6 ms·

The deniers are mostly denying that the impact of human activities on climate is real. They are just attacking the models as a convenient scapegoat which is wei

The deniers are mostly denying that the impact of human activities on climate is real. They are just attacking the models as a convenient scapegoat which is weird because everyone know the models can be criticised but there is undeniable evidence for human emitted CO2 having an impact so it’s mostly a waste of time. If you really want to criticise the models, demographic hypotheses are far more questionable than anything having to do with methane by the way. Population growth was widely overestimated in the 90s for example and might still be. Plus the impact of an aging population and immigration becoming the main factor of population growth in the USA, Europe and China isn’t really well studied. This is partially voluntary by the way as it quickly leads to unsavoury questions.

revelio 3y ago
World population has grown at exactly the same rate for the last 70 years: https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth If modellers were caught by surprise by this then they are clueless. But they weren't because population doesn't factor into models. They go straight from projections of CO2 levels, which have also grown at a constant rate: https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/ https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/ So it's not clear why you bring up population growth. It's not relevant. >> there is undeniable evidence for human emitted CO2 having an impact What is it and how is this impact measured in an undeniable way. It can't be temperatures because they don't track CO2 levels.
- WastingMyTime89 3y ago
  > World population has grown at exactly the same rate for the last 70 years Did you actually look at what you linked? The main graph is only China and India and already shows a net inflection for China in the past few years. It will keep slowing. Read about population-lag effect. The second graph nicely confirms that contrary to what you pretend population growth has started slowing globally. There is no consensus about how much it will slow and when the peak will be reached. IPCCC had to adjust their hypotheses in the past because the lowest credible estimation where falling outside the lowest considered by the first climate model and some specialist argue we should look at even lower prediction. People in developing nations have stopped having large families faster than we thought. > So it's not clear why you bring up population growth. It's not relevant. If you don’t see how population size affects consumption, production and in fine pollution, I can’t do much for you. > What is it and how is this impact measured in an undeniable way. It can't be temperatures because they don't track CO2 levels. You are clearly arguing in bad faith or are clueless about the research surrounding climate change. In both case, I think it would be a waste of my time arguing further.
  - revelio 3y ago
    Did you bother changing the graph to show world population instead of just looking at the default selection? Here is the link to assist you in this: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/population-and-demography?facet=none&hideControls=false&Metric=Population&Sex=Both+sexes&Age+group=Total&Projection+Scenario=None&country=~OWID_WRL https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/population-and-demograp... It is a straight upwards line. But as I said, they don't care about population, only CO2 levels, which also go up in a straight line. It would indeed be a waste of time for you to argue further, because you don't seem able to respond to the points being made. Here is a graph of temperature as measured by satellites. It consists of long flat periods, punctuated by sudden rises. This is not correlated with CO2, which grows smoothly. https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2023_v6.jpg https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_... Now, do you care to respond to the data that's being cited?
    - WastingMyTime89 3y ago
      I was serious when I said you should learn about the population-lag effect. The global population has been steadily declining since 1990 as even a cursory search would have shown you. So that eventual other readers haven’t entirely wasted their time, here is a link to the relevant UN source: https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/MostUsed/ https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/MostUsed/ I’m not going to bother answering the rest of your comment.
      - tremon 3y ago
        The global population has been steadily declining since 1990 I assume you mean global population growth here? The global population isn't expected to decline until 2100 [1], barring cataclysmic disasters. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth
        WastingMyTime89 3y ago
        I did indeed mean growth, sorry. There is disagreement about when the peak will be reached. As your link shows, the UN puts it in 2086. The Global Burden of Disease Study published an article in the Lancet putting in 2064. The UN projection is solely based on current demographic trends and assumptions regarding life expectancy are quite optimistic. I have seen at least one study put the peak in the 40s while arguing that the rate of decrease in the total fertility rate is underestimated which while not likely is not impossible - historically predictions of variation in the TFR have not been very accurate. Generally, the impact of potential feed back loops including climate change are understudied. There is a convincing argument to be made than worsening conditions could lead to the peak happening sooner. At the end of the day, models remain models. They are not exact forecast. It's important to keep in mind when people argue we are doomed based on them.

revelio 3y ago

World population has grown at exactly the same rate for the last 70 years: https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth If modellers were caught by surprise by this then they are clueless. But they weren't because population doesn't factor into models. They go straight from projections of CO2 levels, which have also grown at a constant rate: https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/ https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/ So it's not clear why you bring up population growth. It's not relevant. >> there is undeniable evidence for human emitted CO2 having an impact What is it and how is this impact measured in an undeniable way. It can't be temperatures because they don't track CO2 levels.

WastingMyTime89 3y ago
> World population has grown at exactly the same rate for the last 70 years Did you actually look at what you linked? The main graph is only China and India and already shows a net inflection for China in the past few years. It will keep slowing. Read about population-lag effect. The second graph nicely confirms that contrary to what you pretend population growth has started slowing globally. There is no consensus about how much it will slow and when the peak will be reached. IPCCC had to adjust their hypotheses in the past because the lowest credible estimation where falling outside the lowest considered by the first climate model and some specialist argue we should look at even lower prediction. People in developing nations have stopped having large families faster than we thought. > So it's not clear why you bring up population growth. It's not relevant. If you don’t see how population size affects consumption, production and in fine pollution, I can’t do much for you. > What is it and how is this impact measured in an undeniable way. It can't be temperatures because they don't track CO2 levels. You are clearly arguing in bad faith or are clueless about the research surrounding climate change. In both case, I think it would be a waste of my time arguing further.
- revelio 3y ago
  Did you bother changing the graph to show world population instead of just looking at the default selection? Here is the link to assist you in this: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/population-and-demography?facet=none&hideControls=false&Metric=Population&Sex=Both+sexes&Age+group=Total&Projection+Scenario=None&country=~OWID_WRL https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/population-and-demograp... It is a straight upwards line. But as I said, they don't care about population, only CO2 levels, which also go up in a straight line. It would indeed be a waste of time for you to argue further, because you don't seem able to respond to the points being made. Here is a graph of temperature as measured by satellites. It consists of long flat periods, punctuated by sudden rises. This is not correlated with CO2, which grows smoothly. https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2023_v6.jpg https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_... Now, do you care to respond to the data that's being cited?
  - WastingMyTime89 3y ago
    I was serious when I said you should learn about the population-lag effect. The global population has been steadily declining since 1990 as even a cursory search would have shown you. So that eventual other readers haven’t entirely wasted their time, here is a link to the relevant UN source: https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/MostUsed/ https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/MostUsed/ I’m not going to bother answering the rest of your comment.
    - tremon 3y ago
      The global population has been steadily declining since 1990 I assume you mean global population growth here? The global population isn't expected to decline until 2100 [1], barring cataclysmic disasters. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth
      - WastingMyTime89 3y ago
        I did indeed mean growth, sorry. There is disagreement about when the peak will be reached. As your link shows, the UN puts it in 2086. The Global Burden of Disease Study published an article in the Lancet putting in 2064. The UN projection is solely based on current demographic trends and assumptions regarding life expectancy are quite optimistic. I have seen at least one study put the peak in the 40s while arguing that the rate of decrease in the total fertility rate is underestimated which while not likely is not impossible - historically predictions of variation in the TFR have not been very accurate. Generally, the impact of potential feed back loops including climate change are understudied. There is a convincing argument to be made than worsening conditions could lead to the peak happening sooner. At the end of the day, models remain models. They are not exact forecast. It's important to keep in mind when people argue we are doomed based on them.