2015 the hottest year on record

[Jara 1,153]

14 hours ago, ProDee said:

I highly recommend you read every word of this including the comments section.

http://landscapesandcycles.net/polar-bear-gate-a-picture-is-worth-a-thousand-lies.html

This piece was written by a fellow called Jim Steele, a noted climate denier who, from what I can see of his blog, has no qualifications whatsoever in climate science (not that there's anything wrong with that, I suppose - he's a high school science teacher, so I'm sure he knows more about it than me - and to be fair, Tim Flannery isn't a climate scientist either) 

[dieter 3,325]

43 minutes ago, Jara said:

This piece was written by a fellow called Jim Steele, a noted climate denier who, from what I can see of his blog, has no qualifications whatsoever in climate science (not that there's anything wrong with that, I suppose - he's a high school science teacher, so I'm sure he knows more about it than me - and to be fair, Tim Flannery isn't a climate scientist either) 

Also, who pays him to make sheep-like climate change denying bleats?

[daisycutter 28,727]

There is much more to worry about than AGW in the future

The UN maintain a model and release yearly World Population Forecast updates

Contrary to previous recent models forecasting global population to plateau at about 9B by mid century they are now forecasting a staggering 11.2B by century end. So much for the Infallibility of scientific models. The UN have a consistent record of under-estimating future population growth, so this could mean that the 11.2B (or more) could come much earlier. When I was born the world was about 2.5B.

World population reached:	Year	Time to add 1 billion
1 billion	1804
2 billion	1927	123 years
3 billion	1960	33 years
4 billion	1974	14 years
5 billion	1987	13 years
6 billion	1999	12 years

https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/world-population-prospects-the-2017-revision.html

following is an excerpt, use link above for full article

World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision

21 June 2017

The current world population of 7.6 billion is expected to reach 8.6 billion in 2030, 9.8 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 2100, according to a new United Nations report being launched today. With roughly 83 million people being added to the world’s population every year, the upward trend in population size is expected to continue, even assuming that fertility levels will continue to decline.

The World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision, published by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, provides a comprehensive review of global demographic trends and prospects for the future. The information is essential to guide policies aimed at achieving the new Sustainable Development Goals.

Shifts in country population rankings

The new projections include some notable findings at the country level. China (with 1.4 billion inhabitants) and India (1.3 billion inhabitants) remain the two most populous countries, comprising 19 and 18% of the total global population. In roughly seven years, or around 2024, the population of India is expected to surpass that of China.

Among the ten largest countries worldwide, Nigeria is growing the most rapidly. Consequently, the population of Nigeria, currently the world’s 7th largest, is projected to surpass that of the United States and become the third largest country in the world shortly before 2050.

Most of the global increase is attributable to a small number of countries

From 2017 to 2050, it is expected that half of the world’s population growth will be concentrated in just nine countries: India, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Ethiopia, the United Republic of Tanzania, the United States of America, Uganda and Indonesia (ordered by their expected contribution to total growth).

The group of 47 least developed countries (LDCs) continues to have a relatively high level of fertility, which stood at 4.3 births per woman in 2010-2015. As a result, the population of these countries has been growing rapidly, at around 2.4 % per year. Although this rate of increase is expected to slow significantly over the coming decades, the combined population of the LDCs, roughly one billion in 2017, is projected to increase by 33 % between 2017 and 2030, and to reach 1.9 billion persons in 2050.

Similarly, Africa continues to experience high rates of population growth. Between 2017 and 2050, the populations of 26 African countries are projected to expand to at least double their current size.

The concentration of global population growth in the poorest countries presents a considerable challenge to governments in implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which seeks to end poverty and hunger, expand and update health and education systems, achieve gender equality and women’s empowerment, reduce inequality and ensure that no one is left behind.

[Jara 1,153]

I'm with you there, Daisy - population growth scares the bejesus out of me - especially when I walk down Swanston Street, it feels like most of them are moving here. No planning, no infrastructure, dog eat dog for the jobs, property development the only industry.

 

I sometimes think - none of us really knows how climate change will affect us, but imagine what it will be like in fifty years and the environment really is collapsing and our population is fifty million? Chaos.

[daisycutter 28,727]

37 minutes ago, Jara said:

I'm with you there, Daisy - population growth scares the bejesus out of me - especially when I walk down Swanston Street, it feels like most of them are moving here. No planning, no infrastructure, dog eat dog for the jobs, property development the only industry.

 

I sometimes think - none of us really knows how climate change will affect us, but imagine what it will be like in fifty years and the environment really is collapsing and our population is fifty million? Chaos.

Yep. Makes you wonder where all the lithium is going to come from to store all that solar power and run all the electric cars which use as many KWh's per day as an average house..........all of which during massive global people migrations and civil wars....

armageddon scenarios are such fun 

but globalisation will save us 

[Jara 1,153]

3 hours ago, daisycutter said:

Yep. Makes you wonder where all the lithium is going to come from to store all that solar power and run all the electric cars which use as many KWh's per day as an average house..........all of which during massive global people migrations and civil wars....

armageddon scenarios are such fun 

but globalisation will save us 

Yes, but looking at tonight's news, globalisation seems to include the spread of nuclear weapons from a North Korea desperate for cash - that'll end well. 

[daisycutter 28,727]

4 minutes ago, Jara said:

Yes, but looking at tonight's news, globalisation seems to include the spread of nuclear weapons from a North Korea desperate for cash - that'll end well. 

you didn't see my  emoticon?

[Jara 1,153]

Well, I did, but I thought I was agreeing with you  (it is the season of good cheer  - sorry if i wasn't clear - 

[Gator 16,921]

50 years ago Stanford climate expert said we were all going to starve to death.

Thankfully, there was no internet then.  The Lefties on here would be mewing themselves to sleep.

[Jara 1,153]

No point my responding to Pro, as he's got me on ignore, but for the rest of you, but Pro's got it mainly wrong, as usual. Ehrlich isn't a climate expert, and never described himself as such - Pro's just looking for any excuse to bag climate scientists in the hope of undermining their credibility.

 

Ehrlich is a biologist, mainly known for his warnings about overpopulation. He clearly got the timing wrong - I suspect mainly because of the green revolution - but long-term,  I fear he's right - as Daisy was saying a day or two ago, overpopulation scares the crap out of most sensible people. Surely there's a limit to how long agriculture can keep feeding an exploding population? Even in our own green, wealthy state, it's scary to see the way the expanding suburbs are swallowing up fertile farming land. 150,000 people coming here every year. Jeez... 

[daisycutter 28,727]

2 hours ago, Jara said:

No point my responding to Pro, as he's got me on ignore, but for the rest of you, but Pro's got it mainly wrong, as usual. Ehrlich isn't a climate expert, and never described himself as such - Pro's just looking for any excuse to bag climate scientists in the hope of undermining their credibility.

 

Ehrlich is a biologist, mainly known for his warnings about overpopulation. He clearly got the timing wrong - I suspect mainly because of the green revolution - but long-term,  I fear he's right - as Daisy was saying a day or two ago, overpopulation scares the crap out of most sensible people. Surely there's a limit to how long agriculture can keep feeding an exploding population? Even in our own green, wealthy state, it's scary to see the way the expanding suburbs are swallowing up fertile farming land. 150,000 people coming here every year. Jeez... 

and food is not the only resource that might become sub-optimal due to population pressure. there are hundreds of others

[Jara 1,153]

here's an early Christmas present for the deniers:

 

https://www.aaas.org/news/intersocietyclimateletter2016 

 

Thirty one of America's leading scientific organisations confirming their fear that global warming is real, dangerous and human-induced. 

[Gator 16,921]

On 12/21/2017 at 8:37 AM, Jara said:

here's an early Christmas present for the deniers:

 

https://www.aaas.org/news/intersocietyclimateletter2016 

 

Thirty one of America's leading scientific organisations confirming their fear that global warming is real, dangerous and human-induced. 

In the spirit of Christmas, (Leftists don't get too offended if I use the term Christmas ?) I will remove my ignore function when it comes to you.  Unfortunately, you get quoted so often I occasionally see your responses, which defeats the purpose of having you on ignore.  naturally, if you carry on like a moron it will be restored.

The article you linked is hardly new.  Fund addicted scientists all over the world believe the climate is warming and that man is largely responsible.  However, many reputable scientists do not.  Some believe CO2 is contributing to warming, but it's not dangerous, and others believe CO2 isn't a warming factor at all.  

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so by its very nature it will store some heat, but I've seen enough evidence that leads me to believe CO2 either has so little effect it's a non-issue, or has no effect at all.  And certainly not the miniscule amount mankind contributes.

Hundreds of things affect climate, but in the main solar activity, cloud forcing, and ocean circulation are the dominant forces of climate.  A trillion dollars has been spent on a non-issue.

Btw, if those addicted to climate porn really wanted to have carbon-free electricity they'd embrace nuclear.  The fact that they don't tells me that they don't really believe their doomsday predictions, because nuclear gives them the carbon-free solutions they crave.

[Jara 1,153]

Very objective reply. Scientists who believe in global warming are "funding-addicted" (who isn't, by the way?) Those who don't are "reputable."

 

The organisations quoted in that article represent the cream of American science. Ignore them at your (and our grandkids') peril.

 

 

[daisycutter 28,727]

4 hours ago, Jara said:

 

The organisations quoted in that article represent the cream of American science. Ignore them at your (and our grandkids') peril.

 

very melodramatic, jara, but how do you know they represent the 'cream'? did you read that somewhere on the web?

[dieter 3,325]

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

very melodramatic, jara, but how do you know they represent the 'cream'? did you read that somewhere on the web?

'Cos cream rises to the top silly boy.

[Jara 1,153]

11 hours ago, daisycutter said:

very melodramatic, jara, but how do you know they represent the 'cream'? did you read that somewhere on the web?

Not melodramatic - dramatic.

How do I "know"?

Uh...(eyes roll) how am I supposed to answer that? How do we know anything? How do I know I'm not a butterfly's dream? How do you know I exist? Some things you just have to take for granted.

 

Anyway, if you seriously want to argue it, here's a random choice from the list of organisations. The American Chemical Society. Read about it yourself.

 

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/about/aboutacs.html

 

This is not just the largest organisation in the field of chemistry, it is the largest scientific organisation in the world (158,000 members). It exists to support scientific endeavour in the field of chemistry. It leads research, publishes academic journals, sponsors the profession's major conferences. Its board members are among the most distinguished chemistry professionals in the world. It is non-partisan: it's mission is to help bring about a better world by the advancement of chemistry.

Is that "cream" enough for you?

If these guys agree that global warming is real and man-made, surely you (and maybe even Pro) could at least think there is the tiniest, teeny-weeniest little chance that they know what they are talking about?

 

 

[Gator 16,921]

On 23/12/2017 at 9:09 AM, Jara said:

Not melodramatic - dramatic.

How do I "know"?

Uh...(eyes roll) how am I supposed to answer that? How do we know anything? How do I know I'm not a butterfly's dream? How do you know I exist? Some things you just have to take for granted.

 

Anyway, if you seriously want to argue it, here's a random choice from the list of organisations. The American Chemical Society. Read about it yourself.

 

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/about/aboutacs.html

 

This is not just the largest organisation in the field of chemistry, it is the largest scientific organisation in the world (158,000 members). It exists to support scientific endeavour in the field of chemistry. It leads research, publishes academic journals, sponsors the profession's major conferences. Its board members are among the most distinguished chemistry professionals in the world. It is non-partisan: it's mission is to help bring about a better world by the advancement of chemistry.

Is that "cream" enough for you?

If these guys agree that global warming is real and man-made, surely you (and maybe even Pro) could at least think there is the tiniest, teeny-weeniest little chance that they know what they are talking about?

 

 

It's beyond doubt that man is increasing CO2.

It's beyond doubt that the climate is changing and always will. 

What is beyond doubt is whether CO2 is driving temperature.

What is beyond doubt is whether the earth is warning "dangerously".

When CO2 was 10 times higher than what it is now we had an ice age, so how can CO2 be driving temperature ?

Jara, do you know what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2 ?  And do you know what percentage is natural and what percentage is man-made ?

NASA alter there own graphs, because temperature hasn't risen as their models predicted.  Because we're in a pause.  Have you read the climate-gate emails ?

Huge funding has been given to scientists around the world to link CO2 with global warming.  It started with Thatcher, who didn't want to be beholden to the middle east and because she was at war with the coal miners.  She said she'd pay them to find a link.  Guess what ?  They did.  For various other political reasons the funding has continued.

If you're a scientist who doesn't believe in AGW guess how much government funding you'll receive ?  Zero, nada, zilch, nothing, not a zac.

Solar activity (sun spots), cloud forcing, and ocean circulation dictates climate, not a trace element gas that is essential for our survival.

[Gator 16,921]

^^^

Lines 3 and 4 should read "What is not beyond doubt".

This inability to edit or delete after a short time frame is horrible.

[Jara 1,153]

I don't know how to answer your question about CO2/Ice ages, etc, and neither do you.

 

These guys might, though. 

 

The American Chemical Society is overwhelmingly the most important professional body representing chemistry in the world. It is replete with Nobel prize winners, cutting edge researchers, brilliant scientists. It doesn't just represent academia or government: it also represents hard-nosed businesses working in the industry.

 

Here is a quote from its mission statement:

 

The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities. Chemistry is at the heart of understanding the climate system and integral to addressing the development and deployment of new emission reduction technologies and clean energy alternatives. The American Chemical Society (ACS) acknowledges that climate change is real, is serious and has been influenced by anthropogenic activity. Unmitigated climate change will lead to increases in extreme weather events and will cause significant sea level rise, causing property damage and population displacement.  It also will continue to degrade ecosystems and natural resources, affecting food and water availability and human health, further burdening economies and societies. Continued uncontrolled GHG emissions will accelerate and compound the effects and risks of climate change well into the future.

 

 

 

 

[Gator 16,921]

4 hours ago, Jara said:

I don't know how to answer your question about CO2/Ice ages, etc, and neither do you.

Bzzz. Wrong answer.

I do know the answers.  Anyone who has shown a predilection for the climate has learnt the basics. 

I know what proportion of the atmosphere is CO2 and I know what percentage is natural and what percentage is man-made. 

Your only contribution is as a fanboy for climate porn.

Edited December 25, 2017 by ProDee

[Jara 1,153]

So you are right and the American Chemical Society is wrong?

[Jara 1,153]

3 hours ago, ProDee said:

Bzzz. Wrong answer.

I do know the answers.  Anyone who has shown a predilection for the climate has learnt the basics. 

I know what proportion of the atmosphere is CO2 and I know what percentage is natural and what percentage is man-made. 

Your only contribution is as a fanboy for climate porn.

Wow. A genius. You can google.

 

So can I.

 

From Wikipedia's article on CO2 in the atmosphere:

 

Anthropogenic CO₂ emissions[edit]

See also: radiative forcing, List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions, and Global warming

While CO₂ absorption and release is always happening as a result of natural processes, the recent rise in CO₂ levels in the atmosphere is known to be mainly due to human (anthropogenic) activity.^[75] There are 4 ways human activity, especially fossil fuel burning, is known to have caused the rapid increase in atmospheric CO₂ over the last few centuries. 1) Various national statistics accounting for fossil fuel consumption, combined with knowledge of how much atmospheric CO₂ is produced per unit of fossil fuel (e.g. liter of gasoline).^[76] 2) By examining the ratio of various carbon isotopes in the atmosphere.^[75] The burning of long-buried fossil fuels releases CO₂ containing carbon of different isotopic ratios to those of living plants, enabling distinction between natural and human-caused contributions to CO₂ concentration. 3) Higher atmospheric CO₂ concentrations in the Northern Hemisphere, where most of the world's population lives (and emissions originate from), compared to the southern hemisphere. This difference has increased as anthropogenic emissions have increased.^[77] 4) Atmospheric O₂ levels are decreasing in earth's atmosphere as it reacts with the carbon in fossil fuels to form CO₂.^[78]

Burning fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum, and natural gas is the leading cause of increased anthropogenic CO₂; deforestation is the second major cause. In 2010, 9.14 gigatonnes of carbon (GtC, equivalent to 33.5 gigatonnes of CO₂ or about 4.3 ppm in earth's atmosphere) were released from fossil fuels and cement production worldwide, compared to 6.15 GtC in 1990.^[79] In addition, land use change contributed 0.87 GtC in 2010, compared to 1.45 GtC in 1990.^[79] In 1997, human-caused Indonesian peat fires were estimated to have released between 13% and 40% of the average carbon emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels around the world in a single year.^[80][81][82] In the period 1751 to 1900, about 12 GtC were released as CO₂ to the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels, whereas from 1901 to 2013 the figure was about 380 GtC.^[83]

 

[Jara 1,153]

By the way, Pro, I'm curious - do you have any qualifications in climate - or any other - science at all? 

[mauriesy 6,913]

ProDee has a PhD in gish-galloping.