Natural gas is crushing wind and solar power

[0R0 + 6,251]

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Then how do you explain the fact that around 1800 there were about a billion people on the planet and now we are nearing 8 billion? The rate of increase is NOT decreasing.

Yes, developed countries are nearing zero population growth, but this is more than overcome by the developing nations - developing.

The demographics trends are clear. Developing countries are mostly urbanized already. African countries have a declining birth rate and have crossed under 2.1 (replacement) everywhere. 

We have reached peak babies already, population increase rates are purely due to longevity from last year onwards.

Africa is the only region still showing population growth in the UN database. But it is a decade out of date and the bottom layer of the pyramid is not real, it is narrower in reality.

. First the oil consumers and coal burners

Europe

North America

NE Asia, China Japan Korea

Australia and New Zealand

That covers the really big per capita energy consumers. 

Now the middle level energy consumers

SE Asia - Only Indonesia and the Philippines are relatively young and are also less developed. 

Then there is the formerly developed S. America

Then the biggest group of Southern Asia including India.

 

Finally we have the much less developed Africa, note that the bottom layers of the Pyramid are bogus, they are narrower in reality. And they will be updated after the 2020 UN "census" survey. But we already know the numbers of babies born in Africa have fallen off rapidly.

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

2 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Then how do you explain the fact that around 1800 there were about a billion people on the planet and now we are nearing 8 billion? The rate of increase is NOT decreasing.

Yes, developed countries are nearing zero population growth, but this is more than overcome by the developing nations - developing.

The world population is still growing but the growth rate is slowing.

https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2019.html

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds-population-is-projected-to-nearly-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the-century/

 

The time it takes to add a billion to the world population was shrinking until recently but is now growing.

It took 14 years to grow from 3 to 4 billions

13 years from 4 to 5 billions,

12 years from 5 to 6 billions

and 13 years from 6 to 7 billions

It's estimated it will take 15 years to reach the 8 billions milestone

The world population could peak at the end of the century around 10 or 11 billions.

 

 

 

[0R0 + 6,251]

30 minutes ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

This is why I replied by a "rolling eyes" emoti when YOU restarted the debate :

 

 

There is overwhelming scientific evidence of the global warming. But climate change deniers are convinced they are an enlightened minority knowing the real truth and fighting a global conspiracy. Its rather vain to try to convince them. Everything you would say will be rejected as a "fraud" or "doctored data" if it goes against their beliefs.

Most of the climate change deniers are conspiracy theory believers, the others are just paid by the fossil fuel lobby.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory

I do not deny climate change, just the magnitude and the allocation of cause.

I look at the raw data and see the trend coming largely from measuring temperatures in locations where cities grew around the weather station where readings were taken and from locations where particulate cloud cover had disappeared due to clean air regulations. E.g. Munich shows a warming trend. Nearby upwind areas that were outside the particulate cloud don't show a warming trend.

As @footeab@yahoo.com likes to point out, the ice core data show carbon dioxide levels increase AFTER a temperature rise. So can not be a cause of it. 

They also show 12,000 years of global temperatures rising above current levels and below. It is the cold periods that coincide with the fall of civilizations and decline of human population. The Hot periods show the rise of civilizations like Rome. Look to Martin Armstrong and his giant correlation engine's results as he explains them. The strongest correlation is of hot temperatures and the rise of civilizations and the fall of temperatures and the demise of  civilizations. He attributes that to the higher rainfall and second northern growing season in the hot periods and the dry cold eras and the loss of the second growing season.

Where we can agree is that particulate cover over the oceans has resulted in a dryer period than temperatures would suggest. To a great extent, the particulate cover is one reason temperatures did not rise before the break of the curve in your chart, which is indeed partially real, just that the data does not support the scale of the change, it is far less, about 1/3rd, and in N.America the raw data shows no trend at all. And statistically, N. America is the vast bulk of like for like numbers over the entire century and a half. 

I do worry that with less coal and oil burning we will see more global warming because of a loss of the particulate cover.

Go back and look at the discussions here,it has been raised many times.

If you want to look at the science then look at it, the actual data, the actual science not the political claims and outlandish projections of scare mongers. If you are a pop climatologist with a PhD writing a book, you won't get much attention publishing "Nothing much going on in climate trends"

 

 

 

[0R0 + 6,251]

23 minutes ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

The world population is still growing but the growth rate is slowing.

https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2019.html

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds-population-is-projected-to-nearly-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the-century/

 

The time it takes to add a billion to the world population was shrinking until recently but is now growing.

It took 14 years to grow from 3 to 4 billions

13 years from 4 to 5 billions,

12 years from 5 to 6 billions

and 13 years from 6 to 7 billions

It's estimated it will take 15 years to reach the 8 billions milestone

The world population could peak at the end of the century around 10 or 11 billions.

 

 

 

UN numbers are out of date.

Thus their projections are WORTHLESS

There is no "it is estimated". It is an ossified and corrupt institution continuing to publish projections out of data that is WIDELY KNOWN among Demographers to be OUT OF DATE and thus the projections are WRONG

UN is a depository of garbage. Stop quoting their junk and go look at real scientists doing real work.

Only the feeble minded blinded by faith in the exalted idea of the UN pay any attention to the disinformation machine that it has become. 

PEW is using UN numbers. Thus its report is junk too.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

“Most of the climate change deniers are conspiracy theory believers, the others are just paid by the fossil fuel lobby.”

Or, like myself, a degreed engineer with a Masters degree in Environmental Policy & Management, who hates conspiracy theories and is not associated with any fossil fuel lobby, we simply disagree with you on climate change and would like to see some irrefutable data which supports your theory ( it is still a theory at this point) before throwing trillions of dollars at something we do not even understand!

[0R0 + 6,251]

To make it clear

From this point on, the number of people increasing is in older age groups. The number of young people is falling.

Old people consume a much lesser portion of their incomes, their carbon footprint is much smaller. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

4 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

UN is a depository of garbage. Stop quoting their junk and go look at real scientists doing real work.

Only the feeble minded blinded by faith in the exalted idea of the UN pay any attention to the disinformation machine that it has become. 

^ this

[0R0 + 6,251]

4 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

“Most of the climate change deniers are conspiracy theory believers, the others are just paid by the fossil fuel lobby.”

Or, like myself, a degreed engineer with a Masters degree in Environmental Policy & Management, who hates conspiracy theories and is not associated with any fossil fuel lobby, we simply disagree with you on climate change and would like to see some irrefutable data which supports your theory ( it is still a theory at this point) before throwing trillions of dollars at something we do not even understand!

MSc Chem E here, same thing. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

40 minutes ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

The world population is still growing but the growth rate is slowing.

https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2019.html

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds-population-is-projected-to-nearly-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the-century/

 

The time it takes to add a billion to the world population was shrinking until recently but is now growing.

It took 14 years to grow from 3 to 4 billions

13 years from 4 to 5 billions,

12 years from 5 to 6 billions

and 13 years from 6 to 7 billions

It's estimated it will take 15 years to reach the 8 billions milestone

The world population could peak at the end of the century around 10 or 11 billions.

 

 

 

Or, you could look at those numbers and say, hmmmm....looks like we’ve increased the global population eightfold in LAST 223 years, and PONDER if this may have some bearing on climate...🤔

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 hour ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

Most of the climate change deniers are conspiracy theory believers, the others are just paid by the fossil fuel lobby.

Yep, you busted me.  I get paid $50,000 a week by the fossil fuel lobby to deny climate change.  It's a great gig.  I get paid to post comments of whatever my oil & Gas Overlords tell to say.  Zero critical thinking involved.  Life is good.

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

2 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Yep, you busted me.  I get paid $50,000 a week by the fossil fuel lobby to deny climate change.  It's a great gig.  I get paid to post comments of whatever my oil & Gas Overlords tell to say.  Zero critical thinking involved.  Life is good.

Oh sorry, I believed you were rather among the conspiracy theory lovers category.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Yep, you busted me.  I get paid $50,000 a week by the fossil fuel lobby to deny climate change.  It's a great gig.  I get paid to post comments of whatever my oil & Gas Overlords tell to say.  Zero critical thinking involved.  Life is good.

Hook me up Tom! Drilling gone bust, need a paycheck!

[WayneMechEng + 89]

7 hours ago, 0R0 said:

Remember that whatever immigration comes to Canada would still have been consuming energy back at home. It is a smaller increment in energy consumption than you think. That is because the countries they come from are "developing" in part because they are very energy inefficient, low labor productivity etc.

There are many points to consider in your complete response.  I am watching stocks today and have another appointment, so I don't have time to properly consider all the statements.  So for only the quote above:

Former National Energy Board of Canada (has a new name but still has a website) has seen BC's (lots of environmentally conscious folk there) carbon equivalent energy usage drop for a few years then start rising.   This closely follows census data  from StatsCanada.  Folks migrating from Central America or North Africa were not using much energy, if any.  I recall that the city of Acapulco stays about 72 F all year around.  These immigrants need to support their families so come to industrialized countries in the EU or North America (that burn energy) for work.

I can agree with some of your points.  I can respond to the above because of previous investigations I made regarding our Carbon Tax.

[NickW + 2,714]

7 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Yep, you busted me.  I get paid $50,000 a week by the fossil fuel lobby to deny climate change.  It's a great gig.  I get paid to post comments of whatever my oil & Gas Overlords tell to say.  Zero critical thinking involved.  Life is good.

Get together with Doug and come up with a water tight formula that refutes the consensus view on climate change. If you do the FF industry will happily pay you more that 50K a week for life

[D Coyne + 305]

On 2/26/2020 at 9:12 AM, dgowin said:

The United States is NOT a democracy! We are a Federal Republic.

The arguments against true democracy's go all the way back to the execution of Socrates.

There are different ways of creating a representative democracy and there are many nations that follow the principle of one person, one vote in the choice of representatives as well as the executive.  It works fine in practice.  

[surrept33 + 609]

I think the long term demographic changes in the world are interesting, but I think it's just one of many drivers.

Energy intensity per unit of gdp growth is interesting, it implies both better energy efficiency and some structural changes (like manufacturing to services in some places like the OECD and agrarian economies industrializing):

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=27032

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

9 hours ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

Oh sorry, I believed you were rather among the conspiracy theory lovers category.

Here ya go. 

 

[surrept33 + 609]

50 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Here ya go. 

 

I haven't watched the video yet (no sound at the moment), but hasn't this Goddard/Heller guy brought up a lot of conspiracy theory-level claims against NOAA's adjustments (and/or spatial interpolation) before? https://fabiusmaximus.com/2014/06/28/steve-goddard-climate-fake-data-69465/

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

33 minutes ago, surrept33 said:

I haven't watched the video yet (no sound at the moment), but hasn't this Goddard/Heller guy brought up a lot of conspiracy theory-level claims against NOAA's adjustments (and/or spatial interpolation) before? https://fabiusmaximus.com/2014/06/28/steve-goddard-climate-fake-data-69465/

OH bravo!  You neither watched what I posted, nor read your own link.  Bravo!

Though it is true, he did not grid his data in 2014 when ppl were criticizing him and rightly so.  Since then.... Not true, though it is true, I have not fact checked everything he has done.  I have done so on a few of his vids and they came out accurate.  If one follows the links for disagreements on how bad the surface temp data actually is, one will understand why. 

What I Find truly baffling is why the USCRN data before 2005 was arbitrarily eliminated.  True, it was not a perfect grid, but....

Edited March 2, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

2 hours ago, surrept33 said:

I haven't watched the video yet (no sound at the moment), but hasn't this Goddard/Heller guy brought up a lot of conspiracy theory-level claims against NOAA's adjustments (and/or spatial interpolation) before? https://fabiusmaximus.com/2014/06/28/steve-goddard-climate-fake-data-69465/

Here is more data fraud: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/01/warming-marble-bar/

When this happens time after time after time, I frankly give up on trying to validate everything I read as I only have one life to live and it is quite obvious that those who have an agenda are more than willing to blatantly lie cheat and steal their way into power for ~whatever axe they are grinding(usually they hate themselves and humanity seeing humanity as a plague on the earth)

"fix" enough stations and viola, present/future can be anything you want. 

[WayneMechEng + 89]

13 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Or, you could look at those numbers and say, hmmmm....looks like we’ve increased the global population eightfold in LAST 223 years, and PONDER if this may have some bearing on climate...🤔

Agree and more importantly so do the experts.  I will add a thought experiment for population contribution deniers to ponder:

Assume the world's population never upgraded from a cave and each family still had a wood burning fire.  If we had a population of 1 billion at some point in the past, and it is 8 billion in the future, we would have 8 times the CO2 emissions (and fewer trees).

A second thought experiment:

If all the worlds population moved above the arctic circle (for mining jobs, let's assume), wouldn't we burn more energy just to stay warm?

The earth is slowly warming, either caused naturally or by mankind.  So deal with it instead of using it for political jockeying and carbon taxation.  Floating cities could deal with ocean level rise (my wife loves cruises, but not tents), and the conversion of sea water to drinking water to deal with loss of river water from disappearing glaciers.

Here are my conspiracy thoughts for the day:  The Wizard of Oz said not to look behind the curtain.  Maybe China paid world officials to push Climate Change and Global Warming while they moved into Tibet and Africa to control water.  Watch Netflix, "The Future of Water", and you might agree.  I also love the old "Manchurian Candidate" movie starring Frank Sinatra.  His version featured communist governments (using brainwashing) as the antangonists, pushing their Presidential candidate, while the newer movie version replaced the communists with greedy corporations.  Do you think only Russia or the Ukraine can play foul?

 

 

[WayneMechEng + 89]

15 hours ago, 0R0 said:

Or, like myself, a degreed engineer with a Masters degree in Environmental Policy & Management, who hates conspiracy theories and is not associated with any fossil fuel lobby, we simply disagree with you on climate change and would like to see some irrefutable data which supports your theory ( it is still a theory at this point) before throwing trillions of dollars at something we do not even understand!

Good points.  Still, sea levels have been and are still rising slowly while the polar caps continue to melt.  Caused by nature or man is immaterial.  Ocean level rate of rise is debatable.  Some studies are biased to get more research grants!  Refer to Wikipedia "Politics of Climate Change" to see the various ways global warming is hyped for political points and financial transfers.  It would be best if engineers were asked to propose ideas like floating cities or transitions to RE in a realistic way, to minimize disruptions to our economy.  Our electric grids will always need a base power source, either nuclear and/or natural gas or hydro, for the reliability our modern economies require.  Until enough RE is available (and I don't believe it will supply as much as enviromentalistis would hope) at an economical price, the current fuels used for electric power generation will still be needed.  However, seas are slowly rising and polar ice melting, an observation that doesn't need any scientific study.  I don't believe the rate of warming is as alarming as Greta T tells us.  Is she an engineer or scientist?  At 17 years she is advising the UN?  She must have been born with a silver spoon to be able to sail across the Atlantic.  Did George Soros finance her expedition and get her the UN venue?  What about the glaciers melting that feed our rivers?  How can we continue to irrigate the prairies in North America that grow grains that help feed the world?

[surrept33 + 609]

4 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Here is more data fraud: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/01/warming-marble-bar/

When this happens time after time after time, I frankly give up on trying to validate everything I read as I only have one life to live and it is quite obvious that those who have an agenda are more than willing to blatantly lie cheat and steal their way into power for ~whatever axe they are grinding(usually they hate themselves and humanity seeing humanity as a plague on the earth)

"fix" enough stations and viola, present/future can be anything you want. 

 

I agree that such calibrations can be dangerous, so it's good that people are evaluating it with a critical eye. But I don't know about calling it outright fraud to prove recent warming effects by recalibrating old temperature data. Heck, old ocean temps are adjusted the other way: http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2015/02/homogenization-adjustments-reduce-global-warming.html

also food for thought: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/guest-post-skeptics-demand-adjustments/

[0R0 + 6,251]

1 hour ago, WayneMechEng said:

Until enough RE is available (and I don't believe it will supply as much as enviromentalistis would hope) at an economical price, the current fuels used for electric power generation will still be needed. 

The EIA does have a century long projection with the bulk of baseload being gas then nuclear. At no point do they expect more than 20% renewables. I am far more optimistic on the degree of Renewables penetration as solar in the desert is pretty much unbeatable. It is the transmission costs and losses that get you and blow up your capital calculation. 

 

1 hour ago, WayneMechEng said:

At 17 years she is advising the UN?  She must have been born with a silver spoon to be able to sail across the Atlantic. 

She is a poor abused child who imagines she can see CO2. She is used by the shameless genocidal merchants of climate change. They trot her out because she is the only one on the team that comes across as earnest.

[WayneMechEng + 89]

18 hours ago, 0R0 said:

UN is a depository of garbage. Stop quoting their junk and go look at real scientists doing real work.

I believe the UN is a corrupt globalist supporting agency.  I also once had a US security clearance for a project and learned how self serving scientists can be to maintain their government funding.

Please direct me an alternative source for the worlds population history.