
Giant asteroid impact
Supervolcano
Earth’s magnetic field is weakening
SARS
H5N1 becomes human-human transmissible
etc.

Only one predicted apocalypse DID happen – AIDS/HIV.

acid rain

CFC

mollwollfumble said:

One of these days I’m going to make up a time-chart of apocalypses that were supposed to happen – with the second axis showing the volume of debate in scientific circles. Such apocalypses include:

Earth’s going to be hit by Halley’s comet (1910)
Pollution is going to kill tens of millions of people
World War III
We’re heading for an ice age
…
Ozone hole
Crown of thorns
El Nino
Millennium bug
End of the Mayan calendar
Giant asteroid impact
Supervolcano
Earth’s magnetic field is weakening
SARS
H5N1 becomes human-human transmissible
etc.

Only one predicted apocalypse DID happen – AIDS/HIV.

The was a major problem with the Ozone hole and had not the world’s users of ozone-depleting substances stopped using them (largely because there were cheap substitute), then you might be attending a clinic to have your skin cancers removed.

The Crown of thorns is still a major problem on the Great Barrier Reef by destroying and downgrading vast areas of the reef. It is an ongoing battle trying to keep their numbers down and in many areas we are losing it, so perhaps you should take a holiday in the region to appreciate the problem.

El Nino is a major cyclical event producing strong or weak climate changes. Strong El Nino event create extreme droughts in the Eastern States and for the farmers and other land users there – IT IS apocalyptic!

Most of the other predicted apocalypse events of yours were not supported by science and were nothing but scare mongering by various nutters. Global Warming is not only supported by science, but by over 90% of scientists, so to compare that with the above is ludicrous.

PermeateFree said:

The Crown of thorns is still a major problem on the Great Barrier Reef by destroying and downgrading vast areas of the reef. It is an ongoing battle trying to keep their numbers down and in many areas we are losing it, so perhaps you should take a holiday in the region to appreciate the problem.

robots

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

One of these days I’m going to make up a time-chart of apocalypses that were supposed to happen – with the second axis showing the volume of debate in scientific circles. Such apocalypses include:

etc.

…
Malthusian starvation
Finish all non-renewable resources
Population explosion
Economic collapse
…
Copper-chrome-arsenic timber
Lead poisoning from car exhausts
Build-up of mutations in the human genome
Increased crop uniformity leads to destruction of food resources
etc.

Population explosion is happening with the human population predicted to reach 9 or even 10 billion by mid this century. As we currently need something like 3.5 earths to support our current population, it seriously makes you wonder where you are getting your information.

Lead poisoning from car exhausts. Wasn’t this considered a considerable problem in big cities some years ago when all the petrol used for cars had lead additives, but thanks to science, car engines were improved to use un-leaded petrol?

As for the rest, some have merit and are a distinct possibility, thereby increasing the environmental problems we are creating for ourselves, although they are not necessarily a major problem today.

Population explosion is happening
—

No.

wookiemeister said:

PermeateFree said:

The Crown of thorns is still a major problem on the Great Barrier Reef by destroying and downgrading vast areas of the reef. It is an ongoing battle trying to keep their numbers down and in many areas we are losing it, so perhaps you should take a holiday in the region to appreciate the problem.

robots

They are trying something new, apparently most of the crown of thorns larvae is spread from a small number of reefs, so they are going to try controlling them there to reduce their numbers further afield.

dv said:

Population explosion is happening
—

No.

Currently around 7 billion.
Around mid century 9-10 billion.
That seems a big increase to me.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Population explosion is happening
—

No.

Currently around 7 billion.
Around mid century 9-10 billion.
That seems a big increase to me.

Nup. The growth has tanked, in sharp decline since the 1980s. Population stagnation is going to be a significant problem.

But we’ve had this conversation before.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Population explosion is happening
—

No.

Currently around 7 billion.
Around mid century 9-10 billion.
That seems a big increase to me.

Nup. The growth has tanked, in sharp decline since the 1980s. Population stagnation is going to be a significant problem.

But we’ve had this conversation before.

Please remind me again?

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Population explosion is happening
—

No.

Currently around 7 billion.
Around mid century 9-10 billion.
That seems a big increase to me.

Nup. The growth has tanked, in sharp decline since the 1980s. Population stagnation is going to be a significant problem.

But we’ve had this conversation before.

Why so?

AwesomeO said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

Currently around 7 billion.
Around mid century 9-10 billion.
That seems a big increase to me.

Nup. The growth has tanked, in sharp decline since the 1980s. Population stagnation is going to be a significant problem.

But we’ve had this conversation before.

Why so?

https://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=Population&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GUEA_enAU550AU550&q=population+of+the+world&gs_l=hp..4.0l5.0.0.0.10970………..0.PPiDuSQirNU&qscrl=1

AwesomeO said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

Currently around 7 billion.
Around mid century 9-10 billion.
That seems a big increase to me.

Nup. The growth has tanked, in sharp decline since the 1980s. Population stagnation is going to be a significant problem.

But we’ve had this conversation before.

Why so?

Because as the growth declines and becomes negative, it means the ageing population problem currently restricted to western countries will be global.

dv said:

AwesomeO said:

dv said:

Nup. The growth has tanked, in sharp decline since the 1980s. Population stagnation is going to be a significant problem.

But we’ve had this conversation before.

Why so?

Because as the growth declines and becomes negative, it means the ageing population problem currently restricted to western countries will be global.

Yes hopefully around 2050.

dv said:

A nice squiggly line, but could we have a little more information?

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

!http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/ World_population_growth_rate_1950%E2%80%932050 .svg

A nice squiggly line, but could we have a little more information?

I think the link name gives a little hint

It would be good if the planet can reduce some of its human populations, though by then be no rhinos in the wild.

poikilotherm said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

!http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/ World_population_growth_rate_1950%E2%80%932050 .svg

A nice squiggly line, but could we have a little more information?

I think the link name gives a little hint

Nope, says link is broken. On that link I supplied there were a number of other links to global population figures and none had a downward trend.

PermeateFree said:

poikilotherm said:

PermeateFree said:

A nice squiggly line, but could we have a little more information?

I think the link name gives a little hint

Nope, says link is broken. On that link I supplied there were a number of other links to global population figures and none had a downward trend.

growth rate

AwesomeO said:

It would be good if the planet can reduce some of its human populations, though by then be no rhinos in the wild.

By then there will be a lot less of everything in the wild.

poikilotherm said:

PermeateFree said:

poikilotherm said:

I think the link name gives a little hint

Nope, says link is broken. On that link I supplied there were a number of other links to global population figures and none had a downward trend.

growth rate

Yes from 7 billion, growing to over 9 billion.

Then again if life starts looking precarious the birth rate will go up I presume.

Then again if life starts looking precarious the birth rate will go up I presume.

But you know all this because we had this conversation before.

Not that I am predicting a calamity but the population implosion will require careful planning to manage it.

PermeateFree said:

poikilotherm said:

PermeateFree said:

Nope, says link is broken. On that link I supplied there were a number of other links to global population figures and none had a downward trend.

growth rate

Yes from 7 billion, growing to over 9 billion.

That’s overall growth, the growth rate as a percentage is down

dv said:

That is the % rate of change in world population and has little to do with actual population numbers.

The original statement was population explosion, not the rate of % change and that is it will not change for at least 2050.

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

That is the % rate of change in world population and has little to do with actual population numbers.

he catches on quick

There is an article over in the drum

Despite these advances, the remaining challenges are confronting, particularly with the world’s population projected to rise from 7.2 billion to 9.6 billion by 2050. There are still 1.2 billion people living in extreme poverty, many in sub-Saharan Africa. Progress in reducing world hunger has slowed in the last decade.

AwesomeO said:

There is an article over in the drum

Despite these advances, the remaining challenges are confronting, particularly with the world’s population projected to rise from 7.2 billion to 9.6 billion by 2050. There are still 1.2 billion people living in extreme poverty, many in sub-Saharan Africa. Progress in reducing world hunger has slowed in the last decade.

the only way to make the situation sustainable is to limit the numbers of kids per family, or per man say.

contraception

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

That is the % rate of change in world population and has little to do with actual population numbers.

he catches on quick

That graph is for World Population, the graph is dominated by changes in the population growth of India, China, Pakistan, Indonesia etc. But what is somewhat worrying is that populations in many first world countries including the USA, parts of Europe and even Australia, are starting to grow faster again. The USA accelerated growth is particularly worrying as population trends in the USA tend to lead by ten or more years trends in other countries. In 1976 the total fertility rate in the USA was 1.74, by 2007 it had risen to 2.12.

What’s worrying is the decrease in the population growth rate.

dv said:

What’s worrying is the decrease in the population growth rate.

Can’t see me losing any sleep. Why does it bother you? Not enough crowds to keep all the wide open spaces at bay?

mollwollfumble said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

That is the % rate of change in world population and has little to do with actual population numbers.

he catches on quick

That graph is for World Population, the graph is dominated by changes in the population growth of India, China, Pakistan, Indonesia etc. But what is somewhat worrying is that populations in many first world countries including the USA, parts of Europe and even Australia, are starting to grow faster again. The USA accelerated growth is particularly worrying as population trends in the USA tend to lead by ten or more years trends in other countries. In 1976 the total fertility rate in the USA was 1.74, by 2007 it had risen to 2.12.

Islam

mollwollfumble said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

That is the % rate of change in world population and has little to do with actual population numbers.

he catches on quick

That graph is for World Population, the graph is dominated by changes in the population growth of India, China, Pakistan, Indonesia etc. But what is somewhat worrying is that populations in many first world countries including the USA, parts of Europe and even Australia, are starting to grow faster again. The USA accelerated growth is particularly worrying as population trends in the USA tend to lead by ten or more years trends in other countries. In 1976 the total fertility rate in the USA was 1.74, by 2007 it had risen to 2.12.

That is NOT a graph for World Population, but it IS a graph for the change of population growth, which only means the % increase is less than in the past period, although the actual numbers cumulatively can be far higher.

As a simple example:
Unit 1 in base year.
One decade later the unit has doubled 1+1 = 2 or 100%
Two decades later another unit is added 2+1 = 3 or 50%
Three decades later yet another unit is added 3+1 = 4 or 25%
Four decades later two units are added 4+2 = 6 or 50%

As can be seen, despite the substantial increases the % growth rate is down from the previous decade. To be in the plus % growth rate there would need to be more units added in one period than in the previous decade.