# Overpopulation



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Resources are finite therefore infinite consumption is impossible.

Exponential population growth will end eventually. This cessation of expansion can either be chosen via fewer births or imposed via ecological catastrophe.

Natural resources per person = total resources ÷ number of people.

Total human impact = average impact per person × number of people.

Each additional human decreases resources and increases impact.

All of the environmental (and most social) problems are easier to solve with a smaller population but more difficult (or even impossible) to solve with a larger population.

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

The siring of multiple progeny is tantamount to genocide.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Let me advance a counter-argument to Shaver's counsel of despair.

The OP's argument looks at the matter from the point of view of society at large, so I will not go into whether having children benefits the parents or not - some children are devils and make their parents' lives hell, but no doubt the obverse applies in some cases, when children are considered a great blessing and help to their parents.

This fear of populations breeding out of control is a very old British fear, perhaps arising from living on a relatively small island with a large population, in which for long periods of time a mutinous near-criminal underclass had to be kept in check by firm methods of social control, including imprisonment, emigration (compulsory transportation to the colonies), and the promotion of early death through poor sanitation, malnutrition and various illnesses. The pioneers of birth control were not benevolent philanthropists intent on promoting free love, but agents of an upper class that was terrified of the burgeoning working class.

The Malthusian argument of resources being exhausted fails to take into account the ever more efficient use of those resources, the rate at which technologies have improved far exceeding that of population growth. The amount of food that is wasted is evidence that we are still a long way from death by starvation. Every year, here in the UK a well-known fast-food chain that is operated by a portly American colonel discards a chicken mountain the size of Wales because customers have dawdled.

Fear of population growth may actually be quite dangerous - countries such as Japan, Russia, Italy and Germany risk eventual extinction as their birth rates are failing to keep up with deaths.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> Let me advance a counter-argument to Shaver's counsel of despair.
> 
> While the OP's argument looks at the matter from the point of view of society at large, I will not go into whether having children benefits the parents or not - some children are devils and make their parents' lives hell, but no doubt the obverse applies in some cases, when children are considered a great blessing and help to their parents.
> 
> ...


This argument does not stand up to even the mildest scrutiny - resources remain finite no matter how efficiently they are consumed.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> This argument does not stand up to even the mildest scrutiny - resources remain finite no matter how efficiently they are consumed.


Without wishing to sound pedantic, this is not so. For all practical purposes, some - such as the sun - are infinite. Solar power, and energy from wind, waves and tides, will increasingly replace energy derived from (finite, but nowhere near exhausted) fossil fuels. Land space is finite, but there are vast tracts of the earth's surface that are at present uninhabited but which could be made easily habitable with a few simple adjustments.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> Without wishing to sound pedantic, this is not so. For all practical purposes, some - such as the sun - are infinite. Solar power, and energy from wind, waves and tides, will increasingly replace energy derived from (finite, but nowhere near exhausted) fossil fuels. Land space is finite, but there are vast tracts of the earth's surface that are at present uninhabited but which could be made easily habitable with a few simple adjustments.


Please be reassured that this does not sound pedantic in the least.

Energy is the least of our worries, cold fusion (if achievable) may provide limitless energy. However, fresh water, topsoil, livestock, fishing, forests, crops, metal ore and minerals, even the air we breath, are not infinitely renewable resources capable of sustaining a limitless population.

Whilst I can appreciate that a 'head in the sand' approach may well be comforting, still, reason illuminates the truth.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver, on a forum like this, your argument might gain greater traction perhaps were you to focus more on those essentials that really _are_ in short supply, such as high-quality calf leather, or sea island cotton, when trying to engender panic about limited resources.

Those other things - topsoil, crops, metal ores, even the air we breathe - still plenty left. One other resource that is in short supply is time however. Decry me as a heartless and selfish brute with my head in the sand, but I have to say I find a philosophy of carefree enjoyment of life's rich bounty is a more fruitful use of time than worrying about imponderables that may or may not happen and over which I have little control in any case.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mr Langham you persist in missing the point entirely, whether deliberately or not I decline to speculate. 

Still, if we take you at your word and accept that you find the self-evident to be beyond your estimation and, further, consider yourself to be so powerless then perhaps it is for the best that you choose to believe as you do.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

No, I understand the point you are making, but I decline to accept that matters are as precariously balanced as you seem to believe. At some future point in time, the human population may well grow to a size that is no longer sustainable, but I believe that is still very far off in the distant future. Most resources are still in abundant supply, probably more so than at previous times when the human population was much lower. 
There is a 90 hectare greenhouse in Kent that grows c. 10% of the UK's salad crops. The tomatoes are probably rather flavourless and under-ripe, but it is an indication of the vast over-capacity of food production in the EU, so that is one resource we are not about to use up any time soon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanet_Earth

In any case, there are bound to be wars and plagues in the future just as in the past, so it will do no harm to have some spare parts on hand.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Thank you for broadly conceding the point.

Perhaps this will dissuade you from the notion of the future crisis as being distant?

Presuming, of course, that we shall not quibble over the meaning of 'distant'.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

I said I 'understood' the point - not 'concede'!

If I drew a chart of shoe production over time, I dare say it would be a similar shape - a case of technology and resources keeping pace with human population.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> ....At some future point in time, the human population may well grow to a size that is no longer sustainable....


This appears to have all the hallmarks of a concession to me. Or are you, now unable to pursue your original avenue, resorting to semantical niggling?


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Obviously the Earth has a capacity limit, though I suspect that's far-off; resources are allocated and used with breathtaking inefficiency currently, so there's a lot of wiggle room.

The big problem from MY perspective is the death of labor; there will come a time (soon) when automation has eliminated the need for human labor, and then you're left with a population with NO survival concerns, and that can be much trickier than the classic "hard-scrabble" existence of sci-fi nightmare. What do people DO?

I think population growth (I won't say "overpopulation" because... what would that be, exactly?) poses less a challenge of feeding and space than a challenge of culture: do you just keep people entertained? do you evolve a eudaimonic society which fosters full, obligation-free development as everyone becomes an artist, musician, or Zen master? does everyone live in polyamorous communes? 24/7/365 is a LONG time to be idle.

Terraforming Mars is out - we just learned the other day that the sun shears Mars' atmosphere off, so you can't really replace it.

I think the biggest problem with population growth is that it's not THAT BAD, so no one really worries about it. Humanity solves crises, not problems!

DH


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Langham said:


> ...At some future point in time, the human population may well grow to a size that is no longer sustainable, *but I believe that is still very far off in the distant future*.


Selective quotation can do wonderful things to an argument, but it is a courtesy to at least continue reading to the end of the sentence.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> At some future point in time, the human population may well grow to a size that is no longer sustainable, but I believe that is still very far off in the distant future.


Requoted including the end of the sentence.

This appears to have all the hallmarks of a concession to me.

Happy now?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Let's not get bogged down in semantics, I feel this could be a more interesting argument, as Dhaller shows. So far you have given us one of those schoolbook charts, drafted in a somewhat heavy-handed way if I may say. Charts such as this are all rather skewed and one-dimensional, but here is another which perhaps might make you happier:










And then there is this one, correlating technology with population growth. All schoolbook stuff I'm afraid:


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Dhaller said:


> The big problem from MY perspective is the death of labor; there will come a time (soon) when automation has eliminated the need for human labor, and then you're left with a population with NO survival concerns, and that can be much trickier than the classic "hard-scrabble" existence of sci-fi nightmare. What do people DO?


interesting post - calls to mind HG Wells, PK Dick etc


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Interesting, considering semantics (or a vague approximation thereof) would appear to comprise the entire thrust of your argument.

Up your game old boy, rubbishing the context when one is unable to engage with the content may win sixth form debates but I trust we are somewhat more mature.



Langham said:


> Let's not get bogged down in semantics, I feel this could be a more interesting argument, as Dhaller shows. So far you have given us one of those schoolbook charts, drafted in a somewhat heavy-handed way if I may say. Charts such as this are all rather skewed and one-dimensional, but here is another which perhaps might make you happier:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

As each decade passes Dick seems more prophetic and his contemporaries less interesting. Dick provided what may be considered as the first ecological dystopian premonition in the marvellous 'Autofac'.



Haffman said:


> interesting post - calls to mind HG Wells, PK Dick etc


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Up your game old boy, rubbishing the context when one is unable to engage with the content may win sixth form debates but I trust we are somewhat more mature.


Sorreee...

Now I think _you_ were making an argument that having children was basically wrong, as - according to you - we are running short of vital resources. So far, nothing you have said convinces me that that is so - in fact I happen to believe the exact opposite to you, and made a few comments saying so - as far as I am concerned, people can have as many sprogs as they wish, there are ample amounts of moolah to go around in this sceptred isle.

I'm not sure I feel I am under any obligation to substantiate my beliefs, but I have attempted to do so within the constraints of a limited amount of time to devote to this quixotic quest. I think perhaps it is you who need to advance a more compelling argument, as all that I have detected so far, beyond a dodgy chart, has been the underlying whiff of ye olde English class prejudice in this topic, which boils down to a horror of begetting and all that goes with it.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Why my dear fellow, apology accepted.

Now, you will be forgiven for neglecting it, your being short of time and so forth, but post one contains a simple formula that you may wish to examine anew . However, I do appreciate that this artifice may not be compelling to some. The lower orders who have married into money as one example, perhaps?



Langham said:


> Sorreee..?
> 
> Now I think _you_ were making an argument that having children was basically wrong, as - according to you - we are running short of vital resources. So far, nothing you have said convinces me that that is so - in fact I happen to believe the exact opposite to you, and made a few comments saying so - as far as I am concerned, people can have as many sprogs as they wish, there are ample amounts of moolah to go around in this sceptred isle.
> 
> I'm not sure I feel I am under any obligation to substantiate my beliefs, but I have attempted to do so within the constraints of a limited amount of time to devote to this quixotic quest. I think perhaps it is you who need to advance a more compelling argument, as all that I have detected so far, beyond a dodgy chart, has been the underlying whiff of ye olde English class prejudice in this topic, which boils down to a horror of begetting and all that goes with it.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Mr Shaver, since you cannot be advocating humanity having no further offspring at all (as you wish to prevent genocide) then you must favour reproduction for some.

But who? How will it be decided ? General restraint or selective fecundity ?

You have stated the problem as you see it. Now you have us staring into the abyss of our doom, what is the solution ? :surprised:


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Why my dear fellow, apology accepted.
> 
> ... I do appreciate that this artifice may not be compelling to some. The lower orders who have married into money as one example, perhaps?


What is this? You have uncovered my dark secret? That I am descended from a line of tinkers and hewers, and had the good fortune to marry a wealthy heiress? If only Shaver, if only....


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I do not believe that was intended as a description of your good self. Indeed I referred to class merely as it seemed to occupy you. However your response now gives me pause.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Is restraint too much to expect?



Haffman said:


> Mr Shaver, since you cannot be advocating humanity having no further offspring at all (as you wish to prevent genocide) then you must favour reproduction for some.
> 
> But who? How will it be decided ? General restraint or selective fecundity ?
> 
> You have stated the problem as you see it. Now you have us staring into the abyss of our doom, what is the solution ? :surprised:


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Is restraint too much to expect?


But what does this mean in practice ? A maximum of one ? Two ?

Could we end up with a situation where those smart and educated enough to follow Shaverist commandments stop breeding while a benighted mass plough on regardless, leading to a new age of barbarism ? :evil:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tsk tsk. I assume that your understanding of genetics is superior to this notion. 

This may allow for a general sigh of relief, however. I am the last of my line. My family has lived within a few mile radius, dating back to records in the Domesday book. I am the final male descendant.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Perhaps fortunately, there is indeed an unstoppable urge to 'plough on regardless', a curious compulsion to leave behind progeny. It did not occur to me at the time I was so assiduously occupied in doing so.


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Thank you for broadly conceding the point.
> 
> Perhaps this will dissuade you from the notion of the future crisis as being distant?
> 
> Presuming, of course, that we shall not quibble over the meaning of 'distant'.


The problem isn't that people are having too many kids. The problem is that people are living too long.


----------



## moltoelegante (Sep 23, 2015)

Shaver said:


> Resources are finite therefore infinite consumption is impossible.
> 
> Exponential population growth will end eventually. This cessation of expansion can either be chosen via fewer births or imposed via ecological catastrophe.
> 
> ...


I've been saying for nearly 20 years now that overpopulation is going to the the end of the world as we know it. It's so blindingly obvious yet our so-called "leaders" stick their heads in the sand and do nothing. Even if you try to live off the grid, and wait for civilization to collapse, there is almost nowhere where you are safe from being sucked down the drain along with the rest of us.

There's no point in trying to solve any of the other problems facing mankind if you ignore the main driver of the apocalypse!


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

I don't think something so undefined can merit serious consideration as "the main driver of the apocalypse".

That is: what does that even mean, "overpopulation"?

The very word implies that there's a "correct" population, bounded by overpopulation on one side and underpopulation on the other. Do you have a number?

Population growth is slowing currently (as the above plot of the derivative of the growth curse illustrates), though it may uptick a bit as China relaxes its child-limit policy, so even if it's "a problem", it's a decelerating one!

DH


----------



## moltoelegante (Sep 23, 2015)

Dhaller said:


> I don't think something so undefined can merit serious consideration as "the main driver of the apocalypse".
> 
> That is: what does that even mean, "overpopulation"?
> 
> ...


Deceleration might be a comforting thought, but the population is still growing, regardless. 
No, I don't have a number. This isn't so black and white. It's a matter of how much natural environment destruction, pollution, crowding, etc, you find acceptable. If the world's population were 1 billion rather than 7 billion, there would be 7 times the fertile land for every human, 7 times the fresh water per human, etc. We keep dividing finite resources by an increasing number of people.

The only reason we are still doing ok (but still not so great) with 7 billion is that half that number is living on next to nothing, with very little environmental impact. Try to put 6 billion cars on the road, and give everyone enough food to get fat, and 2kWh of electricity a day, etc, and things will get ugly really fast.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

If the world's population were 1 billion instead of 7 billion, we probably wouldn't have single-origin estate coffees, graphenes, quantum switches, or streaming video.

Scientific and technological advancement are driven by statistical long-tail phenomena (discoveries and innovations), and those only take effect when applied to a population size which allows their expression.

Remember, you can only reliably have 1-in-ten-billion phenomena occur if you have a ten-billion element sample size; granted, that works both ways (worse villains and cleverer geniuses), so it's really a case of focusing on down-side or up-side risk.

I can make rational arguments in favor of leaning toward up-side risk in decision processes (but I'll resist my native pedantic leanings!), but in short, fear of overpopulation is just a mode of conservatism.

DH



moltoelegante said:


> Deceleration might be a comforting thought, but the population is still growing, regardless.
> No, I don't have a number. This isn't so black and white. It's a matter of how much natural environment destruction, pollution, crowding, etc, you find acceptable. If the world's population were 1 billion rather than 7 billion, there would be 7 times the fertile land for every human, 7 times the fresh water per human, etc. We keep dividing finite resources by an increasing number of people.
> 
> The only reason we are still doing ok (but still not so great) with 7 billion is that half that number is living on next to nothing, with very little environmental impact. Try to put 6 billion cars on the road, and give everyone enough food to get fat, and 2kWh of electricity a day, etc, and things will get ugly really fast.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ I would prefer to restrict myself to noting that this comment contains notions that are either irrelevant, inaccurate or inapplicable. However, if you are able to offer a rational argument then please do go ahead.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

An interesting diversion and one well worthy of consideration. Although we do already possess a subculture who exist without professional obligation and seem able to occupy themselves. Not much of a life from my perspective but a proportion of the unemployed appear keen to preserve their idleness.

Now if you will excuse me, I am baking a pie which apparently the innovations in efficiency and technology will allow us to divide sufficiently to feed all comers.


Dhaller said:


> Obviously the Earth has a capacity limit, though I suspect that's far-off; resources are allocated and used with breathtaking inefficiency currently, so there's a lot of wiggle room.
> 
> The big problem from MY perspective is the death of labor; there will come a time (soon) when automation has eliminated the need for human labor, and then you're left with a population with NO survival concerns, and that can be much trickier than the classic "hard-scrabble" existence of sci-fi nightmare. What do people DO?
> 
> ...


----------



## moltoelegante (Sep 23, 2015)

Dhaller said:


> If the world's population were 1 billion instead of 7 billion, we probably wouldn't have single-origin estate coffees, graphenes, quantum switches, or streaming video.
> 
> Scientific and technological advancement are driven by statistical long-tail phenomena (discoveries and innovations), and those only take effect when applied to a population size which allows their expression.
> 
> ...


I have heard this response before but it is not convincing. We can still have 10 billion humans born, but they don't have to be alive at the same time. So we can still have out 1-in-a billion individuals but they will be more spaced out over time. 
Yes, scientific progress may slow down a little with a 1 billion population, but the upsides will more than compensate. Your argument seems to be that a bigger population is always better, but this is demonstrably wrong. The only debatable issue is the ideal limit. The vast majority of people on the planet contribute nothing to the development of our society. We should be aiming for quality over quantity. I would also argue that a certain minimum critical mass of population is enough to support all the endeavors and development we currently undertake as a species. Any more than that and there is only duplication of effort, wastage and other downsides.

It's amazing how many cornucopia-minded people are still out there who don't want to accept that every finite resource we enjoy today is actually finite.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Whilst this is unlikely to move the myopic and self centred expansionists, still it is worth noting, we share this planet with other lifeforms who are increasingly driven to the margins, and worse.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

moltoelegante said:


> I have heard this response before but it is not convincing. We can still have 10 billion humans born, but they don't have to be alive at the same time. So we can still have out 1-in-a billion individuals but they will be more spaced out over time.
> Yes, scientific progress may slow down a little with a 1 billion population, but the upsides will more than compensate. Your argument seems to be that a bigger population is always better, but this is demonstrably wrong. The only debatable issue is the ideal limit. *The vast majority of people on the planet contribute nothing to the development of our society.* We should be aiming for quality over quantity. I would also argue that a certain minimum critical mass of population is enough to support all the endeavors and development we currently undertake as a species. Any more than that and there is only duplication of effort, wastage and other downsides.


Oh really?... what an appalling thing to say. I'm curious about this magical algorithm which allows you to evaluate who does and who does not deserve to exist.

Something tells me that you simply assume _you _are one of the people "worth existing"; you may be surprised to discover that others don't share your opinion. A slippery slope, passing judgement.

Of course, if tomorrow your dream of culling the herd comes true - perhaps alien beings eliminate 6/7 of the population - be sure to give a copy of your list to the annihilators or you're 86% likely to vanish; hardly good odds.

DH


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^A bizarre distortion of molto's statement - long tail phenomena to useless eaters in one glib step. I should be interested in the magical logic which permits you this extraordinary leap.

Further, whilst the subject is raised, do not neglect that the breeders plainly seize their rights to decide who is worthy of existing. Who are they to do so?

Finally, alien beings culling the herd? Please try to remain coherent.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Shaver said:


> ^A bizarre distortion of molto's statement - long tail phenomena to useless eaters in one glib step. I should be interested in the magical logic which permits you this extraordinary leap.
> 
> Further, whilst the subject is raised, do not neglect that the breeders plainly seize their rights to decide who is worthy of existing. Who are they to do so?
> 
> Finally, alien beings culling the herd? Please try to remain coherent.


Molto plainly stated that, in his opinion, that "the vast majority... contribute nothing to society".

How dare he! So outrageous a statement deserves nothing less than an outrageous reply.

I can only take comfort that the large majority of folks lamenting the uselessness of most people and the bugbear of overpopulation are in no position to actually do anything about it.

DH


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Dhaller said:


> *Molto plainly stated that, in his opinion, that "the vast majority... contribute nothing to society".*
> 
> How dare he! So outrageous a statement deserves nothing less than an outrageous reply.
> 
> ...


To prevent further displays of self-righteous histrionics please permit me to reassure you that Molto did not plainly state any such thing.

You have elected to excise a key word from Molto's statement.

Allow me to, accurately, reproduce the statement for you "The vast majority of people on the planet contribute nothing to the development of our society". 

At any rate, you appear to be conflating the broader concerns of ecologically catastrophic cascade effects with an underlying hatred for individual human lives. I would suggest that the reverse is true, to not consider the possible consequences of overpopulation evidences callous disregard for Human life.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

This is a most refreshing review of current thinking on the subject. I have been following the arguments for 50 years and still have not figured out the situation.

I have, however, some thoughts which may contribute something about how to think about the problem. 

As I have, until recently, understood the issue, it is not so much a matter of human extinction, but rather one of quality of life and equity -- briefly a cloistered, barricaded luxurious life for the 1% and dreadful poverty and squalor on a degraded scorched earth for the rest of us. 

It's the scorched earth that gives one pause. Climate change seems to be not only real, but drastic and to be happening, and accelerating, much more quickly than generally appreciated. It appears, in an entirely qualitative and subjective judgement on my part, that the reasonably likely changes to the planet's climate will lead to alterations in the habitability of the earth as are apt to reduce it's capacity to sustain our species in conditions that would support human culture. 

BTW, am glad to be back from computer failure hell. Andy finally fixed things by arranging for the hardware to recognize my newly constituted electronic configuration.

"You have all done very well." 
Gurdon


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ As the Biosphere 2 project starkly illustrated, the environmental variables which permit habitability destabilise rapidly and uncontrollably once the limits of their tolerances are approached. The Gaia hypothesis is more likely than not to be a reasonable working representation of an interlinked ecological system - albeit (as ever) a map not a territory. The mechanisms of global biological feedback are increasingly disrupted by a Human activity now exceeding their capability to self-regulate. 

It is, of course, in the best interests of [email protected] such as Exxon and Monsanto et al to distort the evidence and undermine the facts - their stock value and profit margins depend on such lies.

However, the mental gymnastics of those denialists who seem not to have a vested financial interest, presumably merely striving to hide from the uncomfortable truths, are ever amusing but may ultimately prove to be catastrophic.


.
.
.

.

..


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

This, inevitable, development will assist in thinning the herd. Welcome to the antibiotic apocalypse.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28513-bacteria-now-resistant-even-to-last-resort-antibiotics/

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(15)00424-7/abstract

"The emergence of MCR-1 heralds the breach of the last group of antibiotics, polymyxins, by plasmid-mediated resistance. Although currently confined to China, MCR-1 is likely to emulate other global resistance mechanisms such as NDM-1. Our findings emphasise the urgent need for coordinated global action in the fight against pan-drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria."


----------



## moltoelegante (Sep 23, 2015)

Dhaller said:


> Of course, if tomorrow your dream of culling the herd comes true - perhaps alien beings eliminate 6/7 of the population - be sure to give a copy of your list to the annihilators or you're 86% likely to vanish; hardly good odds.
> DH


Oh, good grief, what an irrational response. That bears no resemblance to anything I wrote.


----------



## Anon 18th Cent. (Oct 27, 2008)

For all who think the world's resources are effectively infinite: mother nature has a foolproof method for dealing with overpopulation. Members of the species die until balance is restored. The mechanisms vary, but the results do not.

One hopes of course that creatures with big brains could forsee and forestall, but it's obvious the same brains excel at delusion, I mean self interest.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Langham said:


> This fear of populations breeding out of control is a very old British fear, perhaps arising from living on a relatively small island with a large population, in which for long periods of time a mutinous near-criminal underclass had to be kept in check by firm methods of social control, including imprisonment, emigration (compulsory transportation to the colonies), and the promotion of early death through poor sanitation, malnutrition and various illnesses. The pioneers of birth control were not benevolent philanthropists intent on promoting free love, but agents of an upper class that was terrified of the burgeoning working class.


This passage reflects what appears to me to describe the political arrangements which have lead to the current trajectory of the world, which I adumbrated in my earlier comment. The misery of the 18th and 19th centuries was the result of the political power of the elite, not the so-called laws of economics as misrepresented by those who have evidently not read Adam Smith.

What everyone, including Picketty, seems to avoid, is the obvious need to address the politics of distribution as it relates not only to providing a decent life for everyone (the arguments of the last couple of centuries over who gets what share of the surplus value of labor), but as it relates to the necessity to address environmental change politically.

The recently concluded Paris agreement represents modest yet remarkable progress. Every participant agreed to every word in the final document. This is a heartening first step in a lengthy political processes, necessary if the world's nations are to collaborate in dealing with the effects of climate change.

Regards,
Gurdon

PS: I hope you all had an enjoyable holiday. My family and I did, in pretty standard fashion -- tree, lights, presents and food. We're cozy in the snowy NW corner of Montana, playing board games, talking, tending the fire and watching Yojimbo.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Speaking as one whose country and fellow citizens seem to be aggressively leading the charge in terms of resource consumption, is the most immediate problem we face "overpopulation" or is it overconsumption? Originally perhaps it was characteristically US citizens who had to have the bigger house, the bigger yard, the bigger car. This unending quest for more first consumes us and in turn our increasingly fragile planets critical resources. As time passes, the occupants of third world nations are awakening to this perverse reality and are demanding their fair share, becoming committed participants in this never ending quest for more. Whether it's oil, water, good air, or simply land area that runs out first. we will all eventually pay the piper!


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Eagle2250, 
You are right. The question is how to bring about a redirection of production (that is the creation of goods and services) for maximum production and consumption to a more sustainable level of production that provides a comfortable life for the world's population. This is a tall order given the current momentum of globalzed capitalism. 

We are already paying the piper in terms of air quality, water pollution and the general degradation of the built environment, refracted as it is through the use of land for maximum profit.

Gurdon


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

Dear Shaver,

I see some issues with your arguments:

1 - Population growth is almost at an end. There is a very small probability we will reach over 9.5 billion people by 2050 and it is downhill from that point on. 

2 - A lot of resources you cite are either infinite (iron ore - as the Eath is mostly made of the stuff) or replenishable (water). 

Moreover, some services can be infinitely produced. Having said that, I am fully committed to restraint and look forward to a childless and happy future. I am also doing research in Sustainable Finance (a seemingly oxymoron, I know) and I am a bit more optimistic than you. 

In any case, I was happy to click on your discussion and find a good measure of civility and interesting back and forth between you and other nice folk at AAAC. I tried to read other Interchange threads after a long absence and it almost made my eyes bleed.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

It is always a distinct pleasure to banter with you my friend and so please allow me to counter thusly - 

1 - Population growth is at an end? Based upon what information....? 

2 - Resources are not infinite. To address your examples:

Iron may comprise the larger part of the Earth's mass, however, removing this in sufficient quantity from either the crust, mantle or core will result in catastrophic environmental consequence. Unless you would be happy to see the surface of the planet transformed into one gigantic bleak toxic strip mine? More importantly, without the Van Allen belt (a consequence of the molten iron core) the surface of the Earth would be subjected to a constant rain of high energy charged particles which would be, to say the least, detrimental to all lifeforms. 

Water is not replenishable when it is removed from the Hydrological cycle. Aquifer depletion and virtual water grabs illustrate the results of the Human impact on this process rather vividly.


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

1 - I hate to cite wikipedia, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth#World_population_in_2050
You can see most models show a peak in population around 2040-2070. It makes sense given our understanding of fertility dynamics - urbanization and income brings it down over time. It already happened in Europe, Americas and most of Asia. It should happen to Africa soon, even though not before Nigeria become one of the most populous countries in the world. India is an interesting case, it will surpass China as the most populous country just because its fertility is much higher. Chinese population is almost at the point of shrinking, and labor force participation is already coming down. The ban of the one-child policy will not change it, as once families start to shrink they never come back to the same level (so far in history). Of course, if we have much richer 9 billion people, resource consumption will go through the roof. I would rework your premise to: consumption growth is a major issue (it can come from population growth, higher income to the existing population, or both).

2 - Both iron ore and water are not the best examples for your resource exhaustion argument. We have the technology to tackle both without major ecological damage. The fact we do not do so today is due to economics (subsidized water prices, for instance, result in underinvestment in technology). We clearly have a resource exhaustion problem, but mostly due to other factors, that you point out in earlier posts.. 
I would argue that changing consumption patterns would bring much more change than simply not having children, especially for high-income people. The additional brat would consume vast quantities of resources if we maintain the same pattern of consumption.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

I haven't read through the whole of this thread, but my views are informed by the concept of both Christian stewardship while at the same time a recognition that God's plan is not for the world to exist for all time. Even those informed by a purely scientific secularist ethos accept that the Sun will die in several billion years ending life on Earth.

Or, as John Maynard Keynes pithily put it, 'In the long run, we're all dead'.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

God's plan is not to be second guessed but, permit me, I would suggest that the gifts He saw fit to bestow on some of us (imagination not the least of which) present us with the opportunity to escape extinction. If I may extrapolate further, to ascend to become our own deity. And what father could resent their offspring's success?


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> ... but, permit me, I would suggest that the gifts He saw fit to bestow on some of us (imagination not the least of which) present us with the opportunity to escape extinction. ...


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ I prefer the president's speech from Independence Day.:great:


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> ^ I prefer the president's speech from Independence Day.:great:


Here are two more for you:


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)




----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

I was there:






Against all the rules of protocol, the Guards played the American National Anthem on the courtyard of Buckingham Palace for all the Americans stranded in London after 9/11. There are few occasions that I have felt prouder to be an Englishman or a monarchist.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Truly? You need to get out more.

Here's a nugget that may amuse you- the evening Obama was giving his final speech prior to his gaining the presidency I was just a mile up the road. Folk encouraged me to attend, claiming that it was a historical event. I declined and pursued some jiggery-pokery of my own persuasion which, as it happened, turned out to be a historical event for me. Of course, the less said about that the better.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Truly? You need to get out more.
> 
> Here's a nugget that may amuse you- the evening Obama was giving his final speech prior to his gaining the presidency I was just a mile up the road. Folk encouraged me to attend, claiming that it was a historical event. I declined and pursued some jiggery-pokery of my own persuasion which, as it happened, turned out to be a historical event for me. Of course, the less said about that the better.


 I was talking about a patriotic and solemn occasion, not, *ahem*, chasing tail.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Bah! Patriotic and solemn occasions are ten a penny. Some opportunities are presented but few times in a man's life and it behooves him to grasp the nettle.


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

Sorry Balfour, Shaver has a point.

Of course, I detest patriotism and reject the doctrine in which people should have an improved social standing by being born in a certain family. Yet, even if I was a patriotic monarchist, Shaver would still be right.



Shaver said:


> Bah! Patriotic and solemn occasions are ten a penny. Some opportunities are presented but few times in a man's life and it behooves him to grasp the nettle.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

bernoulli said:


> Sorry Balfour, Shaver has a point.
> 
> Of course, I detest patriotism and reject the doctrine in which people should have an improved social standing by being born in a certain family. Yet, even if I was a patriotic monarchist, Shaver would still be right.


We'll just have to agree to disagree. Whatever your views on patriotism or monarchy, that occasion showed solidarity with the people of a nation attacked by a barbaric form of terrorism and for that I do not resile an inch from the sentiments I expressed above. I'm disappointed that two people apparently of intellect such as yourself and Shaver don't get that.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I eagerly await opportunity, early tomorrow, to counter (if I am able) your post at the head of this page bernoulli my friend. 
However my current access prevents the composition of more considered responses. Until the morn....

Where is vp, I wonder? Tied up maybe? Quantum entanglement probably.


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

Balfour,

Here is the thing: we can disagree, but chasing tail does not mean one does not empathise with the people felled by the horrendous atrocity committed by terrorists. It just means a different set of priorities. Unfortunately, I cannot do much for my fellow westerners suffering from terrorism. I just arrived from Paris, half-empty because of the recent attacks. I was there to celebrate life, and arrived just to witness a huge demonstration of Parisian that are pro-refugees. Amazing to behold. I was enthralled by the joie de vivre spirit I found in some places in Paris, despite everything. I believe one can choose life and empathy, and truly respect your feeling of empathy for the Americans at that point in time. I just don't think one needs to stop everything to pay respect to that if other opportunities arise.

Unlike you, I am not at all disappointed in your views. I respect them, even though we disagree.



Balfour said:


> We'll just have to agree to disagree. Whatever your views on patriotism or monarchy, that occasion showed solidarity with the people of a nation attacked by a barbaric form of terrorism and for that I do not resile an inch from the sentiments I expressed above. I'm disappointed that two people apparently of intellect such as yourself and Shaver don't get that.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

bernoulli said:


> ... but chasing tail does not mean one does not empathise with the people felled by the horrendous atrocity committed by terrorists. It just means a different set of priorities..... I just don't think one needs to stop everything to pay respect to that if other opportunities arise.


You are responding to a post based on me choosing to show respect and solidarity for Americans stranded in London in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Your words condemn you and need no further adornment from me.


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

For the record, I do stand by my words. I take your condenmation seriously, but believe we have different set of values. I can live with that.



Balfour said:


> You are responding to a post based on me choosing to show respect and solidarity for Americans stranded in London in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Your words condemn you and need no further adornment from me.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

bernoulli said:


> I ... believe we have different set of values. ...


I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Balfour said:


> We'll just have to agree to disagree. Whatever your views on patriotism or monarchy, that occasion showed solidarity with the people of a nation attacked by a barbaric form of terrorism and for that I do not resile an inch from the sentiments I expressed above. I'm disappointed that two people apparently of intellect such as yourself and Shaver don't get that.


We men of apparent intellect are oft disappointing when confronted with schmaltzy saccharine sentimentality.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> We men of apparent intellect are oft disappointing when confronted with schmaltzy saccharine sentimentality.


Again not how I would characterise that occasion. I'll leave it there to avoid further diverting your thread, though.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

bernoulli said:


> 1 - I hate to cite wikipedia, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth#World_population_in_2050
> You can see most models show a peak in population around 2040-2070. It makes sense given our understanding of fertility dynamics - urbanization and income brings it down over time. It already happened in Europe, Americas and most of Asia. It should happen to Africa soon, even though not before Nigeria become one of the most populous countries in the world. India is an interesting case, it will surpass China as the most populous country just because its fertility is much higher. Chinese population is almost at the point of shrinking, and labor force participation is already coming down. The ban of the one-child policy will not change it, as once families start to shrink they never come back to the same level (so far in history). Of course, if we have much richer 9 billion people, resource consumption will go through the roof. I would rework your premise to: consumption growth is a major issue (it can come from population growth, higher income to the existing population, or both).
> 
> 2 - Both iron ore and water are not the best examples for your resource exhaustion argument. We have the technology to tackle both without major ecological damage. The fact we do not do so today is due to economics (subsidized water prices, for instance, result in underinvestment in technology). We clearly have a resource exhaustion problem, but mostly due to other factors, that you point out in earlier posts..
> I would argue that changing consumption patterns would bring much more change than simply not having children, especially for high-income people. The additional brat would consume vast quantities of resources if we maintain the same pattern of consumption.


1 - Hmmm, a collection of - if, but and also, it is expected, most likely scenario, assumed projections, imagined decreases in fertility. I see little of substance here to support these models. This appears as mere rabbit-out-of-a-hat style statistical modelling. At any rate even the projections you cite in support of your claim vary between 16 billion and 6 billion, a less than comforting margin of error.

2. I concur that ecological damage could presently be limited were there economic incentive to do so.

Consumption patterns, on the other hand, is something of a red herring. One may recycle all day long, reducing carbon footprints to zero, never wasting a morsel of food, and so on and so forth but one single birth negates all of that considerate effort instantly.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

I'll have to actually read this thread later. But for now, I'll state that global warming , er climate change, is a religion that sees nonbelievers as heretics, despite the witch doctors having made no accurate predictions ever. Even if one believed the bullying fraudsters, they are akin to middle-aged women fretting that they weigh a pound more than they did on their 18th birthday, and immediate crash dieting is needed before their husband leaves them for "getting fat." Or they are the anal-retentives with little notebooks in their car's glove box that meticulously record their mileage and fuel consumption, convinced that serious mechanical problems are indicated by that 0.1mpg decrease they are experiencing.

There is no lack of room for humans, as the bulk of the earth's landmass is places where one could shoot in all directions all day and hit nobody. There is no lack of food, as evidenced by the fact that around half of it is discarded without being eaten. 

I'll get back after perusing the previous responses.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tempest said:


> I'll have to actually read this thread later. *But for now, I'll state that global warming , er climate change, is a religion that sees nonbelievers as heretics, despite the witch doctors having made no accurate predictions ever. Even if one believed the bullying fraudsters, they are akin to middle-aged women fretting that they weigh a pound more than they did on their 18th birthday, and immediate crash dieting is needed before their husband leaves them for "getting fat." Or they are the anal-retentives with little notebooks in their car's glove box that meticulously record their mileage and fuel consumption, convinced that serious mechanical problems are indicated by that 0.1mpg decrease they are experiencing.*
> 
> There is no lack of room for humans, as the bulk of the earth's landmass is places where one could shoot in all directions all day and hit nobody. There is no lack of food, as evidenced by the fact that around half of it is discarded without being eaten.
> 
> I'll get back after perusing the previous responses.


Fanciful, adjective laden, prose presented as surrogate to reason.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Tempest said:


> ... global warming , er climate change, is a religion that sees nonbelievers as heretics, despite the witch doctors having made no accurate predictions ever...


They are more joyless puritans than witch-doctors, whose arguments seem calculated to appeal only to those of like minds, fading to nothingness under sceptical scrutiny.

On the issue of over-population, calculations have been made as to the planet's potential maximum human population, and we are far from exceeding the carrying capacity at the present time. Falling populations in the developed world, rather than over-population, is more the problem.

Perhaps it's time to tax the childless, for failing in their duty to replenish the race?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> They are more joyless puritans than witch-doctors, whose arguments seem calculated to appeal only to those of like minds, fading to nothingness under sceptical scrutiny.
> 
> On the issue of over-population, calculations have been made as to the planet's potential maximum human population, and we are far from exceeding the carrying capacity at the present time. Falling populations in the developed world, rather than over-population, is more the problem.
> 
> Perhaps it's time to tax the childless, for failing in their duty to replenish the race?


Mere opinion masquerading as fact.

Admittedly, however, a rather amusing one-liner thrown in at the end.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Mere opinion masquerading as fact.
> 
> Admittedly, however, a rather amusing one-liner thrown in at the end.


Opinion, fortified and informed by fact. :evil:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> Opinion, fortified and informed by fact. :evil:


I presume that you may have seen the television news over the last couple of weeks? The unprecedented UK weather, warmest December day on record, rainfall at 300% more than average, floods, disasters, that type of thing?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> I presume that you may have seen the television news over the last couple of weeks? The unprecedented UK weather, warmest December day on record, rainfall at 300% more than average, floods, disasters, that type of thing?


I don't watch much TV as it happens but I am aware of the events you refer to.

I understand it is an El Nino year - quite a well-known periodic phenomenon which can affect global weather patterns, but it's nothing at all to do with 'global warming'.

I doubt whether there is such a thing as unprecedented UK weather - flooding, warm Decembers, cold summers - droughts - that sort of thing is always around in some form, it's no more than a staple of conversation between strangers in bus shelters. The last few winters have been quite cold; this year it's warm.

I remember in 1970 when I was 11 or 12 watching some quite learned weather experts on TV debating an oncoming ice-age they had detected through various means, and which would happen in about 1975. I was quite excited, even though I suspected they were slightly off-beam, but of course it didn't happen.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> I don't watch much TV as it happens but I am aware of the events you refer to.
> 
> I understand it is an El Nino year - quite a well-known periodic phenomenon which can affect global weather patterns, but it's nothing at all to do with 'global warming'.
> 
> ...


The stand-by hoary old chestnuts of the climate change denialist - it's a temporary blip and/or it's always been this way, somewhat amusingly occasionally (as above) both explanations are offered at the same time.

You may wish to consider reading this. Or you may not. Much easier to pontificate than investigate.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/el-nino-southern-oscillation.htm


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

For any denialist short of ammunition, please allow me to provide a long list of the most common gibberish spouted to support the zany theories (annotated with rebuttal).

Skeptic Arguments and What The Science Says
Skeptic Argumentvs*What the Science Says*1"Climate's changed before"Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing. 2"It's the sun"In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions
 3"It's not bad"Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives. 4"There is no consensus"97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
 5"It's cooling"The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record. 6"Models are unreliable"Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean. 7"Temp record is unreliable"The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites. 8"Animals and plants can adapt"Global warming will cause mass extinctions of species that cannot adapt on short time scales. 9"It hasn't warmed since 1998"For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005. 10"Antarctica is gaining ice"Satellites measure Antarctica losing land ice at an accelerating rate. 11"Ice age predicted in the 70s"The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming. 12"CO2 lags temperature"CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming. 13"Climate sensitivity is low"Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence. 14"We're heading into an ice age"Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years. 15"Ocean acidification isn't serious"Ocean acidification threatens entire marine food chains. 16"Hockey stick is broken"Recent studies agree that recent global temperatures are unprecedented in the last 1000 years. 17"Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy"A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident. 18"Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming"There is increasing evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger due to global warming. 19"Al Gore got it wrong"Al Gore's book is quite accurate, and far more accurate than contrarian books.
 20"Glaciers are growing"Most glaciers are retreating, posing a serious problem for millions who rely on glaciers for water. 21"It's cosmic rays"Cosmic rays show no trend over the last 30 years & have had little impact on recent global warming. 22"1934 - hottest year on record"1934 was one of the hottest years in the US, not globally. 23"It's freaking cold!"A local cold day has nothing to do with the long-term trend of increasing global temperatures. 24"Sea level rise is exaggerated"A variety of different measurements find steadily rising sea levels over the past century. 25"It's Urban Heat Island effect"Urban and rural regions show the same warming trend. 26"Medieval Warm Period was warmer"Globally averaged temperature now is higher than global temperature in medieval times. 27"Mars is warming"Mars is not warming globally. 28"Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle"Thick arctic sea ice is undergoing a rapid retreat. 29"Increasing CO2 has little to no effect"The strong CO2 effect has been observed by many different measurements. 30"Oceans are cooling"The most recent ocean measurements show consistent warming. 31"Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions"The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any. 32"IPCC is alarmist"Numerous papers have documented how IPCC predictions are more likely to underestimate the climate response.
 33"Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas"Rising CO2 increases atmospheric water vapor, which makes global warming much worse.
 34"Polar bear numbers are increasing"Polar bears are in danger of extinction as well as many other species. 35"CO2 limits will harm the economy"The benefits of a price on carbon outweigh the costs several times over.
 36"It's not happening"There are many lines of evidence indicating global warming is unequivocal.
 37"Greenland was green"Other parts of the earth got colder when Greenland got warmer. 38"Greenland is gaining ice"Greenland on the whole is losing ice, as confirmed by satellite measurement. 39"CO2 is not a pollutant"Through its impacts on the climate, CO2 presents a danger to public health and welfare, and thus qualifies as an air pollutant
 40"CO2 is plant food"The effects of enhanced CO2 on terrestrial plants are variable and complex and dependent on numerous factors
 41"Other planets are warming"Mars and Jupiter are not warming, and anyway the sun has recently been cooling slightly. 42"Arctic sea ice has recovered"Thick arctic sea ice is in rapid retreat. 43"There's no empirical evidence"There are multiple lines of direct observations that humans are causing global warming. 44"There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature"There is long-term correlation between CO2 and global temperature; other effects are short-term. 45"We're coming out of the Little Ice Age"Scientists have determined that the factors which caused the Little Ice Age cooling are not currently causing global warming
 46"It cooled mid-century"Mid-century cooling involved aerosols and is irrelevant for recent global warming. 47"Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995,2002, 2007, 2010, ????"Global temperature is still rising and 2010 was the hottest recorded.
 48"CO2 was higher in the past"When CO2 was higher in the past, the sun was cooler.
 49"It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low"Early 20th century warming is due to several causes, including rising CO2. 50"Satellites show no warming in the troposphere"The most recent satellite data show that the earth as a whole is warming. 51"It's aerosols"Aerosols have been masking global warming, which would be worse otherwise. 52"2009-2010 winter saw record cold spells"A cold day in Chicago in winter has nothing to do with the trend of global warming. 53"It's El Niño"El Nino has no trend and so is not responsible for the trend of global warming. 54"Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to land use"Most glaciers are in rapid retreat worldwide, notwithstanding a few complicated cases. 55"It's not us"Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change. 56"It's a natural cycle"No known natural forcing fits the fingerprints of observed warming except anthropogenic greenhouse gases. 57"There's no tropospheric hot spot"We see a clear "short-term hot spot" - there's various evidence for a "long-term hot spot". 58"It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation"The PDO shows no trend, and therefore the PDO is not responsible for the trend of global warming. 59"Scientists can't even predict weather"Weather and climate are different; climate predictions do not need weather detail. 60"IPCC were wrong about Himalayan glaciers"Glaciers are in rapid retreat worldwide, despite 1 error in 1 paragraph in a 1000 page IPCC report.
 61"Greenhouse effect has been falsified"The greenhouse effect is standard physics and confirmed by observations. 62"2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory"The 2nd law of thermodynamics is consistent with the greenhouse effect which is directly observed. 63"The science isn't settled"That human CO2 is causing global warming is known with high certainty & confirmed by observations. 64"Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated"Sea level rise is now increasing faster than predicted due to unexpectedly rapid ice melting. 65"Clouds provide negative feedback"Evidence is building that net cloud feedback is likely positive and unlikely to be strongly negative. 66"It's the ocean"The oceans are warming and moreover are becoming more acidic, threatening the food chain. 67"IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests"The IPCC statement on Amazon rainforests was correct, and was incorrectly reported in some media.
 68"Corals are resilient to bleaching"Globally about 1% of coral is dying out each year. 69"Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans"Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes. 70"CO2 effect is saturated"Direct measurements find that rising CO2 is trapping more heat. 71"Greenland ice sheet won't collapse"When Greenland was 3 to 5 degrees C warmer than today, a large portion of the Ice Sheet melted. 72"It's methane"Methane plays a minor role in global warming but could get much worse if permafrost starts to melt. 73"500 scientists refute the consensus"Around 97% of climate experts agree that humans are causing global warming. 74"CO2 has a short residence time"Excess CO2 from human emissions has a long residence time of over 100 years 75"CO2 measurements are suspect"CO2 levels are measured by hundreds of stations across the globe, all reporting the same trend. 76"Humidity is falling"Multiple lines of independent evidence indicate humidity is rising and provides positive feedback. 77"Neptune is warming"And the sun is cooling. 78"Springs aren't advancing"Hundreds of flowers across the UK are flowering earlier now than any time in 250 years. 79"Jupiter is warming"Jupiter is not warming, and anyway the sun is cooling. 80"It's land use"Land use plays a minor role in climate change, although carbon sequestration may help to mitigate. 81"Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature"The 'decline' refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports. 82"CO2 is not increasing"CO2 is increasing rapidly, and is reaching levels not seen on the earth for millions of years. 83"Record snowfall disproves global warming"Warming leads to increased evaporation and precipitation, which falls as increased snow in winter. 84"They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'"'Global warming' and 'climate change' mean different things and have both been used for decades.
 85"Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun"The sun has not warmed since 1970 and so cannot be driving global warming. 86"CO2 is coming from the ocean"The ocean is absorbing massive amounts of CO2, and is becoming more acidic as a result. 87"IPCC overestimate temperature rise"Monckton used the IPCC equation in an inappropriate manner.
 88"CO2 is not the only driver of climate"Theory, models and direct measurement confirm CO2 is currently the main driver of climate change. 89"Peer review process was corrupted"An Independent Review concluded that CRU's actions were normal and didn't threaten the integrity of peer review. 90"Southern sea ice is increasing"Antarctic sea ice has grown in recent decades despite the Southern Ocean warming at the same time. 91"It's microsite influences"Microsite influences on temperature changes are minimal; good and bad sites show the same trend. 92"Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity"Lindzen and Choi's paper is viewed as unacceptably flawed by other climate scientists. 93"Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995"Phil Jones was misquoted. 94"Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate"Humans are small but powerful, and human CO2 emissions are causing global warming. 95"Dropped stations introduce warming bias"If the dropped stations had been kept, the temperature would actually be slightly higher. 96"It's too hard"Scientific studies have determined that current technology is sufficient to reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough to avoid dangerous climate change. 97"It's albedo"Albedo change in the Arctic, due to receding ice, is increasing global warming. 98"Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960"This is a detail that is complex, local, and irrelevant to the observed global warming trend. 99"Roy Spencer finds negative feedback"Spencer's model is too simple, excluding important factors like ocean dynamics and treats cloud feedbacks as forcings. 100"Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong"Jim Hansen had several possible scenarios; his mid-level scenario B was right.
 101"It's global brightening"This is a complex aerosol effect with unclear temperature significance. 102"Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected"This argument ignores the cooling effect of aerosols and the planet's thermal inertia. 103"Arctic sea ice loss is matched by Antarctic sea ice gain"Arctic sea ice loss is three times greater than Antarctic sea ice gain. 104"It's a climate regime shift"There is no evidence that climate has chaotic "regimes" on a long-term basis. 105"Solar cycles cause global warming"Over recent decades, the sun has been slightly cooling & is irrelevant to recent global warming. 106"Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming"Around 97% of climate experts agree that humans are causing global warming. 107"Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project"The 'OISM petition' was signed by only a few climatologists. 108"Ice isn't melting"Arctic sea ice has shrunk by an area equal to Western Australia, and summer or multi-year sea ice might be all gone within a decade.
 109"A drop in volcanic activity caused warming"Volcanoes have had no warming effect in recent global warming - if anything, a cooling effect. 110"Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted"Weather is chaotic but climate is driven by Earth's energy imbalance, which is more predictable. 111"It's ozone"Ozone has only a small effect. 112"Freedom of Information (FOI) requests were ignored"An independent inquiry found CRU is a small research unit with limited resources and their rigour and honesty are not in doubt. 113"The IPCC consensus is phoney"113 nations signed onto the 2007 IPCC report, which is simply a summary of the current body of climate science evidence
 114"Tuvalu sea level isn't rising"Tuvalu sea level is rising 3 times larger than the global average. 115"Naomi Oreskes' study on consensus was flawed"Benny Peiser, the Oreskes critic, retracted his criticism. 116"Renewables can't provide baseload power"A number of renewable sources already do provide baseload power, and we don't need renewables to provide a large percentage of baseload power immediately.
 117"Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming"Trenberth is talking about the details of energy flow, not whether global warming is happening. 118"Ice Sheet losses are overestimated"A number of independent measurements find extensive ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland. 119"CRU tampered with temperature data"An independent inquiry went back to primary data sources and were able to replicate CRU's results. 120"Melting ice isn't warming the Arctic"Melting ice leads to more sunlight being absorbed by water, thus heating the Arctic. 121"Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup"By breathing out, we are simply returning to the air the same CO2 that was there to begin with. 122"Satellite error inflated Great Lakes temperatures"Temperature errors in the Great Lakes region are not used in any global temperature records. 123"Soares finds lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature"Soares looks at short-term trends which are swamped by natural variations while ignoring the long-term correlation. 124"We're heading into cooling"There is no scientific basis for claims that the planet will begin to cool in the near future. 125"Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural"Multiple lines of evidence make it very clear that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to human emissions. 126"Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer"This argument uses regional temperature data that ends in 1855, long before modern global warming began. 127"CO2 emissions do not correlate with CO2 concentration"That humans are causing the rise in atmospheric CO2 is confirmed by multiple isotopic analyses. 128"The sun is getting hotter"The sun has just had the deepest solar minimum in 100 years. 129"It's waste heat"Greenhouse warming is adding 100 times more heat to the climate than waste heat. 130"Water vapor in the stratosphere stopped global warming"This possibility just means that future global warming could be even worse. 131"It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940"The warming trend over 1970 to 2001 is greater than warming from both 1860 to 1880 and 1910 to 1940. 132"An exponential increase in CO2 will result in a linear increase in temperature"CO2 levels are rising so fast that unless we decrease emissions, global warming will accelerate this century. 133"Record high snow cover was set in winter 2008/2009"Winter snow cover in 2008/2009 was average while the long-term trend in spring, summer, and annual snow cover is rapid decline. 134"Mauna Loa is a volcano"The global trend is calculated from hundreds of CO2 measuring stations and confirmed by satellites. 135"CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming"The CERN CLOUD experiment only tested one-third of one out of four requirements necessary to blame global warming on cosmic rays, and two of the other requirements have already failed. 136"Antarctica is too cold to lose ice"Glaciers are sliding faster into the ocean because ice shelves are thinning due to warming oceans. 137"Positive feedback means runaway warming"Positive feedback won't lead to runaway warming; diminishing returns on feedback cycles limit the amplification. 138"Skeptics were kept out of the IPCC?"Official records, Editors and emails suggest CRU scientists acted in the spirit if not the letter of IPCC rules.
 139"Water levels correlate with sunspots"This detail is irrelevant to the observation of global warming caused by humans. 140"CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician"The sun was much cooler during the Ordovician. 141"It's CFCs"CFCs contribute at a small level. 142"Scientists retracted claim that sea levels are rising"The Siddall 2009 paper was retracted because its predicted sea level rise was too low. 143"Warming causes CO2 rise"Recent warming is due to rising CO2. 144"Greenland has only lost a tiny fraction of its ice mass"Greenland's ice loss is accelerating & will add metres of sea level rise in upcoming centuries. 145"DMI show cooling Arctic"While summer maximums have showed little trend, the annual average Arctic temperature has risen sharply in recent decades. 146"Royal Society embraces skepticism"The Royal Society still strongly state that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming. 147"It's only a few degrees"A few degrees of global warming has a huge impact on ice sheets, sea levels and other aspects of climate. 148"97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven"The 97% consensus has been independently confirmed by a number of different approaches and lines of evidence.
 149"It's satellite microwave transmissions"Satellite transmissions are extremely small and irrelevant. 150"CO2 only causes 35% of global warming"CO2 and corresponding water vapor feedback are the biggest cause of global warming.
 151"Sea level fell in 2010"The temporary drop in sea level in 2010 was due to intense land flooding caused by a strong La Nina. 152"Arctic sea ice extent was lower in the past"Current Arctic sea ice extent is the lowest in the past several thousand years.
 153"We didn't have global warming during the Industrial Revolution"CO2 emissions were much smaller 100 years ago. 154"Loehle and Scafetta find a 60 year cycle causing global warming"Loehle and Scafetta's paper is nothing more than a curve fitting exercise with no physical basis using an overly simplistic model. 155"Postma disproved the greenhouse effect"Postma's model contains many simple errors; in no way does Postma undermine the existence or necessity of the greenhouse effect. 
[HR][/HR]https://www.skepticalscience.com/

The Skeptical Science website by Skeptical Science is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

Shaver,

More than anything, what is appalling to me is the fact that most people do not understand how science works. Climate change is real, it is caused by, among other things, mankind, and it needs to be dealt with. Science works, it gives all these wonderful things, but people still do not understand how it is made. Amazing.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ Shaver, I am familiar with SkepticalScience.com, indeed I have from time to time whiled away idle moments refuting some of the more idiotic or provocative suggestions I have seen there ... 

I'm aware of the cautionary principle, but so far, I have not found any of the man-made climate change arguments sufficiently compelling to take seriously. There seems to be a rather Stalinist, tunnel vision mentality at work - if you are determined to arrive at a particular conclusion - in this case, global warming - it is quite possible to cherry-pick data, while ignoring anything that inconveniently doesn't tally. Too often, that is what I detect happening with their arguments, and I'm afraid the whole man-made warming theory is shot through with inconsistencies, refusals to consider alternative causes, and the rest. Correst principles of scientific investigation seem to have been abandoned in the haste to arrive at a particular conclusion.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> For any denialist short of ammunition, please allow me to provide a long list of the most common gibberish spouted to support the zany theories (annotated with rebuttal).
> 
> *Skeptic Arguments and What The Science Says *...


I don't have a particular horse in this race, but this is (on its face) just a bunch of assertions by a blogger who according to Wikipedia got p$ssed with something a Senator said about climate change. There is no evidence, based on what you posted, that this is in fact what science says. Good science is supported by evidence, not assertion.

Just to be clear, I'm not taking issue with your position, I'm just saying that the material you've cited doesn't advance it one way or the other without an evidence base.


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

Langham,

I don't understand your point. We have thousands of papers in different disciplines fileded by scientists of every possible nationality arriving at the same conclusion - that mankind affects climate. There is cherry picking in the popular science writings of the subject, but if you look at papers published in major journals, we now know the mechanisms in which economic activity generate climate change, most of the effects, and have a good understanding of possible climate paths in the future. If you go to the sources (i.e., scientific literature), all your arguments don't hold. Science works, man, it is as simple as that.

You may argue about the size of the impact and the time we have to do something about it (all for grabs), but not that mankind has no major impact on climate change. Seriously, it is like saying that evolution does not happen, or that quantum physics is bollocks.



Langham said:


> ^ Shaver, I am familiar with SkepticalScience.com, indeed I have from time to time whiled away idle moments refuting some of the more idiotic or provocative suggestions I have seen there ...
> 
> I'm aware of the cautionary principle, but so far, I have not found any of the man-made climate change arguments sufficiently compelling to take seriously. There seems to be a rather Stalinist, tunnel vision mentality at work - if you are determined to arrive at a particular conclusion - in this case, global warming - it is quite possible to cherry-pick data, while ignoring anything that inconveniently doesn't tally. Too often, that is what I detect happening with their arguments, and I'm afraid the whole man-made warming theory is shot through with inconsistencies, refusals to consider alternative causes, and the rest. Correst principles of scientific investigation seem to have been abandoned in the haste to arrive at a particular conclusion.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

bernoulli said:


> Langham,
> 
> I don't understand your point. We have thousands of papers in different disciplines fileded by scientists of every possible nationality arriving at the same conclusion - that mankind affects climate. There is cherry picking in the popular science writings of the subject, but if you look at papers published in major journals, we now know the mechanisms in which economic activity generate climate change, most of the effects, and have a good understanding of possible climate paths in the future. If you go to the sources (i.e., scientific literature), all your arguments don't hold. Science works, man, it is as simple as that.
> 
> You may argue about the size of the impact and the time we have to do something about it (all for grabs), but not that mankind has no major impact on climate change. Seriously, it is like saying that evolution does not happen, or that quantum physics is bollocks.


Bernoulli,

I accept that climate change happens - there is a profusion of geological and other evidence proving that, throughout time, the world's climate has fluctuated, and often in a quite extreme fashion. Clearly this all happened without any involvement at all on the part of mankind, since for most of that immensely long period, mankind effectively did not exist.

The present causes of any climate change therefore seem to me more likely to be those ongoing causes that have always operated - fluctuations in solar activity perhaps, volcanic activity, planetary phenomena, natural periodicity, or random phenomena triggering complex feedback mechanisms. Other possibilities abound.

I am prepared to accept that varying concentrations of atmospheric CO2 may have an effect on the climate, but I do not believe it is possible to establish with the necessary degree of scientific certainty that human intervention is necessarily the principal cause, or even a minor cause of any observable weather phenomena.

My view is fortified by the tendencious and dogmatic - sometimes also mendacious - way (see my earlier post) by which many climate-change zealots manage to undermine the very point they are trying so hard to make. They resort to characterising as blinkered those who are sceptical, yet they themselves seem to be so to a far greater degree.


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

So, how do you answer the following papers (not cherry picked, just took the first few papers published in good journals from a simple search):

https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n1/full/nclimate1332.html
https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n10/abs/ngeo2248.html
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7409/abs/nature11299.html
https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n11/full/nclimate2403.html
https://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/i...ponent/escidoc:1956266/jcli-d-12-00554-E1.pdf

Look, the links are well established. I may even share your skepticism of dogmatic pro-climate change people, but I cannot oversee the empirical evidence. Economic activity has a serious impact on climate change. I still don't understand how you can deny that. If you want to bash dogmatic people, I am all for it, but please do not deny basic science.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ I will read through those papers when I have some free time, Bernoulli. I appreciate the trouble you have gone to.


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

Thanks for the civil back and forth. Here is the thing: if you argue that climate change may not have a big economic impact and that it is all overblown, you have an argument and I will respect it, even though I think you would be wrong. But denying the link between human action and climate change is just wrong.

I do understand your frustration with eco-extremists. I even share some of it. I have had problems with many organizations because I am pro-nuclear energy and whale hunting (to a degree). In the latest conference I attended I had a spirited discussion with a keynote speaker because he was in favor of the zero-growth movement, something that is just untenable. Yet, I cannot deny basic science. We are affecting Earth's climate. We are consuming a lot of natural resources. I cannot predict our future, and maybe we will be saved by technology or we will just adapt skillfully, but I cannot argue that economic activity is carbon neutral and/or have no impact on Earth's climate. I am a scientist, and need to respect the evidence, even if I don't support some policy predictions based on it.



Langham said:


> ^ I will read through those papers when I have some free time, Bernoulli. I appreciate the trouble you have gone to.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mr Langham

After variously employing such adjectives as 'tendentious, dogmatic, mendacious, zealots, idiotic, provocative, Stalinist, blinkered' to those who accept climate change might we now encourage you to resist insulting the proponents and advance a coherent argument which disputes the theory. 

Although I suspect that for those who wish to present this debate as one in which the personalities of their opponents are more important than the facts probably have no facts.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

bernoulli said:


> Shaver,
> 
> More than anything, what is appalling to me is the fact that most people do not understand how science works. Climate change is real, it is caused by, among other things, mankind, and it needs to be dealt with. Science works, it gives all these wonderful things, but people still do not understand how it is made. Amazing.


Indeed bernoulli. There are those who seem content to accept any scientific effect which benefits them (whether they understand it or not) but rail at any effect which may cause them to be inconvenienced; the validity of science as a personal preference.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Mr Langham
> 
> After variously employing such adjectives as 'tendentious, dogmatic, mendacious, zealots, idiotic, provocative, Stalinist, blinkered' to those who accept climate change might we now encourage you to resist insulting the proponents and advance a coherent argument which disputes the theory.
> 
> Although I suspect that for those who wish to present this debate as one in which the personalities of their opponents are more important than the facts probably have no facts.


Encouragement and advice from your good self are always welcome, Mr Shaver, although the use of helpful and occasionally colourful adjectives is a device to which, you have perhaps observed, I am strongly attached. However, I do not believe any insult has been issued in my recent postings - certainly none was intended, either to you or indeed any others who may happen, for whatever reason or quirk, to believe differently about the matter at hand. Equally, if my line of argument appeared incoherent to you, that was not my own perception of it. Occasionally I too find other people's postings on these forums opaque and hard to follow - sometimes a careful rereading of them reveals their meaning.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Whatever happened to that other secular doomsday cult, the "hole in the ozone layer" people? Didn't they also go around claiming scientific predictions of receding coastlines and year-round tropical weather by the year 2000?


Spoiler



It didn't happen!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tempest said:


> Whatever happened to that other secular doomsday cult, the "hole in the ozone layer" people? Didn't they also go around claiming scientific predictions of receding coastlines and year-round tropical weather by the year 2000?
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Plumbing the depths of ignorance?

Responding to the very real, and imminent, threat of Ozone depletion an International treaty entitled the The Montreal Protocol was agreed in the late 1980's. Recovery is gradual but tangible. Mercifully the largest extant hole is located over Antarctica.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Tempest said:


> Whatever happened to that other secular doomsday cult, the "hole in the ozone layer" people? Didn't they also go around claiming scientific predictions of receding coastlines and year-round tropical weather by the year 2000?
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Echoing Shaver, your comment is actually supportive of efforts to understand and combat climate change; the ozone problem was averted by phasing out CFCs in refrigerants in the late 80s (the treaty was signed in 1987), and there has been gradual recovery.

So, as you can see, environmental activism actually works as intended.

(Of course, climate change is much more complex than ozone depletion; it's not even necessarily wholly-bad: greenhouse gases have been a partial factor in ozone recovery, for example. The atmosphere is a complex dynamical system, and these are characterized my multiple loci of equilibrium, which at once makes it more stable but also makes it difficult to shift - including in directions one might consider "safer" or "better"; climate drift is quite difficult to arrest*.)

DH

* Nor would you want to. A climate which doesn't change at all would be more dangerous than a dynamic climate, since a single event could render the Earth uninhabitable (though, going back to the thread's original purpose, that would certainly solve any overpopulation concerns). Climate, mathematically, is a bit like a heart - surprisingly stable, but subject to small changes which can have wide systemic effects.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

One more thing.

Obviously, the major barrier to lay understanding of climate change as a political issue is lack of understanding of climate change as a scientific topic. And that's hardly worthy of scorn, because it's a very complex, interdisciplinary topic. I'm a physicist, and a biochemist, AND have a working understanding of ecology and population biology, and I *still* find areas of the subject unfamiliar.

I recommend that *anyone* who wishes to comment on climate change "The Issue" first at least have some idea of what they're talking about. A good one-stop starting point in this endeavor is David Archer's fine survey "The Climate Crisis, an Introductory Guide to Climate Change" - in the USA, you can ILL it for a mere $3 (it's rare to find in general library collections), or you can just spring for it on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/052173255...TF8&colid=26BSVY6LDF77H&coliid=I2MO8Q4G1JAQDG

After reading that, you can delve into the RealClimate blog, which is the "serious" blog where actual researchers share ideas (as opposed to a more political site). I have a couple of colleagues - a mathematician at EPA, an ecologist with the US Air Force, and a couple of atmospheric physicists - who all recommended it to *me*.

But at least read the Archer book. Trying to educate oneself "on the Internet" is such a politically-charged topic is simply hopeless without first establishing a scholarly basis for sifting.

DH


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Where is vp, I wonder? Tied up maybe? Quantum entanglement probably.


Neither, thanks. Simply busy with work and I have my 2 contributions to the earth's population this week as well.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> Neither, thanks. Simply busy with work and I have my 2 contributions to the earth's population this week as well.


vp! Thank goodness. We were worried about you.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Shaver said:


> I presume that you may have seen the television news over the last couple of weeks? The unprecedented UK weather, warmest December day on record, rainfall at 300% more than average, floods, disasters, that type of thing?


So cold weather (got it here) doesn't disprove global warming, but warm weather does prove it. Funny how that works.

Wait, is the record rainfall a problem, I thought we were supposed to be worried about droughts?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tempest said:


> So cold weather (got it here) doesn't disprove global warming, but warm weather does prove it. Funny how that works.
> 
> Wait, is the record rainfall a problem, I thought we were supposed to be worried about droughts?


How about this? You return to the thread and contribute after you have acquired the bare minimum knowledge which will enable you to avoid appearing so foolish.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Tempest said:


> So cold weather (got it here) doesn't disprove global warming, but warm weather does prove it. Funny how that works.
> 
> Wait, is the record rainfall a problem, I thought we were supposed to be worried about droughts?


Tempest,

You appear to be ignorant of the nature and causes of the phenomena to which you refer.

Cold weather -- The models of global warming include increased severity and occurrence of weather extremes, both very hot and very cold.

What is meaningful in terms of climate is long term trends. Those clearly indicate the average annual temperature of the world is increasing.

The current wet weather some of us are experiencing (It is raining where I live, in the wine country a couple of hours north of San Francisco.) is due to el Nino (A tilda belongs over the n.), a cyclically occurring warming of Pacific waters that results in increased rainfall in some places and less rainfall than others. El Nino is often followed by a la Nina year of reduced rainfall some places and increases in others, but not in the same places as in el Nino. This rainfall is independent of the drought, particularly acute in California for the last three years, but more generally happening throughout the West.

Climate records associate this drought with a series of droughts going back a thousand or so years, and having a duration of one or two hundred years. The drought may or may not be tied into the current, human caused global warming. I will ask a friend who is a member of the IPCC about this.

I am not a scientist. I am, however, well informed, and well enough educated in the sciences, to understand the current discussion. (FWIW, I was on my high school's chemistry team, and as a geography major and graduate student, I had the earth sciences brought prominently to my notice.

It is interesting, and a comment on the generally high educational and intellectual level of the forum membership, that such a well-informed and civil discussion of this topic is possible. This particularly noteworthy in light of the conservative tilt of the membership as a whole.

Regards,
Gurdon

On a personal note, I am enjoying the wet winter and am grateful for the interruption in the drought, which may reasonably be expected to resume next year and to continue for the near but uncertain future.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Gurdon said:


> You appear to be ignorant of the nature and causes of the phenomena to which you refer.
> 
> Cold weather -- The models of global warming include increased severity and occurrence of weather extremes, both very hot and very cold.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure that ignorant is an appropriate adjective here. We are discussing phenomena about which - while there is some appreciation of what is happening, and certainly great efforts are being made to deepen this understanding - nevertheless, much remains unknown. Every advance reveals yet greater levels of complexity in the workings of climate.

El Nino, or ENSO, which you mention, is one interesting example of periodicity in climate. Other phenomena operate over much longer periods. Rather unsuccessful attempts have been made to link ENSO with some anthropogenic cause, just as current orthodoxy seems intent on attributing a human origin to the posited global warming we are experiencing. Personally I remain an adherent of periodicity rather than any human influence - I realise that puts me in the minority in this debate, but I am not convinced by arguments regarding the very low quotient of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that can be attributed to industry and cars.


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

Bold "*arguments" *in your quote is mine. Langham, climate scientists are not advocating arguments. Science put forward models. They all agree on anthropogenic causes (not solely, dynamic complex systems are not deterministic like that) for climate change. At best, we would have some effect, but most models show a huge impact on climate by economic activity. There is no scientific evidence for your position. You asked me for scientific literature and I provided you some. Dhaller's post is very good and provides you even more literature. You may argue on the policy implications of anthropogenic effects on climate, even advocating doing nothing, believing technology is going to save us all. I would disagree with you but then we could have an argument-based discussion.

If you develop a model that explains all recent phenomena better than the current models, good for you or for people that think that climate change is not caused by humans. Right now, that is not how any scientific model sees it. Come on, man, you seem rational enough, why deny science?



Langham said:


> ... Personally I remain an adherent of periodicity rather than any human influence - I realise that puts me in the minority in this debate, but I am not convinced by *arguments* regarding the very low quotient of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that can be attributed to industry and cars.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Langham said:


> I'm not sure that ignorant is an appropriate adjective here. We are discussing phenomena about which - while there is some appreciation of what is happening, and certainly great efforts are being made to deepen this understanding - nevertheless, much remains unknown. Every advance reveals yet greater levels of complexity in the workings of climate.
> 
> El Nino, or ENSO, which you mention, is one interesting example of periodicity in climate. Other phenomena operate over much longer periods. Rather unsuccessful attempts have been made to link ENSO with some anthropogenic cause, just as current orthodoxy seems intent on attributing a human origin to the posited global warming we are experiencing. Personally I remain an adherent of periodicity rather than any human influence - I realise that puts me in the minority in this debate, but I am not convinced by arguments regarding the very low quotient of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that can be attributed to industry and cars.


Langham,
You appear to be ignorant of the science involved in the matters under discussion.
Gurdon


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Gurdon said:


> Langham,
> You appear to be ignorant of the science involved in the matters under discussion.
> Gurdon


As do you of basic civility Gurdon.

Those with sheep-like dispositions are free to follow groupthink.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Those whose objections appear to be nourished at the bosom of a rather negative emotional response are free to consider offering rational proposals to support their position.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

bernoulli said:


> ...
> 
> I do understand your frustration with eco-extremists. I even share some of it. I have had problems with many organizations because I am pro-nuclear energy and whale hunting (to a degree). In the latest conference I attended I had a spirited discussion with a keynote speaker because he was in favor of the zero-growth movement, something that is just untenable. Yet, I cannot deny basic science. ...


Again I do not have a horse in this race, but I think this is a very sensible observation. Many cogent arguments are undermined by the lunatic fringe of adherents with which they become associated.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Balfour said:


> Again I do not have a horse in this race, but I think this is a very sensible observation. Many cogent arguments are undermined by the lunatic fringe of adherents with which they become associated.


Concur. There are rent-a-mob's in England (normally nutty white folk in dreadlocks with wool woven in) whose raison d'être would appear to be to camp out at sites of proposed fracking shrieking incoherently. Now, I am against fracking but these types contribute little to sensible debate and allow the loathsome businesses involved to appear reasonable by comparison.

.
.
.
.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Quite. The Tory Party has been undermined by many of its 'supporters' for many years, making satire like this possible, despite the threat posed by the current Labour leadership.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Langham, 
I apologize for any perceived incivility on my part. That was the opposite of my intention. I was trying to be direct, not insulting. 

Nonetheless, based on what you have written, it is clear that you are not well informed about the science undergirding the discussion of global warming. Moreover, it appears that you do not understand how science works. 

Gurdon


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ Clearly it is at variance with how they are perceived by others here, yet it strikes me as slightly intrusive to speculate so emphatically on my understanding of the phenomena we were discussing. Be that as it may, I accept your apology, Gurdon, and shall refrain from further discussion on this subject.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Langham said:


> ^ Clearly it is at variance with how they are perceived by others here, yet it strikes me as slightly intrusive to speculate so emphatically on my understanding of the phenomena we were discussing. Be that as it may, I accept your apology, Gurdon, and shall refrain from further discussion on this subject.


Langham,
It is unfortunate that you do not wish to continue the discussion. I was hoping to see what you would have made of the links provided bernoulli and Dhaller. It would be interesting to hear what a conservative who acknowledges the reality of global warming might have to say about how to deal with it.
Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Gurdon said:


> Langham,
> It is unfortunate that you do not wish to continue the discussion. I was hoping to see what you would have made of the links provided bernoulli and Dhaller. It would be interesting to hear what a conservative who acknowledges the reality of global warming might have to say about how to deal with it.
> Regards,
> Gurdon


I did say earlier that I would study Bernoulli's links later when I have time. I happen to be excessively busy at the moment but will do so when time allows. I have always acknowledged, to myself at least, a certain rigidity of thought in various matters, but perhaps the papers Bernoulli has cited will offer some fresh insight.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

*Sorry Bernoulli, but ...*



bernoulli said:


> So, how do you answer the following papers (not cherry picked, just took the first few papers published in good journals from a simple search):
> 
> https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n1/full/nclimate1332.html
> https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n10/abs/ngeo2248.html
> ...


Bernoulli,
Going back on my earlier promise to leave this discussion alone, I thought I should at least consider the papers you directed me to,.

Unfortunately the Nature papers are subscription-only, so my review - admittedly hasty, as I am chronically short of time - is restricted to the PNAS and Journal of Climate papers.

I appreciate the papers were selected almost at random, but they seem poorly suited to making the case for man-made global warming. I say this, not because I necessarily take issue with the findings, such as they may be, but because they are written in a way that will be quite baffling to the layman.

At the heart of this issue is how matters are understood, and unless scientists are able to communicate their ideas to the wider public, they will only gain qualified acceptance at best. Both papers are of course written for scientists; non-scientists would I think find them almost completely inaccessible, due to matters of algebra, obscure acronyms, sophisticated statistical analysis, references and diagrams whose purpose and message are not always very clear.

The terminology leaves the layman's mind clouded with uncertainty - there is much apparent ambiguity, or perhaps diffidence, such that the casual reader may well be quite uncertain as to the actual conclusion. The impression that is conveyed is that the author seems hesitant to make any definite pronouncement, it is all couched in cautious, either-way, lawyer-like phrases. For instance ...



> The emissions-driven framework for model simulations allows full end-to-end uncertainty in CO2 and climate ... there is significant model spread ... due in part to the diverse response of land carbon cycle models to changes in CO2 and climate and widely different treatments of land-use change.





> We recommend that particular effort is required to better evaluate and improve terrestrial carbon cycle stocks in ES-GCMs ... although there is not a one-to-one relation between present stocks and future changes, it is clearly a priority for ES-GCMs to better represent the magnitude of carbon amounts before we can have confidence in projections of future changes.


And finally &#8230;


> We find that land carbon storage may increase or decrease in future dependent on scenario and the treatment of future land-use change ....


So I'm afraid, at present I can't say I'm convinced. I remain more persuaded by periodicity theories, as mentioned earlier, such as the Milankovitch cycles, which have the virtue of a much longer set of data. Not that that by any means discounts the possibility of man-made effects, but I have to say I remain sceptical.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Zika virus.

"slain by the putrefactive and disease bacteria against which their systems were unprepared..... slain, after all man's devices had failed, by the humblest things that God, in his wisdom, has put upon this earth.."

H G Wells


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Do you foresee the End Times?

I thought that contradicted your view upthread?

"When the Lamb opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature say, "Come!"*8 *I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth."

Revelation 6:7, 8


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

No, no. Not the Apocalypse. Merely an excellent incentive to desist breeding.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Your argument is: don't breed, as lots of us are going to die?:devil:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

The virus impacts negatively upon foetal development. Brazil has already recommended a cessation of pregnancy.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

So we're not all going to die from it? I thought it might have been one of these periodic scare stories. Good. As you were.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

I believe circumstances in Mexico City, Calcutta, and possibly several Chinese cities of a few million, provide an idea of what Shaver has in mind. Catastrophic mass die-off is unlikely -- instead, most people will experience short miserable poverty-stricken lives and authoritarian coercive governance. 

The environmental degradation seems well enough documented as to not require elaboration. 

The 1% will live in isolated security. At least they think so.

Gurdon


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

The zika virus bequeaths congenital deformity. Prospective parents will choose not to procreate. 

Short miserable poverty-stricken lives and authoritarian coercive governance is antithesis to my position.


----------

