The Earth is 5% greener now than it was 20 years ago

[Borchester]

Speak for yourself, some baby boomers are living up to their reputation of being selfish, entitled, whiners.  No wonder the "ok boomer" meme gained traction amongst the young.

As long as the young work hard and pay my pensions I don't care what they are driving

[BeElBeeBub]

Sounds the usual museli ridden bollocks from the polar bear buggering tendency....blah blah blah

Content free twaddle from someone too closed minded to bother looking at the evidence.

Honestly surprised you haven't broken out the "why is this summer so shit" argument

...being dreary humour free, self obsessed little arseholes...

Speak for yourself, some baby boomers are living up to their reputation of being selfish, entitled, whiners.  No wonder the "ok boomer" meme gained traction amongst the young.

[Borchester]

Have you read the report?

It's not bad,.they make a good stab at estimating the future fertility and mortality rates with more inputs than the UN approach.

But the 6bn by 2100 figure is from their "great leap forward" scenario.  That scenario envisages humanity making the most positive strides over the next century.  Poverty eliminated, GHG emissions to zero by 2050, income and gender inequality falling, rising access to healthcare and contraception etc.  Basically the "star trek" future.

In that scenario fertility rates drop sharply as the developing world rapidly moves towards a European standard of living and people have less kids (as in Europe now).

Now I would *love* that future to come true.  It would definitely be the one to root for!

But if we are honest, I struggle to see humanity getting itcs shit together. Already in the US we see strong currents that will make access to birth control and women's career prospects much harder. I don't seeuch chance of 0GHG by 2050.

Their other scenario, where things go pear shaped and all the indicators drive in the other direction (let's call it the "Blade Runner" future)  still sees lower population than the UN projection, but within the error margins of both.

So yes the.report does predict 6bn by 2100, but only if you use the most optimistic and, frankly unbelievable, scenarios.


Still it's nice to get away from the "there will be 25/40/50/100bn people by the end of the century, we should stop sending aid to poor countries because they have too many kids" argument

I don't want to be rude but this is absolutely riddled with misidertandings and errors. Possibly it is poorly worded so doesn't reflect your true understanding.

Let's start with "name a process..."

Yes I can name a process. One of the most basic and every day. Combustion (fire). Heat (the driver) causes a chemical reaction that produces more heat (the product).

Secondly, we *don't* have a "...mechanism where CO2 is the product of heat...."

heat (as in atmospheric heat) doesn't produce CO2 (unless you count increased probability of wildfires) - there *are* feedback mechanisms such as melting of arctic tundra releasing methane. Scientists are worried that could cause a "thermal runaway" although the exact tipping point and extent of that are debated.

but I don't think that is what you are talking about.

Again, without wishing to be rude, you don't seem to know much about this beyond the standard "anti" talking points.

So far you have proposed that climate change is driven by orbital changes - proven false

You've.thrn argued that the models predicting it are wrong in various ways
They don't match measurements (troposphere warming anomaly - false readings do march expected rates, global warming rates are 50% predicted - false, measured rates are within expected tolerances (sub 20%))

You've also brought the "CO2 saturation" argument up twice - again false, meme based on century old oversimplification of physics

I suspect I won't convince you but have any of my rebuttals had any effect? For example do you accept the troposphere is warming at a rate consistent with the models?  Do you accept that the "CO2 saturation" argument is flawed?

Sounds the usual museli ridden bollocks from the polar bear buggering tendency.

Still, I might have a solution to the problem.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

According to these guys, the earth was heating up between 1980 and the present, but cooling between 1900 and the 1940s, with things levelling out between the two periods.

For those of us who can still remember the 50s and 60s, it was a period of coal fires and steam trains and horses crapping in the streets and everybody on a minimum of 60 Senior Service a day. So if we really want to manage the climate, maybe we should alternate our current period of being dreary humour free, self obsessed little arseholes,  with outbreaks of fun ?

[BeElBeeBub]

A question for you:  Can you name any process where the product is also the driver? We have on Earth, a mechanism where CO2 is the product of heat, physics doesn't allow the CO2 to be a driver of heat. We would have thermal runaway, and we know in the past that CO2 ppm were above 1000, and the temperature of the Earth was much higher. We have periods of polar ice caps and non-polar ice caps, Polar Bears have been around during these inter-glacial periods. How do you explain this without saying the model says xyz?

I don't want to be rude but this is absolutely riddled with misidertandings and errors. Possibly it is poorly worded so doesn't reflect your true understanding.

Let's start with "name a process..."

Yes I can name a process. One of the most basic and every day. Combustion (fire). Heat (the driver) causes a chemical reaction that produces more heat (the product).

Secondly, we *don't* have a "...mechanism where CO2 is the product of heat...."

heat (as in atmospheric heat) doesn't produce CO2 (unless you count increased probability of wildfires) - there *are* feedback mechanisms such as melting of arctic tundra releasing methane. Scientists are worried that could cause a "thermal runaway" although the exact tipping point and extent of that are debated.

but I don't think that is what you are talking about.

Again, without wishing to be rude, you don't seem to know much about this beyond the standard "anti" talking points.

So far you have proposed that climate change is driven by orbital changes - proven false

You've.thrn argued that the models predicting it are wrong in various ways
They don't match measurements (troposphere warming anomaly - false readings do march expected rates, global warming rates are 50% predicted - false, measured rates are within expected tolerances (sub 20%))

You've also brought the "CO2 saturation" argument up twice - again false, meme based on century old oversimplification of physics

I suspect I won't convince you but have any of my rebuttals had any effect? For example do you accept the troposphere is warming at a rate consistent with the models?  Do you accept that the "CO2 saturation" argument is flawed?

[BeElBeeBub]

3) You have totally side stepped the fact that CO2 has reached its saturation point.

I think we have addressed this point before, though it's hard to be share as at the.moemnt it is just you asserting it without pointing to any sources.

But to go over again, the argument seems to stem from simple table top experiments shining IR wavelengths through a tube with varying concentrions of CO2 and seeing how much gets through.  Clearly this is very removed from how our atmosphere, with it's multiple layers and varying composition works.

This article has a good explanation

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

[BeElBeeBub]

2) CO2 retains about 50% of the heat the models do.

I'm not sure I know what you mean? Are you saying the physics of the models is wrong, that would be extremely unlikely given they are built from first principles and the properties of CO2 are very well known.

Or are you saying the measurement of temperature rise don't match the models predictions (which might tie up with your point (1) "models warm at 2x rate of reality" and point (2) above, because point 1 is FALSE.

[BeElBeeBub]

1) The models warm at twice the rate of reality.
....


The models are wrong, everyone knows it: so where are you getting your doomsday info from? It's not the science!! 

(Before I rebutt, can I ask where you at getting your information from,.you haven't cited many sources, just asserted "the models are wrong" or "CO2 is at saturation")

1) FALSE, the models have matched reality reasonably well. As you would expect the earliest models were thenlrar accurate, the 1975 models estimating 30% more rose than observed. And early 80's ones estimating 20% less than observed. However, since 2000 the accuracy has been much better as models were refined




NASA report on just this point
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
With this useful illustration

[Nick]

As a side note, the xanti" lobby are following a well worn path

It started with "the climate isn't changing", lots of cherry picking of data to show the globe is actually cooling, doubting the famous "hockey stick" etc.

Now that position is self-evidently wrong, the next position is "it may be happening but there is nothing we can do because it's not us/'s too expensive". That is where we are at now.

At some point it will be "oh shoot, looks like it's too late to do anything!"

Your self confidence in your ability to keep the AGW theme going is obviously taking a nose dive. 
1) The models warm at twice the rate of reality.
2) CO2 retains about 50% of the heat the models do.
3) You have totally side stepped the fact that CO2 has reached its saturation point.

A question for you:  Can you name any process where the product is also the driver? We have on Earth, a mechanism where CO2 is the product of heat, physics doesn't allow the CO2 to be a driver of heat. We would have thermal runaway, and we know in the past that CO2 ppm were above 1000, and the temperature of the Earth was much higher. We have periods of polar ice caps and non-polar ice caps, Polar Bears have been around during these inter-glacial periods. How do you explain this without saying the model says xyz?

The models are wrong, everyone knows it: so where are you getting your doomsday info from? It's not the science!! 

[BeElBeeBub]

These guys

https://www.livescience.com/worlds-population-could-plummet-to-six-billion-by-the-end-of-the-century-new-study-suggests

Have you read the report?

It's not bad,.they make a good stab at estimating the future fertility and mortality rates with more inputs than the UN approach.

But the 6bn by 2100 figure is from their "great leap forward" scenario.  That scenario envisages humanity making the most positive strides over the next century.  Poverty eliminated, GHG emissions to zero by 2050, income and gender inequality falling, rising access to healthcare and contraception etc.  Basically the "star trek" future.

In that scenario fertility rates drop sharply as the developing world rapidly moves towards a European standard of living and people have less kids (as in Europe now).

Now I would *love* that future to come true.  It would definitely be the one to root for!

But if we are honest, I struggle to see humanity getting itcs shit together. Already in the US we see strong currents that will make access to birth control and women's career prospects much harder. I don't seeuch chance of 0GHG by 2050.

Their other scenario, where things go pear shaped and all the indicators drive in the other direction (let's call it the "Blade Runner" future)  still sees lower population than the UN projection, but within the error margins of both.

So yes the.report does predict 6bn by 2100, but only if you use the most optimistic and, frankly unbelievable, scenarios.


Still it's nice to get away from the "there will be 25/40/50/100bn people by the end of the century, we should stop sending aid to poor countries because they have too many kids" argument

[Borchester]

No bloody idea where you get your ideas from

These guys

https://www.livescience.com/worlds-population-could-plummet-to-six-billion-by-the-end-of-the-century-new-study-suggests

[patman post]

It may seem confusing that fears of an 'underpopulation crisis' are rising when the world's population has more than doubled in just 50 years, and the global fertility rate remains above the so-called 'replacement-level' of 2.1 births per woman.

But with an estimated two thirds of the world population now living in a country or area with sub-replacement fertility, alongside the increasing number of States confronted by lower fertility numbers, anxieties surrounding 'underpopulation' are increasingly common.

Today, the only region of the world expected to experience an overall population decrease in the immediate term (between 2022 and 2050) is Europe, where a minus 7 per cent growth is expected. Other regions' populations – in Central, South and Southeast Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and North America – are projected to continue growing, but to reach their peak sizes before 2100. 

Over the next few decades, migration is predicted to become the sole driver of population growth in high-income countries.

Worldwide, fertility has fallen from an average of 5 births per woman in 1950 to 2.3 births per woman in 2021, an indication of the increasing control that individuals – particularly women – are able to exercise over their reproductive lives. Overall fertility is projected to fall to 2.1 births per woman by 2050.

https://www.unfpa.org/swp2023/too-few

[BeElBeeBub]

Apparently the world population is set to decline from its current level of just under 8 billions to 6 billions in less than 80 years.

Since all global warming is due to human wickedness, then we can confidently expect it to decrease by a quarter,which in turn means that come July 2100 the temperature should be something like -52 C.

So, as said before, Global Warming has been fun, but we really need to find another craze to occupy ourselves

No bloody idea where you get your ideas from


Here's the UN's 2022 projections.



Barring some thing bad happening it is extremely unlikey we will get below where we are now by 2100. At the mo it looks like we are cruising to level out at around 10bn.

The problem with a falling population is that it makes alot of your economic issues worse, so I'm  it sure what's better by 2100, a steady 10bn or a falling 8bn.

And the issue is not the total number, it's what happens if the bulk of humanity who are currently emitting very little CO2 haul themselves up to our level of CO2 emissions in a bid to replicate our standard of living 

Then, even 6bn will be too many.

On order not to screw ourselves we need to make sure the bulk of humanity can achieve an equivalent standard if living to ourselves at a lower CO2 intensity.

That is going to be harder of we do dick all.

[Borchester]

Apparently the world population is set to decline from its current level of just under 8 billions to 6 billions in less than 80 years.

Since all global warming is due to human wickedness, then we can confidently expect it to decrease by a quarter,which in turn means that come July 2100 the temperature should be something like -52 C.

So, as said before, Global Warming has been fun, but we really need to find another craze to occupy ourselves

[BeElBeeBub]

As a side note, the xanti" lobby are following a well worn path 

It started with "the climate isn't changing", lots of cherry picking of data to show the globe is actually cooling, doubting the famous "hockey stick" etc.

Now that position is self-evidently wrong, the next position is "it may be happening but there is nothing we can do because it's not us/'s too expensive". That is where we are at now.

At some point it will be "oh shoot, looks like it's too late to do anything!"

[BeElBeeBub]

Physics tells us that the equator will be hotter and the poles cooler due to the angle of the Suns rays. Another indication that it is not the Greenhouse effect. The very wording tells us that the warming would be in the Troposphere, but it's not. The warming is at the surface. 

This guy is a PHD in climate temperature and has received the highest Honors from NASA for his research. He says it isn't CO2.

https://www.uah.edu/science/departments/atmospheric-earth-science/faculty-staff/dr-john-christy

You have misunderstood the graph. It is the *anomaly* with respect to the baseline. That is to say the orange areas are hotter than expected and the blue are colder than expected.  This means the orange areas are parts of the atmospher that are getting warmer in the sense the average temperature has changed from the past.  This is exactly as predicted.

Secondly, you say this is due to the sun's rays and not greenhouse effect.  Yet we know the solar radiation levels have not risen enough to account for the increase in ground and surface temps.

A not on the wording. Surface means "the atmosphere at the surface, usually taken to be 2m above the local ground level". Satellite measurements tell us the ground temperatures are rising.  Measurements tell us the surface (i.e. 2m) temperature is rising (as you would expect).

The troposphere is the atmosphere from the ground up to 10 miles



That was predicted to wam and is warming.

The scientist you cited (whose PHD was in atmospheric *mass* anomalies, basically pressure, and had nothing to do with CO2) was given his NASA award for work on using satellites to calculate atmospheric temperature. His data shows the troposphere is warming. In fact, I think you cited his data previously

And what about the fact the warming is occurring in the wrong part of the atmosphere?

BTW, there was no need to disrespect John before, it wasn't a great look.

And the latest data fro his studies shows the troposphere is warming (and at the rate predicted).

Now he may say it isn't CO2 but why should we take his word over any other scientist?  If you look at the global consensus the vast majority of scientists consider human CO2 emissions to be the main cause of the rapid climate change we are seeing now.