It's all over but for the sweating?

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

That's right, ignore the evidence and go on living in your little fantasy world...

If you could be bothered to read more widely and try to become less ignorant (unlikely on evidence so far) you might know that the HADCRUT4 dataset (which includes the world and not just the 2% of it the US makes up) says no warming since 1997.

Which is a problem for the models as they say it should be warming. Reality vs fantasy...

You would also know the temp record in your link is flawed by adjustments which aren't fully explained, especially older temps being moved lower. It was warmer in the US in the 1930s, I seem to be able to read about a dust bowl ?

OK - enough of these simulations - what about an unadjusted record ?

The Central England Dataset (which is the longest instrument record in the world) also says no to any significant warming, even since 1940.



Which is also a problem for the models. Reality vs fantasy.

In my "fantasy world" I would like the science to work out why this is, where the gaps in the models are and to do so openly and with reproducibility. I kind of think this matters prior to committing the world to change course but hey maybe I'm a dreamer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLgYAHHkPFs

Apparently I'm not the only one though

[NeilBlanchard]

That no warming since ... canard is just cherry picking the end points. The data show the climate is warming over the long term. 2012 was a record warm year since we have had direct measurements.

The melting Arctic ice is playing havoc with the jet stream and this means that the north/south waves are more extended and slower moving and weaker. Cold air is spilling down farther south sometimes. Just because the overall temperature averages are rising doesn't mean that all cold weather goes away.

It has been over 27 years since we had a record cold month.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

That no warming since ... canard is just cherry picking the end points. The data show the climate is warming over the long term. 2012 was a record warm year since we have had direct measurements.

Agreed - selective use of start and end dates was discussed a few pages back and it has been used to prove or disprove everything - temps, storms, sea levels, insurance costs of storms - the lot.

The "16 year limit" is kind of differtent as it was determined by NOAA (page 24):

Originally Posted by NOAA

Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

Some say the period should be 16 years, some say 17. Either way we have a fixed end point (now) which can't be cherry picked and a growing period of no warming.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

The melting Arctic ice is playing havoc with the jet stream and this means that the north/south waves are more extended and slower moving and weaker. Cold air is spilling down farther south sometimes. Just because the overall temperature averages are rising doesn't mean that all cold weather goes away.

These fluctuations happen all the time. We had a cr@p summer here because of the cold air being pulled south, yet outside just now it's > 10 Deg C - in Edinburgh in December that is quite mild. Again not unusual, we have a lot of weather here.

There is no evidence of a significant long term change in the gulf stream.

EDIT - Linky for the above - http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...c20100325.html

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

It has been over 27 years since we had a record cold month.

Define "we" - here in the UK we have had a number of record low temperatures since 2005, and there are quite a few being set in Central and Eastern Europe just now where people are losing their lives because of it.

[suspectnumber961]

Bill Ryerson: The Challenges Presented by Global Population Growth | Peak Prosperity

Read the transcript....

We are adding about 225,000 people to the dinner table every night who were not there last night. So that is net growth of the world’s population on an annual basis of a new Egypt every year. In other words, 83 million additional people net growth annually. And that from a climate change perspective alone is a huge increment. Most of this growth is occurring in poor countries, so on a per capita level, the people being added to the population have much lower impact than, say, if Europe were growing at that rate. But nevertheless, just from a climate perspective, with most of that 83 million additional people in low per capita greenhouse-gas output countries – this is between now and 2050 – at this rate of growth, it is the climate equivalent of adding two United States to the planet.

Clearly resources like oil, coal, and gas are non-renewable and will eventually run out or become more and more expensive and therefore not reliable as a source of energy. But what is the renewable long-term sustainability or the carrying capacity of the environment in each geographic territory, and globally? What is the current and projected future human demand for those resources and do we have sufficient natural resources to meet our needs?

Doing this kind of accounting is not difficult. There are very good robust scientific designs for measuring resource capacity and human demand, and projecting out what do we need to do in some time in the next few decades in order to get from what is clearly population overshoot to achieving something that is in balance. Because as long as we are in overshoot – and the global footprint network’s calculation is we are now at 50% overshoot – that means we are digging into the savings account of our ecological systems, as you mentioned; the fisheries being one, forests being another. We are eating into the capital to sustain the growing population.

...

Chris Martenson: I find the arguments that more people equates to more growth, which therefore I think translates into more prosperity, is how that thought train goes has a logical break in it for me. Because at some point, after a certain moment, growth itself actually steals from prosperity. They are both funded from the same source. And the real question is would you rather live in a nation of a hundred million people with just absolutely abundant resources for a very prosperous lifestyle, or in a nation of a billion people where everybody is sort of fighting over a relatively tiny share? To me that is a self-answering question. But you outlined that the process here would be to A) recognize that there is a limit that we have to live within, and then secondarily B) to create a strategy around that which involves a survey of some sort. What do we have? What kind of a lifestyle can we sustain given what we have here and within these boundaries we are talking about? And then the third thing is C) you would have to then manage to that.

And that analogy I have here is that we have recognized that there are limits to fisheries in the United States and we have been managing those fisheries for decades. And just a month ago they announced the closure, the complete closure, of the Grand Banks Fisheries because they had collapsed completely – just illustrating to me that even when you have the intention to manage carefully even a renewable resource, which fisheries potentially are, there is still obviously some learnings that are going to have to happen there. Which is kind of a long way of asking when is a good time to get started on this, do you think?

...

Bill Ryerson: Nor did you hear much about the climate change. It is possible to make a subject taboo by having enough money thrown at PR around that issue being unacceptable to discuss. And indeed, that is what has happened. There is a big money machine cranking out people going on talk shows saying population is not the problem, people who are concerned about population are either racist or in favor of free sex with contraception or whatever. And trying to make it controversial so that it gets off the table of the global community’s agenda. And instead allows these self-serving interests to continue to profit from population growth. Most people in the world do not profit from population growth. But there are a few who do. And of course, when you stop and think about who profits from population growth, one is real estate developers. The builders of houses clearly think population growth is a great idea because it means more housing starts. And that is how they measure their welfare.

There are others, land owners, who think the more people there are, then the more demand there will be for my land, and that means the price of land is going to go up. Indeed, that is the case. And there are people in the energy business who say the more people there are, the more demand there will be for my product, so I will make more money. And that is the case. So there are monied interests and there are also religious interests who are fighting the whole idea that population might have any relevance to the future of humanity and putting out a huge amount of literature on the subject on a daily basis.

[Arragonis]

Here we go again...

Hans Rosling: Global population growth, box by box | Video on TED.com

[niky]

Pretty much. Prosperity causes negative population trending. Not all the billions spent on population control has worked, either way. China has not been able to curb population growth, except amongst its urban middle- and upper-class. The rural poor still have lots of kids. Japan, on the other hand, can't force its people to have more kids than they already have.

The one question is: Where will we find the money to raise the standard of living of these people?

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by niky

Prosperity causes negative population trending.

Wishful thinking, not supported by evidence. The US is a prosperous country, and has been for many decades. So are many countries in Europe. If this theory matched reality, shouldn't we be seeing significant population declines by now? Yet every census shows continued growth.

Japan, on the other hand, can't force its people to have more kids than they already have.

But why should they? Japan is already horribly overcrowded, which IMHO accounts for the leveling off of population, along with social attitudes that make it ok not to have lots of kids.

The one question is: Where will we find the money to raise the standard of living of these people?

More questions than that. As for instance, why should we raise their standard of living? How does anyone's standard of living get raised in the absence of resources? What exactly is a standard of living? Who has a higher standard of living, the urbanite living in a few square meters, but with lots of techo-toys, or a Mongolian herdsman living in a yurt?

[Xist]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Wishful thinking, not supported by evidence. The US is a prosperous country, and has been for many decades. So are many countries in Europe. If this theory matched reality, shouldn't we be seeing significant population declines by now? Yet every census shows continued growth.

I could not find any quick statistics, as far as I know, I am just running off of stereotypes, which was why I tried to find facts. I just found a discussion at Income Level and Number of Children [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board. I have associated with far more "poor" people than "rich," as a student, I definitely fall into the first category. Supposedly, poor people have sex, therefore kids, while rich people have careers, houses, and status symbols, and then families when they fit into their plans.

Again, I do not know anything about "rich people stuff." I have heard over and over (mostly from the same source) that the more rights that women have, the fewer children they have.

Somehow I think the epitome of that is a childless feminist.

Now, correct me!

[niky]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Wishful thinking, not supported by evidence. The US is a prosperous country, and has been for many decades. So are many countries in Europe. If this theory matched reality, shouldn't we be seeing significant population declines by now? Yet every census shows continued growth.

The United States government is rich. US Businesses are rich. Not all Americans are rich. Not all American citizens are rich. You'll find higher growth amongst lower income brackets, especially in terms of unplanned growth and pregnancies.

The recent US election is a good illustration of where all this population is at. Low income bracket and immigrant voters got Obama that big win.

It's not wishful thinking. It's a big problem, of the "chicken and egg" variety, for poor nations.

But why should they? Japan is already horribly overcrowded, which IMHO accounts for the leveling off of population, along with social attitudes that make it ok not to have lots of kids.

It's not levelling off. Japan's native population is in decline. Personally, I think it's a good thing, in the long term. in the medium term, it's a massive problem for the Japanese government, which has to support all those octogenerians.

More questions than that. As for instance, why should we raise their standard of living? How does anyone's standard of living get raised in the absence of resources? What exactly is a standard of living? Who has a higher standard of living, the urbanite living in a few square meters, but with lots of techo-toys, or a Mongolian herdsman living in a yurt?

Development should come from within. Teach a man to fish, and all that. And standard of living? Given that even the poorest of welfare mothers in the US can get decent housing and medical care where nomadic tribespeople are basically dead if they get the wrong bacterial infection, I'd think the answer is pretty obvious.

Prosperity is not the only answer. High income, good education and high cost-of-living all go hand-in-hand. For an office worker who has to support their children through thirteen years of school just to ensure they're qualified for the most menial of jobs, children are a long term investment. For a poor farmer who tills the land by hand, or the urban poor begging on the streets, they're quick extra labor. And apparently third world politicians think the same way, looking at the level of discourse during our last Reproductive Health debates...

[suspectnumber961]

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/u...anted=all&_r=0

In 2005, 51 percent of women said they were living without a spouse, up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000.

Coupled with the fact that in 2005 married couples became a minority of all American households for the first time, the trend could ultimately shape social and workplace policies, including the ways government and employers distribute benefits.

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ics-24396.html

To get a sense of how powerful the marriage effect is, not just for women but for men, too, look at the exit polls by marital status. Among non-married voters – people who are single and have never married, are living with a partner, or are divorced – Obama beat Romney 62-35. Among married voters Romney won the vote handily, 56-42.

...

In less developed countries...the more educated women are....the less kids they have?

In more developed countries there are more fat lonely cat ladies with cell phones.....

Originally Posted by Xist

I could not find any quick statistics, as far as I know, I am just running off of stereotypes, which was why I tried to find facts. I just found a discussion at Income Level and Number of Children [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board. I have associated with far more "poor" people than "rich," as a student, I definitely fall into the first category. Supposedly, poor people have sex, therefore kids, while rich people have careers, houses, and status symbols, and then families when they fit into their plans.

Again, I do not know anything about "rich people stuff." I have heard over and over (mostly from the same source) that the more rights that women have, the fewer children they have.

Somehow I think the epitome of that is a childless feminist.

Now, correct me!