4 ms·

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://ou

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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.
dmbche 4y ago
(not a climate scientist) Also, for the graph showing "peaks" - it seems to me that the "pattern of peaks" is constant through your graph, but the average temperature rises continually through the peaks. If I were to guess, the peaks are things like volcanoes, currents and such, which are "constant" through time. The rise in CO2 is shown in the graph by the median not being a flat line.
- revelio 4y ago
  If you have a step function and draw a trend line through it, the trend line will go up, but that doesn't imply a continuous process. CO2 forcing is (asserted to be) a continuous process. More co2 = higher temperature. The attempts to explain why that's observably not the case have become particularly wild in recent years, yet we are constantly told the science is settled and other untrue things.
  - adammarples 4y ago
    Co2 is far from the only thing affecting temperature. The graph you're posting is clearly not a step function either. More like some kind of oscillation with an additional linear trend. Maybe the oscillation is el nino, it seems to be roughly periodic to 7 years or so, I don't know. Edit: the bigger peaks are bang on el nino years, especially the '98 peak
    - revelio 4y ago
      Yep the step function is El Nino. There is also La Nina which can cool things, the AMO and other natural inputs that affect temperature. So it turns into a debate about how much each factors matters, which is the big set of unknowns that have no clear answer. Hence why the science isn't settled.
      - adammarples 4y ago
        You're still left trying to explain the gradual linear increase over time. Modelling strongly suggests that this is due to increased carbon.

WastingMyTime89 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.

dmbche 4y ago

(not a climate scientist) Also, for the graph showing "peaks" - it seems to me that the "pattern of peaks" is constant through your graph, but the average temperature rises continually through the peaks. If I were to guess, the peaks are things like volcanoes, currents and such, which are "constant" through time. The rise in CO2 is shown in the graph by the median not being a flat line.

revelio 4y ago
If you have a step function and draw a trend line through it, the trend line will go up, but that doesn't imply a continuous process. CO2 forcing is (asserted to be) a continuous process. More co2 = higher temperature. The attempts to explain why that's observably not the case have become particularly wild in recent years, yet we are constantly told the science is settled and other untrue things.
- adammarples 4y ago
  Co2 is far from the only thing affecting temperature. The graph you're posting is clearly not a step function either. More like some kind of oscillation with an additional linear trend. Maybe the oscillation is el nino, it seems to be roughly periodic to 7 years or so, I don't know. Edit: the bigger peaks are bang on el nino years, especially the '98 peak
  - revelio 4y ago
    Yep the step function is El Nino. There is also La Nina which can cool things, the AMO and other natural inputs that affect temperature. So it turns into a debate about how much each factors matters, which is the big set of unknowns that have no clear answer. Hence why the science isn't settled.
    - adammarples 4y ago
      You're still left trying to explain the gradual linear increase over time. Modelling strongly suggests that this is due to increased carbon.