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

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

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 . . . 27 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
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.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1302381 · Report as offensive
BarryAZ

Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 16,982,517
RAC: 0
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....

ID: 1302389 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20147
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
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: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1302507 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19013
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
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.
ID: 1303815 · Report as offensive
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



ID: 1303966 · Report as offensive
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



ID: 1303975 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19013
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
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.
ID: 1303987 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20147
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
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: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1304007 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
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.

ID: 1304052 · Report as offensive
Terror Australis
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1817
Credit: 262,693,308
RAC: 44
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.
ID: 1304059 · Report as offensive
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



ID: 1304186 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19013
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1304208 - Posted: 9 Nov 2012, 21:56:27 UTC - in response to Message 1304059.  

No, there were studies in the 60's indicating that increased CO2 was having an effect. Think smog in CA.

And there have been studies, rejected at the time, that the greenhouse effect was increasing back in the 1930's.
ID: 1304208 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19013
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1304210 - Posted: 9 Nov 2012, 21:58:32 UTC - in response to Message 1304042.  

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!

Without looking it up but wasn't there a report recently that said Greenland's glaciers were melting faster than expected.
ID: 1304210 · Report as offensive
Reed Young

Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 06
Posts: 122
Credit: 81,383
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1304227 - Posted: 9 Nov 2012, 22:31:00 UTC - in response to Message 1304059.  

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

Only if you got your "science" from two corporate media pieces and ignored the scientific journals. Which it seems you still do.
ID: 1304227 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20147
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1305367 - Posted: 12 Nov 2012, 14:45:01 UTC - in response to Message 1304208.  

No, there were studies in the 60's indicating that increased CO2 was having an effect. Think smog in CA.

And there have been studies, rejected at the time, that the greenhouse effect was increasing back in the 1930's.

... And others stretching right back the start of the Industrial Revolution.

One recently in the press from 40 years ago which was 'swept under the political carpet' back then for not being 'immediate enough' was:

Moynihan, as Nixon aide, warned of global warming

... There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.

"This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit," he wrote. "This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."...



Do we really have to wait until too late to clean up our latest biggest industrial pollution?

Or is this all a cruel political and Marketing game with our planet?


All on our only planet,
Martin

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1305367 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20147
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1305425 - Posted: 12 Nov 2012, 18:00:52 UTC - in response to Message 1305375.  

Todays UK daily Express ...

All well and so...

Anything in there as to "why" and "how"?...

Or should we guess that the focus will be on sensationalism and profiteering by the fossil fuels companies?


All on our only planet,
Martin

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1305425 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1305432 - Posted: 12 Nov 2012, 18:08:00 UTC - in response to Message 1305367.  

... There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.

"This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit," he wrote. "This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."...

Did it happen? No. Why should anyone listen to chicken little?

The CO2 is rising ... The CO2 is rising ... The CO2 is rising ...

Just plain obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that the models that call for this have serious significant errors in them, or garbage inputs are being applied, or BOTH!

ID: 1305432 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1305437 - Posted: 12 Nov 2012, 18:14:26 UTC - in response to Message 1305432.  

... There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.

"This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit," he wrote. "This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."...

Did it happen? No. Why should anyone listen to chicken little?

The CO2 is rising ... The CO2 is rising ... The CO2 is rising ...

Just plain obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that the models that call for this have serious significant errors in them, or garbage inputs are being applied, or BOTH!

You've been duped Gary.

The climate change deniers: influence out of all proportion to science
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1305437 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20147
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1305439 - Posted: 12 Nov 2012, 18:18:36 UTC - in response to Message 1305432.  

... There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.

"This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit," he wrote. "This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."...

Did it happen? ...

Yes it has... The various consequent effects are following on. Note the no Arctic summertime ice just for one significant example?...

Can you please give some real world substance as opposed to your manic desperation to scream "no change" and "not our fault"?...


Or are you just an old contrary troll denying over 200 years of industrialization?

All on our only planet,
Martin



See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1305439 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1305443 - Posted: 12 Nov 2012, 18:24:18 UTC

How about an actual peer reviewed paper?
Expert credibility in climate change

and Everything you need to know about climate change - interactive

If you are still a climate change denier you are on the wrong side of history and the consequences are too devastating to ignore.

The same people that ran a huge campaign to confuse the issue on whether smoking is safe on behalf of the tobacco industry are at work here, this time working for the oil companies.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1305443 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 . . . 27 · Next

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


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.