Climate Change or Changing Climate

[old'un]

2022 the world population reached 8 billion, seventy years ago, in 1952, it stood at 2.5 billion, 70 years from now 2092, it will have grown by another 2.5 billion with over 50 percent of that increase coming from Africa….https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/10/for-world-population-day-a-look-at-the-countries-with-the-biggest-projected-gains-and-losses-by-2100/

[old man]

4 hours ago, henry d said:

Numbers of humans stabilising is the trend by then and dropping into the next century. 

How so Henry? The trends in developing nations seems to be that large numbers of offspring counterbalance the lack of state care?

[henry d]

1 hour ago, old man said:

How so Henry? The trends in developing nations seems to be that large numbers of offspring counterbalance the lack of state care?

Because they are increasing doesn't mean that the rest of the world is. Check out the links. 

[old man]

50 minutes ago, henry d said:

Because they are increasing doesn't mean that the rest of the world is. Check out the links. 

Ah, the good old Google prediction?

[12gauge82]

5 hours ago, henry d said:

For the population decline deniers

The population is expected to rise until 2100 and is predicted to go from approximately 8 billion to over 10 billion during that time, with most growth occurring in Africa, so I stick by the fact the population isn't due to decline any time soon. 

I also stick by my statement that population growth in developing countries is not a good thing, they're young and fit men are crossing Europe and getting on boats here, leaving their already sinking economys with starving citizens to suffer further. That situation can only get worse with unsustainable growth. 

You can stick to your conspiracy theory climate change and population growth denial. 

[henry d]

2 hours ago, old man said:

Ah, the good old Google prediction?

No, science, google is just a search engine. If you have alternative facts, crack on and produce them and we can have a discussion. 

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, henry d said:

No, science, google is just a search engine. If you have alternative facts, crack on and produce them and we can have a discussion. 

Where does one find this factual science? Did you not use a search engine? 

Tell me you trotted down to the library and dug out the text books, that are on Google 😂

[12gauge82]

48 minutes ago, henry d said:

No, science, google is just a search engine. If you have alternative facts, crack on and produce them and we can have a discussion. 

Your own quote states

"Although still growing, the UN predicts that global population will level out around 2086, and some sources predict the start of a decline before then. The principal cause of this phenomenon is the abrupt decline in the global total fertility rate, from 5.3 in 1963 to 2.4 in 2019."

So the population is still going to grow until at least the next century although some sources state otherwise. 

not only does your link point to population increase, but states someone somewhere thinks it may fall before then. 

Really scientific stuff henry 😂😂😂

[Scully]

I’m saving various comments until I’ve finished reading ‘Not Zero’, it really is an eye opener. 

[discobob]

10 hours ago, Scully said:

I’m saving various comments until I’ve finished reading ‘Not Zero’, it really is an eye opener. 

I need to get that book as well, seen it crop up in a number of places now

[old man]

14 hours ago, henry d said:

No, science, google is just a search engine. If you have alternative facts, crack on and produce them and we can have a discussion. 

Sorry Henry, just burned out my last brain cell on this one. Too old to waste more time on this. 

[LV98]

Hi Everyone, thought I'd throw my two cents into the mix as well. In my opinion the change in global temperature is a result of both increasing greenhouse gas emissions and the natural fluctuations that have been occurring for thousands of years. If people are interested, I would be happy to explain some of the science behind it. 

[ditchman]

27 minutes ago, LV98 said:

Hi Everyone, thought I'd throw my two cents into the mix as well. In my opinion the change in global temperature is a result of both increasing greenhouse gas emissions and the natural fluctuations that have been occurring for thousands of years. If people are interested, I would be happy to explain some of the science behind it. 

a very dangerous offer........love to hear your point of view....then we will know what camp you lay in........

 

On 06/03/2023 at 07:56, discobob said:

I need to get that book as well, seen it crop up in a number of places now

easy to find its next to "SPARE" on the cheap shelf

[Bigbob]

49 minutes ago, LV98 said:

Hi Everyone, thought I'd throw my two cents into the mix as well. In my opinion the change in global temperature is a result of both increasing greenhouse gas emissions and the natural fluctuations that have been occurring for thousands of years. If people are interested, I would be happy to explain some of the science behind it. 

Maybe even in my life time i can rember the same cycles of weather repeating every 20 years or so 

[Stonepark]

2 minutes ago, LV98 said:

Hi Everyone, thought I'd throw my two cents into the mix as well. In my opinion the change in global temperature is a result of both increasing greenhouse gas emissions and the natural fluctuations that have been occurring for thousands of years. If people are interested, I would be happy to explain some of the science behind it. 

As long as your science doesn't includes models (lies), altered temperature and sea level data (lies) and outright fabrications (lies).

Most plants are genetically designed (naturally) to best operate between 800 to 1000ppm CO2, given that they were very nearly wiped out in the last ice age when Co2 fell to circa 185ppm (and if plants die, we all die), a return above 400ppm is not yet even optimal for their growth.

Even if we were to burn all the Carbon stored as coal, oil and gas, we would be lucky to hit 800ppm.

As a discrete gas during testing, CO2 is also not linerally cumulative in it's effect, i.e. as increasing concentration occurs, the effect of each additional amount has is less.

Greenhouse gas is a misnomer, Co2 neither acts like a solid band or contains heat like glass. Over 99.996% of light (energy) never touches a CO2 molecule on it's passage through the atmosphere.

In addition if you compressed the atmosphere to liquid, it would form a layer about 12m deep around the earth, of that 10% of that 12m is 1.2m, 5% is 60cm (which is the water vapour amount in the atmosphere), 0.5% is 6cm, 0.04% (410ppm Co2) is 5mm.

Not only do CO2 pundits try to convince you that CO2 is affects temperatures more than H2O which is 10 times more abundant in the atmosphere (and responsible for 75% of all heat retention), they fail to notice the oceans, which are on average 3,500m deep and absorb heat to such an effect, the atmosphere is neglible as a whole, and planetary heating which is due to the SUN and it's light and heat absorption into the oceans at the tropics in particular.

This CO2 obsession ignores what we are experiencing precession in planetary terms with our orbit, our cycle through space (hint both we and the sun are moving in a linear fashion through space as well as rotating and Earth circling the sun), passing through not only the solar current sheet, but also the galactic current sheet, and which have effects on solar output, earth input, etc etc that are all totally ignored under the CO2 models and mantra.

CO2 alarmists simply don't have the astrophysics and solar science education to understand all the inputs to the Earth and as a result as the computer joke goes.... CR+P Data in = Cr+p Data out.

5 minutes ago, Bigbob said:

Maybe even in my life time i can rember the same cycles of weather repeating every 20 years or so 

Solar (Sunspot) Cyle is 11ish Years, 2 solar cycles is 22ish years.

[henry d]

38 minutes ago, Stonepark said:

As long as your science doesn't includes models (lies)....

And you don't see the error in what follows the above?

[discobob]

@ditchman I did put a comment earlier but Henry D seemed to want to ignore it so it may have got lost. 
 

I believe in a Changing Climate with a little dash of man made that may be having a slight impact on a natural cycle that has been in play since the planet was formed. I am, however, concerned by the environmental impact that we have especially around plastics and micro-plastics

I also believe that it is being used as a tool against us while certain parties are getting richer and gaining control beyond what they should have

And yes, I am very comfortable in my tin foil cap, it is fur lined 😂

[ditchman]

1 minute ago, discobob said:

@ditchman I did put a comment earlier but Henry D seemed to want to ignore it so it may have got lost. 
 

I believe in a Changing Climate with a little dash of man made that may be having a slight impact on a natural cycle that has been in play since the planet was formed. I am, however, concerned by the environmental impact that we have especially around plastics and micro-plastics

I also believe that it is being used as a tool against us while certain parties are getting richer and gaining control beyond what they should have

And yes, I am very comfortable in my tin foil cap, it is fur lined 😂

can i share your hat please..........i will bring some extra baco-foil

[discobob]

17 minutes ago, ditchman said:

can i share your hat please..........i will bring some extra baco-foil

[LV98]

My understanding of it is that visible light and UV which constitutes most of the light output by the sun can pass mostly unhindered through earth's atmosphere as it is close to any of the resonant vibrational frequencies of the atmospheric gas molecules. This light is then absorbed by the earth. This energy is then re-radiated as lower frequency infrared radiation, which is close to the resonant vibrational frequencies of greenhouse gas molecules and therefore strongly absorbed. Increasing the concentration of these greenhouse gasses increases the amount of absorbed light and therefore the amount the atmosphere is heated.

Stonepark, touching on what you said "Greenhouse gas is a misnomer, Co2 neither acts like a solid band or contains heat like glass. Over 99.996% of light (energy) never touches a CO2 molecule on it's passage through the atmosphere"

I am not sure what you mean by "acts like a solid band" , but I am sure CO2 contains heat, at the end of the day all matter we interact with has a heat capacity. Aso I am not sure what you mean by light touching things, light is an electromagnetic field, therefore it is not simply confined to one small point, rather it is a field who's strength decays as you get further away from it meaning it will interact with greenhouse gas mollecules in the air as the oscillating electric field of the light produces a force acting on the electric dipoles in the molecules. 

 

Regarding your paragraph here "Not only do CO2 pundits try to convince you that CO2 is affects temperatures more than H2O which is 10 times more abundant in the atmosphere (and responsible for 75% of all heat retention), they fail to notice the oceans, which are on average 3,500m deep and absorb heat to such an effect, the atmosphere is neglible as a whole, and planetary heating which is due to the SUN and it's light and heat absorption into the oceans at the tropics in particular.". I agree that water vapor in the atmosphere does also have a significant affect but disagree with the statement that the atmosphere is negligible. Whilst its heat capacity is, the insulating effect it has is not, a significant amount of infrared radiation absorbed by the atmosphere is re-radiated back down to earth and absorbed again thus heating it, of course the more IR that is absorbed by the atmosphere the more heating there is. This means the planet absorbs more light that it radiates meaning there is a net energy surplus and its temperature increases. If I remember correctly, it doesn't take a huge increase in the amount of radiation flux trapped to result in a 1 or 2 degree rise in temperature.

 

Regarding this paragraph: "This CO2 obsession ignores what we are experiencing precession in planetary terms with our orbit, our cycle through space (hint both we and the sun are moving in a linear fashion through space as well as rotating and Earth circling the sun), passing through not only the solar current sheet, but also the galactic current sheet, and which have effects on solar output, earth input, etc etc that are all totally ignored under the CO2 models and mantra.". I agree that there are other affects to take into account such as changes in the earth's core and magnetic field, precessions in the earth's rotation al axis and other effects. However many will say that these cannot explain the rapid rise in global temperature that has been observed over the last 100 years or so.

I am not sure how big the effect of the solar current sheet is as the current density of it is quite low, I would have thought that the solar wind would have a greater heating effect but I may well be wrong. Not sure what the galactic current sheet is though and how big its effect is I was under the impression that the effect of even the nearest stars in the galaxy (except the sun) is negligible as they are light years away, maybe your could explain, I am interested.

 

 

 

 

 

[discobob]

1 hour ago, Stonepark said:

As long as your science doesn't includes models (lies), altered temperature and sea level data (lies) and outright fabrications (lies).

Most plants are genetically designed (naturally) to best operate between 800 to 1000ppm CO2, given that they were very nearly wiped out in the last ice age when Co2 fell to circa 185ppm (and if plants die, we all die), a return above 400ppm is not yet even optimal for their growth.

Even if we were to burn all the Carbon stored as coal, oil and gas, we would be lucky to hit 800ppm.

As a discrete gas during testing, CO2 is also not linerally cumulative in it's effect, i.e. as increasing concentration occurs, the effect of each additional amount has is less.

Greenhouse gas is a misnomer, Co2 neither acts like a solid band or contains heat like glass. Over 99.996% of light (energy) never touches a CO2 molecule on it's passage through the atmosphere.

In addition if you compressed the atmosphere to liquid, it would form a layer about 12m deep around the earth, of that 10% of that 12m is 1.2m, 5% is 60cm (which is the water vapour amount in the atmosphere), 0.5% is 6cm, 0.04% (410ppm Co2) is 5mm.

Not only do CO2 pundits try to convince you that CO2 is affects temperatures more than H2O which is 10 times more abundant in the atmosphere (and responsible for 75% of all heat retention), they fail to notice the oceans, which are on average 3,500m deep and absorb heat to such an effect, the atmosphere is neglible as a whole, and planetary heating which is due to the SUN and it's light and heat absorption into the oceans at the tropics in particular.

This CO2 obsession ignores what we are experiencing precession in planetary terms with our orbit, our cycle through space (hint both we and the sun are moving in a linear fashion through space as well as rotating and Earth circling the sun), passing through not only the solar current sheet, but also the galactic current sheet, and which have effects on solar output, earth input, etc etc that are all totally ignored under the CO2 models and mantra.

CO2 alarmists simply don't have the astrophysics and solar science education to understand all the inputs to the Earth and as a result as the computer joke goes.... CR+P Data in = Cr+p Data out.

Solar (Sunspot) Cyle is 11ish Years, 2 solar cycles is 22ish years.

All these algorithms and models they have, when the put in historical figures they can’t even get a prediction anywhere near the current climate. London should be 10 metres underwater. 
 

it makes me laugh when they can’t predict the weather tomorrow for where we are 😂

[discobob]

@LV98

light is an electromagnetic wave - not a field - if it was a field it would be deflected by the earth magnetic field - or that’s the way i understand it

[LV98]

Light is an electromagnetic field which propagates as a wave, you have an oscillating electric field which induces an oscillating magnetic field and vice versa as shown by Maxwell's equations. This disturbance then propagates through space at the speed of light. The earth's magnetic field is relatively static and therefore does not interact (or interacts very little with electromagnetic waves, you may have confused this with the ionosphere which is a low temperature plasma in the upper atmosphere ( if i remember correctly) which can and does reflect radio waves due to the free charges in it (electrons and ions) which try to cancel the electric field of incoming electromagnetic waves.

[Robden]

6 hours ago, LV98 said:

My understanding of it is that visible light and UV which constitutes most of the light output by the sun can pass mostly unhindered through earth's atmosphere as it is close to any of the resonant vibrational frequencies of the atmospheric gas molecules. This light is then absorbed by the earth. This energy is then re-radiated as lower frequency infrared radiation, which is close to the resonant vibrational frequencies of greenhouse gas molecules and therefore strongly absorbed. Increasing the concentration of these greenhouse gasses increases the amount of absorbed light and therefore the amount the atmosphere is heated.

Stonepark, touching on what you said "Greenhouse gas is a misnomer, Co2 neither acts like a solid band or contains heat like glass. Over 99.996% of light (energy) never touches a CO2 molecule on it's passage through the atmosphere"

I am not sure what you mean by "acts like a solid band" , but I am sure CO2 contains heat, at the end of the day all matter we interact with has a heat capacity. Aso I am not sure what you mean by light touching things, light is an electromagnetic field, therefore it is not simply confined to one small point, rather it is a field who's strength decays as you get further away from it meaning it will interact with greenhouse gas mollecules in the air as the oscillating electric field of the light produces a force acting on the electric dipoles in the molecules. 

 

Regarding your paragraph here "Not only do CO2 pundits try to convince you that CO2 is affects temperatures more than H2O which is 10 times more abundant in the atmosphere (and responsible for 75% of all heat retention), they fail to notice the oceans, which are on average 3,500m deep and absorb heat to such an effect, the atmosphere is neglible as a whole, and planetary heating which is due to the SUN and it's light and heat absorption into the oceans at the tropics in particular.". I agree that water vapor in the atmosphere does also have a significant affect but disagree with the statement that the atmosphere is negligible. Whilst its heat capacity is, the insulating effect it has is not, a significant amount of infrared radiation absorbed by the atmosphere is re-radiated back down to earth and absorbed again thus heating it, of course the more IR that is absorbed by the atmosphere the more heating there is. This means the planet absorbs more light that it radiates meaning there is a net energy surplus and its temperature increases. If I remember correctly, it doesn't take a huge increase in the amount of radiation flux trapped to result in a 1 or 2 degree rise in temperature.

 

Regarding this paragraph: "This CO2 obsession ignores what we are experiencing precession in planetary terms with our orbit, our cycle through space (hint both we and the sun are moving in a linear fashion through space as well as rotating and Earth circling the sun), passing through not only the solar current sheet, but also the galactic current sheet, and which have effects on solar output, earth input, etc etc that are all totally ignored under the CO2 models and mantra.". I agree that there are other affects to take into account such as changes in the earth's core and magnetic field, precessions in the earth's rotation al axis and other effects. However many will say that these cannot explain the rapid rise in global temperature that has been observed over the last 100 years or so.

I am not sure how big the effect of the solar current sheet is as the current density of it is quite low, I would have thought that the solar wind would have a greater heating effect but I may well be wrong. Not sure what the galactic current sheet is though and how big its effect is I was under the impression that the effect of even the nearest stars in the galaxy (except the sun) is negligible as they are light years away, maybe your could explain, I am interested.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh nickers! You beat me to it.

[Penelope]

On 05/03/2023 at 09:52, ditchman said:

maybe you can correct/advise me.........i heard yesterday in a report that the sperm count of men in the UK had dropped greatly   by a massive %......cant remember what it was excactly but it left me shocked.....

Western World. Can you imagine the noise about it if we were women?

On 05/03/2023 at 15:54, henry d said:

Because they are increasing doesn't mean that the rest of the world is. Check out the links. 

For once I agree. Japan is a case in question.