Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects, Environment, etc part III


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects, Environment, etc part III

Previous · 1 . . . 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 . . . 29 · Next
Author Message
Profile Es99Project donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 8949
Credit: 253,141
RAC: 70
Canada
Message 1302286 - Posted: 4 Nov 2012, 21:54:33 UTC - in response to Message 1302283.

You figure out the long term trend:





The question is: "was is it increasing?" Clearly this shows it is still going up and has a positive growth rate.

Stop confusing the second derivative with the first derivative. As a teacher you should know the difference.


Your graph may be bigger than my graph, but even you can see that the long term trend is that at some point in the future the growth rate will be negative.

Perhaps I should have spelt it out for you. I thought me giving a date of 2030 and a graph was clue enough of what I meant.

*sigh* You really are very rude and partronising sometimes.
____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8446
Credit: 4,149,076
RAC: 1,700
United Kingdom
Message 1302292 - Posted: 4 Nov 2012, 22:06:08 UTC - in response to Message 1302272.

Cite the report and name the "assumptions" it contradicts and how those "assumptions" are used in current GCMs.

Already cited. Go check out the previous editions of this thread.

Good wild goose chase from you...

Care to save us all the wasted chasing and list your reference please?


Or all just a smoke screen and FUD from you as always?

This is still our only one planet for everyone,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Reed Young
Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 06
Posts: 122
Credit: 81,383
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1302325 - Posted: 4 Nov 2012, 23:32:46 UTC - in response to Message 1302292.

Cite the report and name the "assumptions" it contradicts and how those "assumptions" are used in current GCMs.

Already cited. Go check out the previous editions of this thread.

Good wild goose chase from you...

True, and typical of these people.
____________

Reed Young
Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 06
Posts: 122
Credit: 81,383
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1302340 - Posted: 5 Nov 2012, 0:57:05 UTC - in response to Message 1302272.

Cite the report and name the "assumptions" it contradicts and how those "assumptions" are used in current GCMs.

Already cited. Go check out the previous editions of this thread.

At the moment, you have 8770 posts and I see no way to filter them according to the specific thread in which you posted them. I'm new here, so you'll excuse me if I'm missing some way to make a search for that one post of yours a reasonable effort. But from where I'm sitting, your challenge to wade through so many pages just to have an argument with one anonymous dude on the Internet gives the impression that your source is garbage, and that you know it's garbage. I wouldn't expect you to provide information that proves my point, but when you claim some information supports your point but then you refuse to simply link to it, now this makes it look like you're just full of **it, and worse, that you know you're full of **it.
____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12569
Credit: 6,873,051
RAC: 6,366
United States
Message 1302346 - Posted: 5 Nov 2012, 1:29:19 UTC - in response to Message 1302286.

Your graph may be bigger than my graph, but even you can see that the long term trend is that at some point in the future the growth rate will be negative.

Perhaps I should have spelt it out for you. I thought me giving a date of 2030 and a graph was clue enough of what I meant.

*sigh* You really are very rude and partronising sometimes.

I see the rate of growth flattening out to around 0.4%. I don't see it going below the zero line. It may, but I don't think the data supports that conclusion at this time. In other words people are finding ways to game the system to have more than one child per couple. IIRC a birth rate of about 2.1 is required for zero population growth. It should be obvious that China isn't able to have enforce its policy of a birth rate of 1.0. Note: birth rate is a different scale than the population growth scale on the charts.

Now would you like to talk about a policy of forced abortion and forced sterilization? If China with this is having a problem getting their growth rate to zero is there any hope at all?


____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12569
Credit: 6,873,051
RAC: 6,366
United States
Message 1302348 - Posted: 5 Nov 2012, 1:32:44 UTC - in response to Message 1302292.
Last modified: 5 Nov 2012, 1:45:12 UTC

Cite the report and name the "assumptions" it contradicts and how those "assumptions" are used in current GCMs.

Already cited. Go check out the previous editions of this thread.

Good wild goose chase from you...

Care to save us all the wasted chasing and list your reference please?

IIRC you replied to it at the time.

ed: found it and your replies martin.
____________

Profile Es99Project donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 8949
Credit: 253,141
RAC: 70
Canada
Message 1302381 - Posted: 5 Nov 2012, 3:48:30 UTC - in response to Message 1302346.

Your graph may be bigger than my graph, but even you can see that the long term trend is that at some point in the future the growth rate will be negative.

Perhaps I should have spelt it out for you. I thought me giving a date of 2030 and a graph was clue enough of what I meant.

*sigh* You really are very rude and partronising sometimes.

I see the rate of growth flattening out to around 0.4%. I don't see it going below the zero line. It may, but I don't think the data supports that conclusion at this time. In other words people are finding ways to game the system to have more than one child per couple. IIRC a birth rate of about 2.1 is required for zero population growth. It should be obvious that China isn't able to have enforce its policy of a birth rate of 1.0. Note: birth rate is a different scale than the population growth scale on the charts.

Now would you like to talk about a policy of forced abortion and forced sterilization? If China with this is having a problem getting their growth rate to zero is there any hope at all?


I'll repost the link again that you obviously didn't read: The most surprising demographic crisis

Now I shall quote the passage that you should have read the first time and that proves you wrong:

"But new census figures bolster claims made in the past few years that China is suffering from a demographic problem of a different sort: too low a birth rate. The latest numbers, released on April 28th and based on the nationwide census conducted last year, show a total population for mainland China of 1.34 billion. They also reveal a steep decline in the average annual population growth rate, down to 0.57% in 2000-10, half the rate of 1.07% in the previous decade. The data imply that the total fertility rate, which is the number of children a woman of child-bearing age can expect to have, on average, during her lifetime, may now be just 1.4, far below the “replacement rate” of 2.1, which eventually leads to the population stabilising."

Now I shall quote another part of the article RE the one child policy that you didn't read either:

"Other countries achieved similar declines in fertility during the same period. The crucial influences, Mr Wang reckons, are the benefits of development, including better health care and sharp drops in high infant-mortality rates which led people to have many children in order to ensure that at least some would survive. By implication, coercive controls had little to do with lowering fertility, which would have happened anyway. Countries that simply improved access to contraceptives—Thailand and Indonesia, for instance—did as much to reduce fertility as China, with its draconian policies. Taiwan, which the government in Beijing regards as an integral part of China, cut its fertility rate as much as China without population controls."

Sure don't take my word for what I say, but at least read the source I put up with some actual data before you get all snitty and condescending. I don't tend to just pull things out of my arse you know.
____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

BarryAZ
Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 12,177,831
RAC: 4,506
United States
Message 1302389 - Posted: 5 Nov 2012, 4:28:07 UTC - in response to Message 1302381.

One of the effects of China's single child policy -- an unstable male/female ratio -- something like 1.15 to 1.0....

Profile Michel448a
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 27 Oct 00
Posts: 1201
Credit: 2,891,635
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1302397 - Posted: 5 Nov 2012, 5:13:12 UTC
Last modified: 5 Nov 2012, 5:14:35 UTC

euh... i always thought about this ... 'greenhouse'' effect is a joke, a big joke. tahts a big LIE

i live in Quebec, Canada. and no it s not getting any 'warmer' or 'more hot' it s totally the opposite. we have less and less and less summer. and we get more and more and more winter. every year

i dont believe that, its the opposite
i believe more in a new iceage era started coming :(
____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8446
Credit: 4,149,076
RAC: 1,700
United Kingdom
Message 1302507 - Posted: 5 Nov 2012, 17:07:41 UTC - in response to Message 1302397.
Last modified: 5 Nov 2012, 17:30:01 UTC

euh... i always thought about this ... 'greenhouse'' effect is a joke, a big joke. tahts a big LIE

i live in Quebec, Canada. and no it s not getting any 'warmer' or 'more hot' it s totally the opposite. we have less and less and less summer. and we get more and more and more winter. every year

i dont believe that, its the opposite
i believe more in a new iceage era started coming :(

For your part of the world, and for the UK unfortunately, that may well be the case. (The Gulf stream gets killed due to lack of salinity due to ice melt...)

Meanwhile, other parts of the world cook into temperatures that become uninhabitable. (And the death/redirection of the Gulf stream exacerbates that further...)

All a severe case of the forced change of climate rearranging the weather circulation for everyone. Rather uncomfortably disruptive.

Don't believe it?... Well, there's very hard acknowledged evidence that just the pollution and "global dimming" from European industry shifted the clouds and rain pattern for Africa by hundreds of miles with the obvious resultant drought in some places, floods in others.

We've had the debacle of deforestation due to acid rain from pollution, now largely cleaned up.

We're still ongoing with the CFCs cleanup to avert the loss of atmospheric ozone. Worldwide sunburn anyone?...


CO2 pollution is the BIGGIE. Can we avert that in time before we melt the Canadian and Russian permafrost? (We've already lost the Arctic summer ice, and ahead of time...)

Ooops... Almost forgot about the Canadian Alberta "Burn baby burn"... That one is also threatening the Great Lakes through good old fashioned oil production/mining pollution...


All on our only planet,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8644
Credit: 24,363,185
RAC: 25,633
United Kingdom
Message 1303815 - Posted: 9 Nov 2012, 3:01:11 UTC

New piece in the Washington Post

Warmer still: Extreme climate predictions appear most accurate, report says


Climate scientists agree the Earth will be hotter by the end of the century, but their simulations don’t agree on how much. Now a study suggests the gloomier predictions may be closer to the mark.

“Warming is likely to be on the high side of the projections,” said John Fasullo of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., a co-author of the report, which was based on satellite measurements of the atmosphere.

Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1303966 - Posted: 9 Nov 2012, 12:38:01 UTC

An unfair comment when the impact of climate warming is not really fully understood.

Certainly the predictions of a 5C rise in average temperatures will cause the biosphere to die is likely to be a proven lie. But, we certainly will get more freak (once in a 100 years) weather on a regular basis. But, the doomsayers are exaggerating.
____________
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31760
Credit: 13,137,631
RAC: 37,327
United Kingdom
Message 1303972 - Posted: 9 Nov 2012, 12:52:57 UTC

But that is what doomsayers do John, they have a reputation to live up to, and a living to earn. The annual subs to the International Doomsayers Society are due 31st December.

Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1303975 - Posted: 9 Nov 2012, 13:17:16 UTC
Last modified: 9 Nov 2012, 13:22:39 UTC

A modern equivalent of the 1600s looking for monsters in the woods, or the Grimm fairy tales ...

The population seems to love and support the doom mongers. That is except there are many more educated sane and clearer thinking people around now to challenge them.

Unfortunately, as you say, they make predictions of disaster that is unrealistic - like sea levels will rise more than 150 metres (you will all drown), average temperatures will rise 10C and you will all fry to death, etc.

I would love to come back in 2230 and find they were right on a temperature rise, and an increase in freak weather, but the biosphere, and humans, were in rude health and slightly fewer than now.
____________
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8644
Credit: 24,363,185
RAC: 25,633
United Kingdom
Message 1303987 - Posted: 9 Nov 2012, 13:49:34 UTC

You two are beginning to sound like the Republican supporters in the US. Elderly white and stuck in your beliefs.

It only needs the Atlantic currents to change because of the Artic ice melting and UK weather will change drastically. The Northern parts of UK are at the same latitude as southern Alaska.

Therefore it is possible the the UK is going to get colder not warmer.

I admit to being a believer in climate change since I did a filler module associated with the subject (alternative power sources) at the OU to get my degree in the 70's.

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8446
Credit: 4,149,076
RAC: 1,700
United Kingdom
Message 1304007 - Posted: 9 Nov 2012, 14:52:08 UTC - in response to Message 1303987.

You two are beginning to sound like the Republican supporters in the US. Elderly white and stuck in your beliefs.

[...]

I admit to being a believer in climate change since I did a filler module associated with the subject (alternative power sources) at the OU to get my degree in the 70's.

Nothing new then, only that the pollution problems have remained ignored for yet longer.

Amongst the known sponsored FUD by the fossil fuels industry, and likely also from the farming industry: I wonder if there is also a strong element of the present older people of influence who blindly refuse to admit they and their careers have had a hand in the ever increasing pollution.

Old misplaced embarrassment and pride fueling outright denial?

Or just plain old corruption to selfishly make more profit at everyone else's cost?


Can our politicians timely steer industry to 'save us'?


All on our only planet,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31760
Credit: 13,137,631
RAC: 37,327
United Kingdom
Message 1304042 - Posted: 9 Nov 2012, 16:31:26 UTC

You two are beginning to sound like the Republican supporters in the US. Elderly white and stuck in your beliefs.


Poppycock! White yes, but older, wiser, and still remembering the time when the world was run a damn sight better that it is now. Stuck in our beliefs? Not at all, more a case of standing by ones principles. Yes we know global warming is happening, witness the lack of arctic summer ice this year, and other measurements. But it is not happening at the rate that a lot of people say it is.

As an ex OU man myself (S102, T102, M205) what take did the put on it?

Bad news sells newspapers, always has done, always will do.

Hrrrumph!

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12569
Credit: 6,873,051
RAC: 6,366
United States
Message 1304052 - Posted: 9 Nov 2012, 16:50:55 UTC - in response to Message 1303815.

Nuclear winter only solution to global warming that can be implemented from an engineering standpoint in time to save the planet.

____________

Terror Australis
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1715
Credit: 205,096,484
RAC: 27,010
Australia
Message 1304059 - Posted: 9 Nov 2012, 17:02:41 UTC - in response to Message 1303987.

.....I admit to being a believer in climate change since I did a filler module associated with the subject (alternative power sources) at the OU to get my degree in the 70's.

If you did your degree in the 1970's, "Climate Change" mean't Global Cooling" didn't it ?

IIRC, "We were all gonna die" because crops would fail due to shorter growing seasons, harsher winters, increased glaciation etc. etc.

T.A.

Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1304186 - Posted: 9 Nov 2012, 21:04:09 UTC
Last modified: 9 Nov 2012, 21:05:19 UTC

I also believe that Global Warming is happening, and I also believe that the extra energy (temperature) in the atmosphere is producing a more frequent and freaky weather patterns.

I can also see the Arctic ice is disappearing.

So, when the North Atlantic currents (Gulf Stream) stops flowing, and the UK and the near continent starts to cool (same latitude ad Newfoundland and Moscow). Then winter will set in, and, on the same scare mongering prediction as the warmists, within 100 years we will have permanent 9-10 month winters, and start to starve as crop growing cycles are too short. Then within 1,000 years Britain will be under 2 miles of ice and the next great glaciation will occur.

Following this, as the ocean levels drop by 200 meters, as the moisture is locked in the ice and snow across Europe and North America, the Gulf Stream will restart after 10,000 years. Then things will warm up in the UK and Europe, but the human population will be a meer 1,000 billion strong. In the mean time, for survival, humans will burn wood and coal and it all starts again ...
____________
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



Previous · 1 . . . 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 . . . 29 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects, Environment, etc part III

Copyright © 2014 University of California