Great news, climate change has existed for longer then the Earths climate

[Menan]

How, well some 5 or so billion years ago, the primordial Earth had no climate, it went from a ball of gas and dust to a lifeless solidifying mass with no atmosphere.  However (tell Al Gore) volcanoes began spewing gasses and gradually a climate emerged.  Thus climate change is older than the Earths climate.  20,000 years ago half of NJ and everything above that was under thousands of feet of ice.  Since this mostly melted by 10,000 years ago, the current rate of melt is well, babyshit.

So climate change is very real, and totally normal, and there is no change in the last 150 years that comes anywhere the last 20,000 years.  Which is why the pedophile from Penn State only looked at the last 1000 years

Luv ya kids

[Endy0816]

The climate doesn't normally do that at the end there...

We're already seeing the effects. Islands are disappearing. Short/Late winters, regular droughts, more northern hurricanes and brutal summers.

What kind of sign are you waiting for?

[beecee]

4 hours ago, Menan said:

How, well some 5 or so billion years ago, the primordial Earth had no climate, it went from a ball of gas and dust to a lifeless solidifying mass with no atmosphere.  However (tell Al Gore) volcanoes began spewing gasses and gradually a climate emerged.  Thus climate change is older than the Earths climate.  20,000 years ago half of NJ and everything above that was under thousands of feet of ice.  Since this mostly melted by 10,000 years ago, the current rate of melt is well, babyshit.

So climate change is very real, and totally normal, and there is no change in the last 150 years that comes anywhere the last 20,000 years.  Which is why the pedophile from Penn State only looked at the last 1000 years

No reputable scientists has denied that climate change is a normal process due to irregularities etc in its orbital and rotational process. The facts are that human activity is adding to it. That is what we as a species is trying to lessen.

Quote

Luv ya kids

It's becoming quite common this sort of pretentious bravado from those that set out to invalidate science, with the usual dismal success..

[mistermack]

It's pretentious to present the argument as wise scientists against moronic sceptics.

The fact is that climate science as a movement isn't an unbiased clinical body, it's a world of activists. All dissent has been eliminated.

And the other fact is that it's a brand new science with NO record of successfully forecasting the world climate. Absolutely nil. Zero. They are overclaiming their expertise by a huge margin. In fact most of the dire predictions have been wrong, so far. And the way that the theorised results of warming are always portrayed as negative is a joke. There are huge areas of the planet that might well benefit, or remain unaffected.

But anyway, I personally don't give a toss about GW, while no effort is being made to tackle the real cause, which is overpopulation. The carbon footprint for the whole population of the Earth is about 5 tons per year per person. About 350 tons in a lifetime. That's what one condom could save. Forget windmills, start with free condoms, if you want to make a difference. Birth control methods free to everyone on Earth would save far more carbon than windmills and solar panels, and the effect would multiply down the generations. 

In the medieval warm period, around the year 1,000, there were about 370 million people on Earth. Now there are over 7,000 million. Or to put it another way, in my lifetime, it's gone from 2,500 million to 7,000 million and rising fast.

There's your problem.

Edited November 4, 2018 by mistermack

[John Cuthber]

7 minutes ago, mistermack said:

All dissent has been eliminated.

If that was true you wouldn't be saying it's wrong.

 

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

And the other fact is that it's a brand new science with NO record of successfully forecasting the world climate

It predicted increasingly variable weather and a rise in temperature.

Both predictions have come true.

11 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Forget windmills, start with free condoms,

Ok, not a bad idea.

But most of the CO2 emissions and energy/ resource consumption is due to people in the developed world where the birthrate is pretty much the same as the death rate.

It's in the developing world where birth control could achieve most, but they are not the ones  creating the problem.

Unless you plan to cull rich Westerners, you still need to reduce consumption.
 

[mistermack]

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

If that was true you wouldn't be saying it's wrong.

I said climate science as a movement. I don't work in climate science. Nobody in their right mind would go into climate science as a sceptic. 

 

4 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

It predicted increasingly variable weather and a rise in temperature.

Predicting a RISE isn't a climate prediction. It's no better than a coin toss. 

11 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

It's in the developing world where birth control could achieve most, but they are not the ones  creating the problem.

Actually they are. They are burning jungle, and making babies, who will one day demand cars and air conditioners and plane journeys.

In the developed world, CO2 output is generally falling and populations would be too, without immigration from the developing world.

[Strange]

8 hours ago, Menan said:

So climate change is very real, and totally normal, and there is no change in the last 150 years that comes anywhere the last 20,000 years.

It is the rate of change that is unique. There is a nice graphical representation here: https://xkcd.com/1732/

 

!

Moderator Note

And drop the personal attacks

 

[John Cuthber]

12 minutes ago, mistermack said:

In the developed world, CO2 output is generally falling

In spite of people saying that climate change isn't real.

13 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Predicting a RISE isn't a climate prediction.

Yes it is.

Very obviously.

Are you somehow too biased to see that?

At best, you do yourself little good by saying that predicting something isn't a prediction.

If you are so laughably wrong about that (which is obvious) then why would anyone think you will be right about anything else?

[mistermack]

 

13 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

At best, you do yourself little good by saying that predicting something isn't a prediction.

It's not worth the name of climate prediction. A fifty fifty coin toss that I could do sat on my arse. In any case, there is no official climate prediction. There are thousands of stabs in the dark. That way, someone is bound to get it right.

IF they had predicted nearly twenty years of no rise in temperatures, I would have been impressed. But they didn't. They predicted huge rises in temperatures that never happened. 

That was before they started fiddling the figures. Now, what's really happening is anybody's guess because figures are being manipulated. I used to trust the reported figures, now I don't. It's open season.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

It's pretentious to present the argument as wise scientists against moronic sceptics.

The fact is that climate science as a movement isn't an unbiased clinical body, it's a world of activists. All dissent has been eliminated.

Nonsense. The reason that there is minimal "dissent" over the conclusion of climate science is the same as the the reason there is minimal dissent over the Big Bang model. Science.

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

And the other fact is that it's a brand new science with NO record of successfully forecasting the world climate. Absolutely nil. Zero.

The science goes back well over 100 years. And has made successful predictions over that time: https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

(Of course, the tests of those predictions are done by other scientists and if you believe the whole thing is run by a secret cabal of lizard people, then you may not find that convincing.)

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

But anyway, I personally don't give a toss about GW, while no effort is being made to tackle the real cause, which is overpopulation.

Overpopulation is being tackled. With limited success using direct means such as China's One Child policy. Much more successfully by policies to increase health and education in developing countries. The worldwide fertility rate has already fallen below the replacement level. The only way to speed up the decrease in population now would seem to be a program of mass exterminations. I have a feeling that would not be too popular. 

42 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Predicting a RISE isn't a climate prediction.

It is when it is based on models (and not tossing coins).

12 minutes ago, mistermack said:

It's not worth the name of climate prediction. A fifty fifty coin toss that I could do sat on my arse.

But if you did that repeatedly you would no get consistent results. Unlike, say, science.

[mistermack]

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

The only way to speed up the decrease in population now would seem to be a program of mass exterminations.

That's rather silly. In any case, it's not a question of speeding up a decrease. We haven't got a decrease. And by the time we do get any decrease, the population levels will probably be double what we've go now.  : World bank data : 

Brazil has shown that population rises are not inevitable, but that was a local freak, nothing to do with deliberate actions.

Edited November 4, 2018 by mistermack

[Strange]

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

That's rather silly. In any case, it's not a question of speeding up a decrease. We haven't got a decrease.

It's in the pipeline. Because of the work done to tackle poverty, improve education and health, etc. 

[mistermack]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

It's in the pipeline. Because of the work done to tackle poverty, improve education and health, etc. 

Yes, by which time population will be nearly double. ( I predict ) AND, along with tackling poverty etc comes more demand for energy.

Edited November 4, 2018 by mistermack

[Strange]

Just now, mistermack said:

Yes, by which time population will be nearly double. AND, along with tackling poverty etc comes more demand for energy.

As the birthrate has fallen below the replacement level (and, as far as I know, is still falling) the only way of shortening the pipeline is to remove people from it ... But, as you said, that is rather silly. 

[mistermack]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

As the birthrate has fallen below the replacement level

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

https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.html   

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, mistermack said:

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

https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.html   

Hmmm... Looks like I was wrong about the birth rate. I will try and track down where I got that from.

Now: back to climate change ...

[mistermack]

If you look at the World Bank graph I posted earlier, you can see that there are five billion people on the planet who's population rise is extremely steep and even climbing. ( The two asias and sub saharan Africa, add them up ) 

I think the UN estimates that I posted are extremely optimistic. 

[Strange]

Couldn't find any really good data on this. But it isn't as simple as the number quoted in that UN report (the difference between births and deaths) because that doesn't take into account mortality rates. And that affects what the replacement rate for a population will be. For developed countries, the replacement fertility rate is about 2.1, while for the world it is about 2.33 (or was in 2005, it may have fallen since then). The global fertility rate is approaching (if not already at) the replacement rate. So:

Quote

After an explosion of births in the second half of the 20th century, the number of children worldwide has already leveled off at around 2 billion, and should stay there at least through the century, barring a major development. Population growth from here will mostly be determined by more 30-85 year olds existing in the future than now. (In other words, births are nicely leveling off, but population growth must continue for a while anyways as the current crop of children grow up and have 2 children each. We currently have a very young world.)

[emphasis added]

https://fs.blog/2016/04/hans-rosling-population-growth/

 

3 minutes ago, mistermack said:

If you look at the World Bank graph I posted earlier, you can see that there are five billion people on the planet who's population rise is extremely steep and even climbing. ( The two asias and sub saharan Africa, add them up ) 

That article confirms that for sub-Saharan Africa. Which is not one of those areas that will, according to your dubious claim, be better off due to climate change.

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

There are huge areas of the planet that might well benefit, or remain unaffected.

I would like to see some evidence for that.

[mistermack]

I quoted the world bank and the UN. You quoted someone's blog. It's not really on the same level. 

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I quoted the world bank and the UN. You quoted someone's blog. It's not really on the same level. 

The UN figures are just raw birth rates. Not very informative.

You could follow the link and find the data (it is in a video, unfortunately. But I gather some people like that sort of thing.)

I mean to provide a link for the fertility rate and replacement fertility rates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate (confirmed by several other sources).

 

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

There are huge areas of the planet that might well benefit, or remain unaffected.

I would like to see some evidence for that.

Still waiting.

[mistermack]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

There are huge areas of the planet that might well benefit, or remain unaffected.

I would like to see some evidence for that.

   

[Strange]

Just now, mistermack said:

   

What is that and where is it from?

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

A fifty fifty coin toss that I could do sat on my arse.

And you can keep doing it for as long as it takes you to count to three.

Do you really not understand that "the status quo" should be the overwhelmingly likely outcome?

If you are going to use statistics, make sure you do it right.

[Carrock]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

Nobody in their right mind would go into climate science as a sceptic. 

Unless they're hoping Donald Trump will give them a lucrative job, like head of the EPA.

[Ken Fabian]

 

19 hours ago, Menan said:

How, well some 5 or so billion years ago, the primordial Earth had no climate, it went from a ball of gas and dust to a lifeless solidifying mass with no atmosphere.  However (tell Al Gore) volcanoes began spewing gasses and gradually a climate emerged.  Thus climate change is older than the Earths climate.  20,000 years ago half of NJ and everything above that was under thousands of feet of ice.  Since this mostly melted by 10,000 years ago, the current rate of melt is well, babyshit.

So climate change is very real, and totally normal, and there is no change in the last 150 years that comes anywhere the last 20,000 years.  Which is why the pedophile from Penn State only looked at the last 1000 years

Luv ya kids

The "Climate has always been changing" argument actually has it backwards; like the vehicle with bad steering that is more likely to run off the road and crash, it is a climate system that is susceptible to change that is most at risk of change from things humans do.

The planet is warming - multiple different measures and indicators all show it. And - " There are well-understood physical mechanisms by which changes in the amounts of greenhouse gases cause climate changes. " (The US National Academy of Sciences). 

The nasty bit of personal slander has no place in these discussions; if you have  evidence of serious criminal behaviour, you should inform the police. If not, it is your behaviour that looks criminal. Fake accusations from behind the safety of internet anonymity - I'm surprised it hasn't been deleted by moderators.

I recommend the Royal Society or National Academy of Sciences for non-partisan expert assessment; making sense of complex science for policy makers and public is their job. Their exemplary reputations are earned. The people they draw upon are not incompetent or biased. Or part of a conspiracy or driven by any political agenda apart from that of pursuing excellence in science for the benefit of humanity.

I see the science getting it mostly right. I see real world consequences of climate change in the landscape around me - weeds that had previously been kept in check by heavy frosts becoming rampant because there are fewer frosts, bushfire hazard reduction made more difficult by warmer winters and the fire hazard 'season' coming earlier and finishing later - that's with about half a degree C of average warming (of personally experienced change in this location). 3 to 6 degrees is terrifying to contemplate. Sure, if your region is mostly cold, rarely hot, that might not seem so terrifying, but most of the world's (too large) population lives in places that get very hot, where a few degrees can make the barely bearable conditions unbearable.

People ordinarily have a right to believe what they like, but if they hold positions of trust and responsibility ignoring or rejecting expert advice can be negligence. Should lives and fortunes be harmed, that can become criminal neglegence.