Remember me
▼ Content

Population Change and Demography - the malthusian rate.



Page 2 of 2<12
27-10-2019 20:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
Amanbir Grewal wrote: ... they drink that shit right up at night. the carbon cycle is being disturbed.

now what is a cycle?

THIS is a carbon cycle.




Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-10-2019 20:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
VernerHornung wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
The thing that exposes every doom and gloom environmental alarmist for being uninformed is that not only do they not discuss it they are largely ignorant of it or convinced its not true. I think it's the single biggest story of the last 100 years.

We can understand Greta's only 16 and on her first environmental fad. I'm old enough to have witnessed four of them come and three leave the stage. Curious how you can't even find a copy of The Population Bomb (Paul Ehrlich) anymore. Pesticides morphed from birds with soft-shelled eggs to GMO Frankenfoods on the margin and WWIII burst when the Wall fell and they closed the test sites. All are still serious issues, but none mean instant doom.

We've another tale of woe, just the substance is now CO2. At least Greta has enough warning to sail the Atlantic on tour. We Cold War young'uns expected to have minutes and I still rate nuclear weapons a graver threat to the globe than climate change. The faddism scatters our approach to problems, leading to a huge UN bureaucracy worrying over CO2 amid seeming unconcern with the fact that Trump's throwing the arms control treaties out the window. Then we have those cross-fiddles, Antinukes denying us a carbon-free, on-demand power source while they condemn Poland for burning coal.

We need a balance. Yes, fossil fuels will have to be curbed lest production declines choke our economy or CO2 accumulate to the point a real climate adversity ensues. Yet IPCC doesn't even have energy on its plate. There's a mix of universal health care, education, food security, women, Indigenous people and access to energy, the last of which will actually cause more CO2. These are desirable social goods in poor countries—I'm not stone-hearted about human needs—but they're not what IPCC should be focused on, which is research on how to develop a cleaner power picture.


YOU don't get to dictate energy markets.


The Parrot Killer
27-10-2019 20:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
tmiddles wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:...environmental fad...Pesticides morphed from birds with soft-shelled eggs to GMO Frankenfoods...
Yeah there is a definite flavor of the month pattern. My theory is that humans are wired for a dragon slayer mentality. The BIG FOE is always described with equal gravity it seems and for all political groups. Terrorism, Communism, Environmentalism, Social Justice, Heresy, there's always something to hang your helmet on.



All of which you and your religion supports.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 27-10-2019 20:29
01-11-2019 13:56
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Almost everything is constantly changing. The Earth orbits the sun and just won't sit still dammit!!! The position of the Earth is unknown!!
It is known for any point in time.
Yes we can gather data and assume there are not surprises and come up with a rough idea. JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE.

Into the Night wrote:The position of Earth at any point in time is knowable. The temperature of the Earth at any point in time is not.
Yes you refuse to explain how the temperature of ANYTHING is knowable.
PROOF of how you run away:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
...how do you measure the temperature of a block of steel on a hot plate? Is that also unknowable?
RDCF. RQAA.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
01-11-2019 17:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Almost everything is constantly changing. The Earth orbits the sun and just won't sit still dammit!!! The position of the Earth is unknown!!
It is known for any point in time.
Yes we can gather data and assume there are not surprises and come up with a rough idea. JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth for any point in time. It is not possible to measure the global sea level for any point in time. It is not possible to measure global CO2 concentration for any point in time.

You continue to make compositional error fallacies.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:The position of Earth at any point in time is knowable. The temperature of the Earth at any point in time is not.
Yes you refuse to explain how the temperature of ANYTHING is knowable.
PROOF of how you run away:
Into the Night wrote:
[b]tmiddles wrote:
...how do you measure the temperature of a block of steel on a hot plate? Is that also unknowable?
RDCF. RQAA.


I have not run away. I am still here.


The Parrot Killer
01-11-2019 23:14
Amanbir Grewal
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
which brings me back to my original question......how do we keep the climate from changing when we've got a population problem that we're dealing with b'cuz of Mr. Malthus.

problem upon a problem!!! deep problem!

what if I now make matters even worse by saying that urban landscapes or cities cause long-term health effects that can be irreversible, in other words, BAD EVOLUTION. and urbanization itself cannot be reversed by living in villages!!!!

add to that the rise of cheap crime and theft in heavily populated cities where one can disappear easily.

then come hedge funds and banking crises. the open looting of money by greed and its followers.

we need that money and safety to fight our challenges. if you take my money from the banking crunch, and then loot me personally for even the cash on me, my suffering and ailing body that breathes pollutives will have a big family instead of a small one to help me handle my work.

I don't have anything left for climate change, as you can see.

climate change must wait for its turn in the greater scheme of things. heavy planning addresses heavy problems first. that is one challenge climate change faces. it is just not ready to be solved yet.

Maslowean hierarchies compel man to pursue other games in management theory.

this is enough to douse your excitement in this post. if you get more notions, creative or otherwise, i'll try and elaborate on my premise.

cheers and hurrays

let climate change work for you!! call me at: #JoeisHummered.
02-11-2019 00:29
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature ....
tmiddles wrote:
PROOF of how you run away:
Into the Night wrote:
[b]tmiddles wrote:
...how do you measure the temperature of a block of steel on a hot plate? Is that also unknowable?
RDCF. RQAA.


I have not run away. I am still here.


So how is the temperature of ANYTHING determined. Pick one thing. How about the temperature of Denver Colorado on any particular day? Unknowable?

Temperature determination and the reality of temperature ALWAYS involves a range, never ever a precise known value. You can take multiple measurements to narrow the range of possibilities but that's it.

Amanbir Grewal wrote:...we've got a population problem that we're dealing with b'cuz of Mr. Malthus.....


So you just don't agree that the plummeting birth rate on Earth is about as much of solution to that as anyone could hope for?

We do NOT have an exploding population. We will soon have a declining one.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
Edited on 02-11-2019 00:29
02-11-2019 01:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
Amanbir Grewal wrote:
which brings me back to my original question......how do we keep the climate from changing

Easy climate cannot change.
Amanbir Grewal wrote:
when we've got a population problem that we're dealing with b'cuz of Mr. Malthus.

There is no population problem either.
Amanbir Grewal wrote:
problem upon a problem!!! deep problem!

No problem. Don't panic.
Amanbir Grewal wrote:
what if I now make matters even worse by saying that urban landscapes or cities cause long-term health effects that can be irreversible, in other words, BAD EVOLUTION. and urbanization itself cannot be reversed by living in villages!!!!

People live in cities because they want to.
Amanbir Grewal wrote:
add to that the rise of cheap crime and theft in heavily populated cities where one can disappear easily.

Not as easy as you think.
Amanbir Grewal wrote:
then come hedge funds and banking crises. the open looting of money by greed and its followers.

Hedge funds are not looting. Banking crisis are not looting.
Amanbir Grewal wrote:
we need that money and safety to fight our challenges.

Such as?
Amanbir Grewal wrote:
I don't have anything left for climate change, as you can see.

Define 'climate change'.
Amanbir Grewal wrote:
climate change must wait for its turn in the greater scheme of things.

Define 'climate change'.
Amanbir Grewal wrote:
heavy planning addresses heavy problems first.

Planning has no weight. Void argument fallacy.
Amanbir Grewal wrote:
that is one challenge climate change faces.

Define 'climate change'.
Amanbir Grewal wrote:
it is just not ready to be solved yet.

Your first problem: Define 'climate change'. You have to solve that problem first.
Amanbir Grewal wrote:
Maslowean hierarchies compel man to pursue other games in management theory.

this is enough to douse your excitement in this post. if you get more notions, creative or otherwise, i'll try and elaborate on my premise.

cheers and hurrays

let climate change work for you!! call me at: #JoeisHummered.

Define 'climate change'.


The Parrot Killer
02-11-2019 01:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature ....
tmiddles wrote:
PROOF of how you run away:
Into the Night wrote:
[b]tmiddles wrote:
...how do you measure the temperature of a block of steel on a hot plate? Is that also unknowable?
RDCF. RQAA.


I have not run away. I am still here.


So how is the temperature of ANYTHING determined. Pick one thing. How about the temperature of Denver Colorado on any particular day? Unknowable?

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Temperature determination and the reality of temperature ALWAYS involves a range, never ever a precise known value. You can take multiple measurements to narrow the range of possibilities but that's it.

Nope. It does not involve a range at all.
RDCF. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
02-11-2019 12:06
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Temperature determination and the reality of temperature ALWAYS involves a range, ...

Nope. It does not involve a range at all.

So is your current temperature knowable there ITN? Your body?

How about the city of Denver from 2pm to 3pm this Tuesday?

Your living room?

Anything at all?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
02-11-2019 17:08
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1467)
tmiddles wrote: Yes we can gather data and assume there are not surprises and come up with a rough idea. JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE.


I ASSUME you are you referring to the ROUGH IDEA that the global temp is rising at PRECISELY 0.1 degree every 10 YEARS?!


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
03-11-2019 06:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
GasGuzzler wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Yes we can gather data and assume there are not surprises and come up with a rough idea. JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE.


I ASSUME you are you referring to the ROUGH IDEA that the global temp is rising at PRECISELY 0.1 degree every 10 YEARS?!

If we allow statistical math to come into play then we have to accept certain realities.

GasGuzzler, what margin of error would you assign to that "rough idea"? The truth is that we cannot calculate to any useful margin of error, but let's assume that space aliens stop on by to help us with our average global temperature measurements and we become able to achieve a margin of error of 1.5 degrees. This means that we need to accept the possibility that the average global temperature is decreasing by 0.9 degrees every 10 years.

This is one of the major reasons warmizombies always omit any mention of margin of error. It would be utterly intolerable to admit that the earth could be cooling when you are insisting that the earth is warming.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-11-2019 10:38
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
GasGuzzler wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Yes we can gather data and assume there are not surprises and come up with a rough idea. JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE.

I ASSUME you are you referring to the ROUGH IDEA that the global temp is rising at PRECISELY 0.1 degree every 10 YEARS?!

Nope. We aren't there yet at all GG. I was talking about finding the temperature of a block of steel in the lab, your body, your living room, the City of Denver at 2pm tomorrow.

EVERY DETERMINATION OF TEMPERATURE IS ROUGH

You can only put so many zeros behind an answer before you're lying to yourself.

It is 70 C?
70.0 C ?
70.0000000 C ? Really that exact?

IBdaMann wrote:margin of error would you assign to that "rough idea"? T
My understanding is that you have two dimensions to "ERROR" in measurement:
Instrumental and Systematic

Instrumental: A modern thermometer has an error range, or range of precision, that is not perfect. In the 1800 s they were much much rougher.

Systematic: Most of the measurement we have historically are in cities which are atypical for the planet. Cloud cover in particular totally throws off measurements in one location from what they would be planet wide. I think Pat Franks did good work explaining this.

Now BOTH OF THESE APPLY TO A BLOCK OF STEEL IN THE LAB TOO!!! Yep
The variance may be much smaller but you still have the limitations of you thermometer, and also systematic error. You can't measure every molecule in the block. You will make mistakes in you calculations. That's just real life.

A more useful example is determining the temperature in the city where you live. Do you really have no idea at all? Could it be anything? Of course not. You are able to determine a range.

IBdaMann wrote:...omit any mention of margin of error. It would be utterly intolerable to admit that the earth could be cooling when you are insisting that the earth is warming.
I would agree the temptation to misrepresent statistics is indulged with most hot button issues.

If you use this as an excuse to stop trying to find the truth, then you just wanted to not try.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
Edited on 03-11-2019 10:42
03-11-2019 19:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Yes we can gather data and assume there are not surprises and come up with a rough idea. JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE.

I ASSUME you are you referring to the ROUGH IDEA that the global temp is rising at PRECISELY 0.1 degree every 10 YEARS?!

Nope. We aren't there yet at all GG. I was talking about finding the temperature of a block of steel in the lab, your body, your living room, the City of Denver at 2pm tomorrow.

EVERY DETERMINATION OF TEMPERATURE IS ROUGH

You can only put so many zeros behind an answer before you're lying to yourself.

It is 70 C?
70.0 C ?
70.0000000 C ? Really that exact?

Instrument tolerance is known. It is not a significant factor to measuring the city of Denver or any other city.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:margin of error would you assign to that "rough idea"? T
My understanding is that you have two dimensions to "ERROR" in measurement:
Instrumental and Systematic

Instrumental: A modern thermometer has an error range, or range of precision, that is not perfect. In the 1800 s they were much much rougher.

This is called 'tolerance'.
tmiddles wrote:
Systematic: Most of the measurement we have historically are in cities which are atypical for the planet. Cloud cover in particular totally throws off measurements in one location from what they would be planet wide. I think Pat Franks did good work explaining this.
This is called 'bad math'.
tmiddles wrote:
Now BOTH OF THESE APPLY TO A BLOCK OF STEEL IN THE LAB TOO!!!
No, they don't.
tmiddles wrote:
Yep
The variance may be much smaller but you still have the limitations of you thermometer, and also systematic error. You can't measure every molecule in the block. You will make mistakes in you calculations. That's just real life.
You are making mistakes in calculations. You are denying mathematics again.
tmiddles wrote:
A more useful example is determining the temperature in the city where you live. Do you really have no idea at all? Could it be anything? Of course not. You are able to determine a range.
This is called 'margin of error'. Something you deny.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...omit any mention of margin of error. It would be utterly intolerable to admit that the earth could be cooling when you are insisting that the earth is warming.
I would agree the temptation to misrepresent statistics is indulged with most hot button issues.

Statistical math requires the margin of error calculation. It requires the declaration of variance. It requires the use of unbaised raw data. It requires that unbaised raw data to be published and available for examination. It requires selection from that data by randN. Statistical math is incapable of prediction.
tmiddles wrote:
If you use this as an excuse to stop trying to find the truth, then you just wanted to not try.

No, you are pushing bad math.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 03-11-2019 19:48
05-11-2019 06:29
Amanbir Grewal
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
and so the Government can do the following things to help us.

1. Environmental protection

2. Solar Farms

3. Wind Mills

4. Nuclear Plants

5. Dams

6. Industrial Regulation (control devices)


all other ideas are a sheer waste like stop driving your own car!! omg!
05-11-2019 18:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
Amanbir Grewal wrote:
and so the Government can do the following things to help us.

1. Environmental protection

2. Solar Farms

3. Wind Mills

4. Nuclear Plants

5. Dams

6. Industrial Regulation (control devices)


all other ideas are a sheer waste like stop driving your own car!! omg!

In other words, have the government force people to pay for piddle power energy sources, interfere with energy markets, and interfere with factory owners using oligarchies.

That's fascism, dude; a form of socialism.


The Parrot Killer
06-11-2019 19:58
Amanbir Grewal
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
oligarchic governments work for some if they cannot be representative democracies.

market opportunities will need market support schemes and a new set of business rules. that means time if not extra budgets.

if this is a public solution, it'll have a public rate of return. if this is a market solution, it'll need the market efforts and gruel.

free spirited individualism and libertarian ideals makes for a third approach.

on a pie chart, I still put my money on heavy public expenditure.

fashion happens in italia, last we met. next time we meet, your nose will reach there.

ciao.
06-11-2019 21:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
Amanbir Grewal wrote:
oligarchic governments work for some if they cannot be representative democracies.

There is no such thing as a 'representative' democracy. Oligarchies do not work. They are dictatorships by committee. They have the same faults.
Amanbir Grewal wrote:
market opportunities will need market support schemes and a new set of business rules. that means time if not extra budgets.

Markets do not need 'support schemes'. They do not need 'rules'. They simply exist.
Amanbir Grewal wrote:
if this is a public solution, it'll have a public rate of return. if this is a market solution, it'll need the market efforts and gruel.

Markets ARE public. They ARE public solutions. Oligarchies are not a solution. They are problems, in and of themselves.
Amanbir Grewal wrote:
free spirited individualism and libertarian ideals makes for a third approach.

Capitalism is the ONLY system that creates wealth.
Amanbir Grewal wrote:
on a pie chart, I still put my money on heavy public expenditure.

Why? Government doesn't produce anything.


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Population Change and Demography - the malthusian rate.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Poulation controll revisited - CO2 compensation through population control312-11-2019 20:41
It's not overpopulation problem rather population mismanagement problem2309-11-2019 23:16
Oh No! Greenland is Melting, at an alarming rate...1324-08-2019 02:52
Climate Change causing Iguana populations to grow, at an alarming rate!003-07-2019 04:04
Global warming back to medieval warm period will increase Russia population 4 fold128-05-2019 19:30
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact