Do any climate deniers

[Dr Grump]

Nobody really cares how close world population figures are.

Meanwhile, no one's demanding we bankrupt the economies of the Western world based on population models.

Nobody is demanding anybody be bankrupted. In fact, done right it will be a good thing...financially..

 

[flacaltenn]

This isn't a trick question. I'm just trying to get an idea of what you know.

I know that almost every person I know accepts the total population of the world when it is given. How do they know the population number is accurate to within a couple of million? Sure, a lot of countries will perform a census, but the vast majority don't. Especially those in poorer, more populated countries where most of the population growth happens. So how do they predict it? Modelling. Just the same way they predict man-made climate change. I find it interesting. I'm confident a shitload of people who don't believe that man is contributing to climate change due to the methods used to prove it (modelling), do believe in the approximation given of the population of the Earth using said method (modelling).

OK.. I was wrong.. You have a different angle.. So let's address that..

Before the 1930s or so -- world population estimates SUCKED as badly as "Global Mean Anomaly Surface Temperature"... No computers, no satellites, no reporting from the MAJORITY of the globe...

That got fixed for BOTH to some extent today...

So the issue with MOST DENIERS is NOT "Is the Earth experiencing a rather brief and mild warming -- but the REAL ISSUE is -- How fucking disastrous will it be in 2100..

If I ask you what the world population is GONNA BE in 2100 -- you'd suck almost as badly as estimating the World temperature anomaly in 2100...

To wit, there was the 1970s "The Population Bomb" scare that influenced even me into being an environmentalist. THOSE predictions are clearly bogus just 15 or 25 years after the public was made to pee it's pants about breeding explosions in Africa/Asia... Because the THEORY sucked.. The pushers of this crap could not forsee the leveling effect of DECREASING POVERTY and advances in farming..

SO -- here you are peeing your pants about a 1DegC increase in "GMASTemperature" over about 80 years. With no ACCURATE measure of climate temperature over the past 10,000 years for THE WHOLE GLOBE that even APPROACHES that accuracy or time resolution..

And -- the forecasts since this circus train left the station for 2100 have been CONSTANTLY REVISED DOWN as the models predicting ACCELERATED warning and Doomsday temp threshholds have YET to be measured since the 1980s when all this EXAGGERATED hysteria began..

I'm concerned a bit.. NOT peeing my pants about another billion people or another 1DegC (give or take) simply because

1) We have NO ancient temperature records of the world that even APPROACH 1 DegC over 80 years accuracy for thousands of years with 50 or 100 year time resolution.. So we DO NOT KNOW what 100 year period thermal surface equilibrium looks like to compare...

2) I reject ONLY the more catastrophic versions of GW/CC models that postulate the warming effect will accelerate due to the prevalence of "mostly positive" feedbacks in the modeling... Or a "trigger temperature" beyond which the planet (AND the poor "Person of the Year" Greta Thunberg) is doomed...

The critical constants in GW modeling like "climate sensitivity" have been revised DOWN SO MUCH since 1980s --- that my position, based on the basic Physics and Chemistry of the atmosphere, that the warming will NEVER APPROACH even today's modeling of the 2100 temperature... And year after year, these downwards revisions are validating what I've learned and observed...

 

[task0778]

I'm having some serious about waiting for the punchline here.. Or maybe I missed it.. But I doubt that "deniers" have any strong convictions that the population of Earth has anything to contribute to the answer of HOW SERIOUS the brief recent warming period will become..

Only way you tie CC/GW with population is to moralize about the potential "body count" or lecture the deniers on population control or hobbling developing economies...

Punchline was given in post 30.

So this is it, right?

"I find it interesting. I'm confident a shitload of people who don't believe that man is contributing to climate change due to the methods used to prove it (modelling), do believe in the approximation given of the population of the Earth using said method (modelling)."

There's a difference between saying that man is contributing to climate change, i.e., global warming and saying that man is the primary cause of climate change. Most deniers dispute the latter claim and leave the former one open to debate on the significance of anthropogenic causes. Some would say that it's possible but not proven, and not worth the hysteria from the Left about the immediate need to spends hundreds of billions of dollars that won't move the needle. I believe that the vast majority of climate change models over the past 30 years or so have been WRONG, as have the prognostications by many that that dire consequences are in the offing in the very near future.

"Nobody is demanding anybody be bankrupted. In fact, done right it will be a good thing...financially.."

Have you seen the costs associated with the Green New Deal?

 

[flacaltenn]

Nobody really cares how close world population figures are.

Meanwhile, no one's demanding we bankrupt the economies of the Western world based on population models.

Nobody is demanding anybody be bankrupted. In fact, done right it will be a good thing...financially..

That's certainly an assertion with no analysis.. The kinda of drastic economical revisions being postulated (Green Raw Deal aside because it's a socialist manifesto, not anything green) WILL create NEGATIVE GROWTH and major WORLDWIDE "wealth redistribution"..

Not to mention that the CURRENT ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuel (excepting nuclear) are fraudulent "hope and dreams"..

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

know the population of the world?

Just humans or all of Gaia's sentient creatures?

 

[Dr Grump]

Not to mention that the CURRENT ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuel (excepting nuclear) are fraudulent "hope and dreams"..

Totally untrue. We have plenty of solar and wind power being utilised in Australia and it's doing fine.

 

[Dr Grump]

OK.. I was wrong.. You have a different angle.. So let's address that..

Before the 1930s or so -- world population estimates SUCKED as badly as "Global Mean Anomaly Surface Temperature"... No computers, no satellites, no reporting from the MAJORITY of the globe...

That got fixed for BOTH to some extent today...

So the issue with MOST DENIERS is NOT "Is the Earth experiencing a rather brief and mild warming -- but the REAL ISSUE is -- How fucking disastrous will it be in 2100..

If I ask you what the world population is GONNA BE in 2100 -- you'd suck almost as badly as estimating the World temperature anomaly in 2100...

To wit, there was the 1970s "The Population Bomb" scare that influenced even me into being an environmentalist. THOSE predictions are clearly bogus just 15 or 25 years after the public was made to pee it's pants about breeding explosions in Africa/Asia... Because the THEORY sucked.. The pushers of this crap could not forsee the leveling effect of DECREASING POVERTY and advances in farming..

SO -- here you are peeing your pants about a 1DegC increase in "GMASTemperature" over about 80 years. With no ACCURATE measure of climate temperature over the past 10,000 years for THE WHOLE GLOBE that even APPROACHES that accuracy or time resolution..

And -- the forecasts since this circus train left the station for 2100 have been CONSTANTLY REVISED DOWN as the models predicting ACCELERATED warning and Doomsday temp threshholds have YET to be measured since the 1980s when all this EXAGGERATED hysteria began..

I'm concerned a bit.. NOT peeing my pants about another billion people or another 1DegC (give or take) simply because

1) We have NO ancient temperature records of the world that even APPROACH 1 DegC over 80 years accuracy for thousands of years with 50 or 100 year time resolution.. So we DO NOT KNOW what 100 year period thermal surface equilibrium looks like to compare...

2) I reject ONLY the more catastrophic versions of GW/CC models that postulate the warming effect will accelerate due to the prevalence of "mostly positive" feedbacks in the modeling... Or a "trigger temperature" beyond which the planet (AND the poor "Person of the Year" Greta Thunberg) is doomed...

The critical constants in GW modeling like "climate sensitivity" have been revised DOWN SO MUCH since 1980s --- that my position, based on the basic Physics and Chemistry of the atmosphere, that the warming will NEVER APPROACH even today's modeling of the 2100 temperature... And year after year, these downwards revisions are validating what I've learned and observed...

Interesting perspective but I disagree with a lot of what you are saying.
I haven't seen too much evidence of climate models being disproven. There has been accurate measurement of previous temperatures with samples taken from the poles.

Where I do agree with you is that I am not getting hysterical over the actual temperature change, although that will certainly affect certain people. I have an acquaintance (wouldn't really call them a friend, only met them a couple of times) who is a scientist at the UNSW. He's more concerned about the acidification of the oceans being caused by pollution.

At the end of the day, forget about climate change. All these initiatives that people are spruiking are aimed at reducing pollution. That isn't a bad thing. As for the cost, well that's a different matter.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

know the population of the world?

7.8 billion according to the U.N. and over 3 billion of the population live in China, India and the U.S.A. ...

 

[flacaltenn]

Not to mention that the CURRENT ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuel (excepting nuclear) are fraudulent "hope and dreams"..

Totally untrue. We have plenty of solar and wind power being utilised in Australia and it's doing fine.

EVERY WATT of solar or wind needs a complete secondary backup... Because solar is good for 8 hours a day and the grid load at 10PM is about 80% of the daytime peak in urban areas.. And WIND is so totally unschedulably flaky that it takes DAYS OFF at a time.. So behind all that "investment" is MATCHING investments for nat gas or other RELIABLE generators...

Have you ever SEEN a daily production chart for wind farm?? They produce 50% of their yearly output on just about 70 days a year... Like I said -- hope and dreams. Not engineering.. And how much HAVE is nothing like how much it actually generates or uses...

If that's part of the COST -- it's a complete waste of money.. The GODFATHER of GW, James Hansen signed a statement with 20 other leading GW enviro advocates and stated (to the effect of )

"If you believe that wind and solar are sufficient to tackle GW -- you probably believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter bunny"... Hope and dreams man....

 

[flacaltenn]

Interesting perspective but I disagree with a lot of what you are saying.
I haven't seen too much evidence of climate models being disproven. There has been accurate measurement of previous temperatures with samples taken from the poles

Virtually ALL of the models from 80s and 90s have failed just 25 years later.. They are at the LOWEST end of the estimation range. Depending on "emissions scenarios assumed" which cloud the post analysis... And they've ALL been revised down to the point where even the UN IPCC has QUIT making projections and having a "science section" in their biannual reviews...

And that estimation range covered MORE than a 2 to 1 uncertainty range... So 8degC by 2100 is on the SAME CHART as 2.5degC by 2100... Pretty wide range considering the implications.. Almost to the point of NOT BEING good enough to turn the world economy and commerce on its head...

Ancient temperature estimates are done on ice cores, tree rings and mud bug shells.. All things NOT thermometers.. And the SAMPLING points do not cover the globe.. Far from it.. In fact the Mann Hockey stick and others use LESS than a hundred geo points to sample the globe for thousands of years And the vast majority of those are in the extreme north and south regions...

Ice cores from Antarctica cannot SEE a 100 year event.. Have poor resolution for 500 year events. So our litttle blip would not even BE THERE... But ice cores from Greenland are better in that Greenland gets more annual precipt and is not a freaking desert like Antarctica... And the difference there is stark. In the hi resolution Greenland cores you see SEVERAL fairly fast 1 Deg C events over the past 10,000 years.. None of that in tree rings or Antarctic ice or mud bugs...

NEWER proxy techniques from ancient pollen and leaf stomata are FAR MORE accurate.. But these have only been verified in the past 20 years or so... But the FOLKLORE about "hockey stick" studies is just that.. There is no convincing argument to made that our little blip is "unprecedented" in any way....

 

[Frankeneinstein]

How do you know there is between 7-7.5 billion people?

I counted them

 

[flacaltenn]

This is the actual daily production for what was the world's best sited off shore wind farm in Denmark.. Most of this daily or "real time" data has been removed from the web because of it's embarrassing nature... But I have charts from Texas and a "real time" dashboard for the UK that still works..

Note that the CAPACITY of those turbines is up at about the 500,000 line and that line is never actually reached. And the days in between MEANINGFUL production are plenty... Look at how few days the field is actually anywhere near the capacity the idiots paid for...

 

[HenryBHough]

I do know the population of the planet.

TOO MANY.

That's why nature has given us climate change.

Oh it's happening. Cyclical and repetitive.

Be glad of it else you'd be struggling to blog with dinosaur claws just now.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

I know that almost every person I know accepts the total population of the world when it is given. How do they know the population number is accurate to within a couple of million? Sure, a lot of countries will perform a census, but the vast majority don't. Especially those in poorer, more populated countries where most of the population growth happens. So how do they predict it? Modelling. Just the same way they predict man-made climate change. I find it interesting. I'm confident a shitload of people who don't believe that man is contributing to climate change due to the methods used to prove it (modelling), do believe in the approximation given of the population of the Earth using said method (modelling).

Again, climate change has been occurring for billions of years [except of course in the 70's when we staved off an ice age]... and the planets population is just something we accept without really knowing what it is, if tomorrow they change the number of the planets population and need money to curtail or increase it using your reasoning above, I will know it is a scam regardless of what the number really is.

 

[Dr Grump]

Not to mention that the CURRENT ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuel (excepting nuclear) are fraudulent "hope and dreams"..

Totally untrue. We have plenty of solar and wind power being utilised in Australia and it's doing fine.

EVERY WATT of solar or wind needs a complete secondary backup... Because solar is good for 8 hours a day and the grid load at 10PM is about 80% of the daytime peak in urban areas.. And WIND is so totally unschedulably flaky that it takes DAYS OFF at a time.. So behind all that "investment" is MATCHING investments for nat gas or other RELIABLE generators...

Have you ever SEEN a daily production chart for wind farm?? They produce 50% of their yearly output on just about 70 days a year... Like I said -- hope and dreams. Not engineering.. And how much HAVE is nothing like how much it actually generates or uses...

If that's part of the COST -- it's a complete waste of money.. The GODFATHER of GW, James Hansen signed a statement with 20 other leading GW enviro advocates and stated (to the effect of )

"If you believe that wind and solar are sufficient to tackle GW -- you probably believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter bunny"... Hope and dreams man....

We have a tonne of sun and wind in Australia and batteries to store the power. I don't believe they are the only solution BTW.
One thing I do find annoying, is that coal - especially in western countries - burns a lot cleaner these days, but I'm surprised they haven't got a top-notch filter system so the shit doesn't go into the air.

 

[Jitss617]

Let me count again

 

[Yarddog]

What's a "climate denier"?

someone who lives in a vaccum?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not to mention that the CURRENT ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuel (excepting nuclear) are fraudulent "hope and dreams"..

Totally untrue. We have plenty of solar and wind power being utilised in Australia and it's doing fine.

EVERY WATT of solar or wind needs a complete secondary backup... Because solar is good for 8 hours a day and the grid load at 10PM is about 80% of the daytime peak in urban areas.. And WIND is so totally unschedulably flaky that it takes DAYS OFF at a time.. So behind all that "investment" is MATCHING investments for nat gas or other RELIABLE generators...

Have you ever SEEN a daily production chart for wind farm?? They produce 50% of their yearly output on just about 70 days a year... Like I said -- hope and dreams. Not engineering.. And how much HAVE is nothing like how much it actually generates or uses...

If that's part of the COST -- it's a complete waste of money.. The GODFATHER of GW, James Hansen signed a statement with 20 other leading GW enviro advocates and stated (to the effect of )

"If you believe that wind and solar are sufficient to tackle GW -- you probably believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter bunny"... Hope and dreams man....

We have a tonne of sun and wind in Australia and batteries to store the power. I don't believe they are the only solution BTW.
One thing I do find annoying, is that coal - especially in western countries - burns a lot cleaner these days, but I'm surprised they haven't got a top-notch filter system so the shit doesn't go into the air.

I'm surprised they haven't got a top-notch filter system so the shit doesn't go into the air.

We do, just not for CO2, that'd be stupid.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

What's a "climate denier"?

That was my question. I’ve never met anybody who denied we have a climate

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

know the population of the world?

I deny there is a climate and I believe it is around 7bn