Climate change: New Zealand's plan to tax cow and sheep burps

[Nicodeamus]

What's the difference between global warming and climate change?

Climate change is the PR term that allows CNN to blame every weather event on c02.
Global warming is real, but it's so laughably small that we have to make a religion out of it.

The Imaginary Climate Crisis: How can we Change the Message? A talk by Richard Lindzen - Clintel

The Irish Climate Science Forum (ICSF) in cooperation with CLINTEL hosted a lecture by the world-renowned climate scientist Richard Lindzen. The online lecture was attended by around 200 people from around the world (including a group of climate activists who disturbed the talk. The recorded...

clintel.org

 

[Cosmik Debris]

An exponential functions
Y = exp(rx)
If r falls below one, as the current trajectory indicates then the commulative function
Y = sigma(exp(rx))
Starts decreasing.

You need to look at both.

At current trajectory event through the population will increase (largely due the people ageing), the total population isn't predicted to dubble.
Translation: with the current fall in fertility rates, all that needs to occur is for deaths to catch up with births.

So according to your math, the population reaching 1 billion for the first time by 1800 only and then:

2 Billion by 1927
3 Billion by 1960
4 Billion by 1974
5 Billion by 1987
6 Billion by 1999
7 Billion by 2011
8 Billion by 2024

Is not an exponential increase in the population and the population is decreasing?

 

[Nicodeamus]

So according to your math, the population reaching 1 billion for the first time by 1800 only and then:

2 Billion by 1927
3 Billion by 1960
4 Billion by 1974
5 Billion by 1987
6 Billion by 1999
7 Billion by 2011
8 Billion by 2024

Is not an exponential increase in the population and the population is decreasing?

It's an exponential function with a declining growth rate i.a a normal distribution. A pure exponential function increases ad infinity.

Y = exp(rx), if R is constant then you're in a pure exponential curve.
If R is a function of time, then you're in a distribution.

This is elementary calculus.

See the curve below for the world population projections,
The growth rate r(t) already peaked in 1968. So what you're going to see is a slow increase until 2100.
See how the curve starts inflecting? That is because deaths are catching up with births.


The babyboomers for exampled added the bigger generation in America, afterwards successive populations were smaller. Once the babyboomers die the population stabilises.
In South Africa the biggest generation was the post94 generation, the successive generation is smaller.
The reason is urbanisation, the first generation to urbanise tend to breed like rabbits, afterwards cost of living filters in and women tend to have 2 children.

Take Afrikaners for example, my mother was 1 of 6 children as her parents were the first to leave the farms and migrate to Pretoria. of all her sisters she is the only one with 4 children, everyone else had either 1 or 2. Modern generation Afrikaners have around 1 or 2 kids i.e. the population stabalised.

The black population urbanised at at different period (mostly post94), therefore the next generation will tend to have fewer kids. All populations go through the 4 stages of urbanisation as I showed you above.

So the "exponential increase" that you're talking about only occurs during phase 2.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

It's an exponential function with a declining growth rate i.a a normal distribution. A pure exponential function increases ad infinity.

Y = exp(rx), if R is constant then you're in a pure exponential curve.
If R is a function of time, then you're in a distribution.

This is elementary calculus.

See the curve below for the world population projections,
The growth rate r(t) already peaked in 1968. So what you're going to see is a slow increase until 2100.
See how the curve starts inflecting? That is because deaths are catching up with births.
View attachment 1353010

So, according to your math, are there many more people alive now than in the past? And will this trend continue?

 

[Nicodeamus]

So, according to your math, are there many more people alive now than in the past? And will this trend continue?

You're obviously not reading a thing that I am saying.

Look at the graph below.

Phase 1 and 2 is pre industrial, afterwards populations stabilized. The EU, North American and now Chinese populations have already passed the first 3 stages.
Other parts of the world are currently experiencing it (notably Africa)
After every population has gone through this phase, the world population won't expand as the UN currently predicts.

 

[Nicodeamus]

If the world population growth was exponential as you claim, it would have behaved like the red line below.


Which is obviously absurd.

Then to add another explanation, given that the price of commodities have gone down relative to working hours and population growth it implies that resources are more abundant today than ever before. That is due to efficacy. Modern power generation is less resource intense per unit of W than in the past.

Translation: Overpopulation is not a problem and we aren't running out of resources, in fact the opposite could be true.

 

[Nicodeamus]

The BBC even asked the question of China's population isn't starting to decline.

Could China’s population start falling?

China's population is set to get smaller for the first time since the great famine struck 60 years ago. Why? And how will this affect the rest of the world?

www.bbc.com

China's total population grew by a post-famine low of just 0.34 in 1,000 last year. Projections prepared by a team at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences have it falling this year – for the first time post-famine – by 0.49 in a thousand.
The turning point has come a decade sooner than expected.
As recently as 2019 the China Academy of Social Sciences expected the population to peak in 2029, at 1.44 billion. The 2019 United Nations Population Prospects report expected the peak later still, in 2031-32, at 1.46 billion.
The Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences team predicts an annual average decline of 1.1% after 2021, pushing China's population down to 587 million in 2100, less than half of what it is today.
The reasonable assumptions behind that prediction are that China's total fertility rate slips from 1.15 to 1.1 between now and 2030, and remains there until 2100.
The rapid decline will have a profound impact on China's economy.
China's working-age population peaked in 2014 and is projected to shrink to less than one-third of that peak by 2100. China's elderly population (aged 65 and above) is expected to continue to climb for most of that time, passing China's working-age population near 2080.

 

[Nicodeamus]

In terms of resources, Chinese steel is close to peaking or already has peaked.


This is an indication that they are moving to a post industrial society i.e. service sector. Therefore resource consumption falls relative to income.

Translation: Once everyone has a house all that you need to do is repairs.
That is why we aren't running out of resources, because it also follows a normal distribution (as do most phenomena).

 

[Paulsie]

In terms of resources, Chinese steel is close to peaking or already has peaked.
View attachment 1353024

This is an indication that they are moving to a post industrial society i.e. service sector. Therefore resource consumption falls relative to income.

Translation: Once everyone has a house all that you need to do is repairs.
That is why we aren't running out of resources, because it also follows a normal distribution (as do most phenomena).

Great reasoning and explanations. Thanks!!

 

[Cosmik Debris]

You're obviously not reading a thing that I am saying.

Look at the graph below.
View attachment 1353016
Phase 1 and 2 is pre industrial, afterwards populations stabilized. The EU, North American and now Chinese populations have already passed the first 3 stages.
Other parts of the world are currently experiencing it (notably Africa)
After every population has gone through this phase, the world population won't expand as the UN currently predicts.

Just answer the question. I don't need your math and graphs. Are there many more people alive now than in the past? And will this trend continue? Like 6 Billion more than in 1800? And 4 Billion more than in 1960? This is the only graph you need:

 

[Johnatan56]

Great reasoning and explanations. Thanks!!

Haven't read nics stuff, have him on ignore, but he probably posted something vaguely resembling the truth which will just mislead you. Rather do your own research.

 

[Temujin]

Sad reality is one wef member or celeb pushing the mah global warming dogma in their private jet releases multiples of times in one shopping trip flight that a cow does over a year... wonder when they'll be selling their private jets and calling for culling the rich

https://twitter.com/CelebJets

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Sad reality is one wef member or celeb pushing the mah global warming dogma in their private jet releases multiples of times in one shopping trip flight that a cow does over a year... wonder when they'll be selling their private jets and calling for culling the rich

https://twitter.com/CelebJets

No chance of that. Here are some facts about Saint Greta's famous yacht trip because she refused to fly due to aircraft emissions.

The yacht was made of fossil fuel mined by fossil fuel using fossil fuel. It had a fossil fuel generator. When it got to the US, the return crew of 5 were flown from Hamburg to the US while the delivery crew of 5 were flown back to Hamburg. This to avoid a trip that would have released aircraft emissions.

It's all a money making scam.

 

[Nicodeamus]

Just answer the question. I don't need your math and graphs. Are there many more people alive now than in the past? And will this trend continue? Like 6 Billion more than in 1800? And 4 Billion more than in 1960? This is the only graph you need:

The trend is continuing, you just don't understand the trend......
I explained it above. Let me know if there is a concept that you don't understand.

 

[RonSwanson]

Translation: Overpopulation is not a problem and we aren't running out of resources, in fact the opposite could be true.

Agreed. Nothing could be truer. It's amazing how people are fed lies for years and years and simply believe it.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

The trend is continuing, you just don't understand the trend......
I explained it above. Let me know if there is a concept that you don't understand.

I understand that the population is increasing. Are you denying that? Check the projections for 2024 (8 Billion) and 2040 (9 Billion) from the graph I supplied. Is it increasing or decreasing?

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Agreed. Nothing could be truer. It's amazing how people are fed lies for years and years and simply believe it.

You're telling me that resources are infinite and population growth doesn't lead to faster consumption?

 

[RonSwanson]

You're telling me that resources are infinite and population growth doesn't lead to faster consumption?

Strawman.

It has all been explained to you previously, why do you continue to flog a dead horse?

 

[Nicodeamus]

I understand that the population is increasing. Are you denying that? Check the projections for 2024 (8 Billion) and 2040 (9 Billion) from the graph I supplied. Is it increasing or decreasing?

I am not denying that.
What I am suggesting is that you read up basic calculus and how exponential functions behave, logistics curves in particular. Your answers and questions show me a profound ignorance of the most basic mathematics.

It's like talking to someone who is innumerate.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Strawman.

It has all been explained to you previously, why do you continue to flog a dead horse?

The horse is not dead. Infinite resources and population increase not consuming resources faster is a lie.