| Author |
 Topic  |
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
 Posted - 12/11/2009 : 09:58:11
|
Doesn't that assume that the average age of people will continue to increase? I can't get round this in my head. I could understand a population increase for maybe a few years, but 30 years seems a bit high.
*emergency crappy askiitobee*
|
 |
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2009 : 10:09:02
|
Yes, the average age would increase until you hit some equilibrium.
Here is the age distribution in Bangladesh a few years ago.
In comparison, here is Sweden.
If the people in Bangladesh started only having 1 child, there are so many young people the population would still increase until their distribution started looking more like Sweden's. 30 years was a slightly educated guess. As I said it would depend on how big the % of young people was. |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2009 : 10:41:39
|
But even though the population of young people in bangladesh is very high, their life expectancy is still lower compared to western countries, so I am wondering what's going on here, and having a bit of a statistical head melt.
If you take a population, and in that populus everyone lives to the same age and everyone has two children, then presumably the population will stay the same. If everyone suddenly started having one child and there no other factors the population would begin to decline at a steady rate.
I can't think beyond that at the moment, but it seem intuitive to think that unless the rate of increase of the average lifetime is significant, dropping the birth rate down to 1 per 2 would automatically start to decline. Unless the population of bangladesh is increasing at such a rate, the population would become more even, but I am not convinced it would continue to grow. There are more younger people, but their life expectancy is still not very high.
*emergency crappy askiitobee*
|
Edited by - pot on 12/11/2009 10:42:52 |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2009 : 11:07:04
|
If there are more young people than old people and the birth rate of young people is higher than the death rate of young people (which can still be the case even when one child per couple is imposed), then the population will continue to grow until the distribution of ages become more flat.
I'm not saying the population won't eventually go down; just that in some countries it will not be instantaneous. |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2009 : 01:55:04
|
I think what you are saying is ultimately dependent upon the average life expectancy increasing above a certain rate, in which case the number of people currently dying (old and young) is less than the rate at which babies are being born. Just a different way of putting it. I suppose if the current forecasts which say the population of the world is going to reach 9 billion by the middle of the century then it may well be correct that the population will continue to increase before declining.
I find it hard to believe the population of the UK increasing though, because we live such unhealthy lives that I can't imagine our average life expectancy getting any higher than it is at the moment. If anything, purely off the top of my head, I would probably speculate that our current life expectancy is probably in decline.
*emergency crappy askiitobee*
|
|
|
|
tisasawath
= Cult of Ray =
Wallis and Futuna Islands
783 Posts |
|
|
Crackitybones
- FB Fan -
Guadeloupe
65 Posts |
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2009 : 09:04:30
|
That was an interesting short lecture, a lot of information to take in though in the one go. What myth was he debunking?
*emergency crappy askiitobee*
|
|
|
|
treetime
- FB Fan -
USA
217 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2009 : 10:16:17
|
| Even if global warming isn't a proven theory on our planet it is at least a hypothesis to be taken very seriously. And if this hypothesis has some probability, I feel obliged to do something. Here is a webpage with some cool ideas on how to get involved: http://www.worldwildlife.org/how/index.html |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2009 : 10:44:10
|
No-one is disputing global warming. But if the recent lack of solar activity continues then we could still go further into a period of global cooling. We aren't seeing anything that is out of the ordinary, apart from unusually high levels of CO2. Even then the amount we are talking is extremely small and no-one has any evidence that proves this miniscule amount of extra CO2 is having any considerable effect, of if they have I have yet to see it.
*emergency crappy askiitobee*
|
|
|
|
Ziggy
* Dog in the Sand *
United Kingdom
2462 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2009 : 12:33:15
|
I'd start by learning to read. There's heaps of evidence, some of which has already been linked to.
|
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2009 : 12:40:24
|
Oh that's just about the most informed answer I've ever heard, learn to read.. How about this one, try learning to think.
*emergency crappy askiitobee*
|
|
|
|
Ziggy
* Dog in the Sand *
United Kingdom
2462 Posts |
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
|
|
trobrianders
> Teenager of the Year <
Papua New Guinea
3302 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2009 : 02:28:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by pot
Ahhh the now infamous 'hockey stick' graph that seems to have completely forgotten about the medieval warm period and the little ice age, for some strange reason...
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11648/dn11648-2_726.jpg
*emergency crappy askiitobee*
The graph covers an era begining 500AD. The Medieval Warm Period kicked off 800AD. Ziggy had some useful advice for you pot.
_______________
Ed is the hoo hoo |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2009 : 02:44:20
|
...which I am looking into.
So why the missing data on the hockey stick graph? Is there something that they don't want the public to know, such as variability of climate on these scales occurs naturally and is largely outwith our control?
quote:
20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 °C per century - within natural rates.
Incorrect. Over the past 1000 years temperature has never changed nearly as fast.
So what? Go back another 200 years and you can clearly see from the charts taken from the ice core data that the temperature seems to have increased at around the same rate as the world went into the MWP.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/ |
Edited by - pot on 12/17/2009 02:52:31 |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2009 : 08:41:48
|
This is something that I find on most forums when discussing this. Proponents of anthropogenic climate change are full of articles to point to, but when I ask simple questions like that no-one appears to have any answers.
Saying it's the fastest temperature rise for 1,000 years sounds very dramatic, but it's about as out of the ordinary a phenomenon as saying a hurricane in april is out of the ordinary because there have been none for 6 months!
They could have maybe said 'temperatures haven't risen as fast as this for 1,200 years' but then that wouldn't add weight to their fear mongery over climate change, because it instead makes the temperature rise sound fairly normal, as it very much is.
Whatsmore, the error margins in the temperature measurements are so large as to cast considerable doubt on the claim that it is in fact rising as fast as they say it is.
|
Edited by - pot on 12/17/2009 08:42:38 |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2009 : 08:50:53
|
quote:
1) There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man's activity.
Technically, proof exists only in mathematics, not in science. Whatever terminology you choose to use, however, there is overwhelming evidence that the current warming is caused by the rise in greenhouse gases due to human activities.
What the hell is that supposed to mean, proof only exists in maths? Yeah.... IF the proof is about maths! All other branches of science require this thing called EVIDENCE to prove their respective theories.
The article then points to an another article which states:
quote:
Yet there are still a handful of scientists, and far more non-scientists, who refuse to accept the idea of global warming. I am continually amazed by the way some individuals treat the idea of global warming with such extreme scepticism, yet uncritically seize upon anything that seems to challenge it, no matter how dubious.
For example, the remarkable correlation between CO2 levels and temperature going back 600,000 years is dismissed because of a few mismatches, but the fleeting correlation between cosmic ray intensity and low-altitude cloud cover, which broke down after less than two decades, is hailed as absolute proof that cosmic rays affect the climate.
The mismatches is cites are apparently a period whereby global temperatures continued to drop for thousands of years, whilst CO2 levels continue to rise, which is a point I have raised several times.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11640
The article then goes on to explain that there are various factors which introduce considerable uncertainty in the results, which is fair enough, but it's basically saying more no more than the results which tend to discount the hypothesis of man-made global warming count for nothing because they MIGHT be based on incorrect results. Once again, it sounds very much like they are cherry picking results that support their theories, and discounting results that donot support it by saying nothing more than 'it might be wrong'. Oddly enough though, when it comes to their dubious claims there is very little uncertainty whatsoever, in fact they claim that they have a unanimous consensus amongst all climate scientist, which is not the case.
*emergency crappy askiitobee*
|
Edited by - pot on 12/17/2009 08:53:24 |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2009 : 09:11:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by pot
quote:
1) There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man's activity.
Technically, proof exists only in mathematics, not in science. Whatever terminology you choose to use, however, there is overwhelming evidence that the current warming is caused by the rise in greenhouse gases due to human activities.
What the hell is that supposed to mean, proof only exists in maths? Yeah.... IF the proof is about maths! All other branches of science require this thing called EVIDENCE to prove their respective theories.
Most scientists believe in the scientific philosohpy that hypotheses can be falsified, but that no hypothesis can be proved.
The theory is that you can't prove anything. Even though all the swans have seen have been white; you can't prove that all swans are white. It would take just one black swan to prove that you were wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Inductive_categorical_inference |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2009 : 09:17:28
|
So that's your reasoning for supporting the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis, It's probably true anyway even though it can't be proved?
Not very convincing again, I must say...
|
Edited by - pot on 12/17/2009 09:17:46 |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2009 : 09:40:23
|
NOTHING can be proved. Perhaps the climate is warming up because the Flying Spaghetti Monster wants it that way. We can't disprove that, so we can't PROVE that the climate is warming because of increased CO2. You can't PROVE that you would die if you stopped eating, but you'll keep eating without that proof because you've got good evidence that you would die.
I'm not sure who you were responding to, but their point was that accomplished scientists wouldn't say that a hypothesis is PROVED. They would say something like, "There is good evidence for the hypothesis." They would want to acknowledge the uncertainty that always exists.
As Feynman said "Science is a culture of doubt". We acknowledge and use our doubt. Without doubt there wouldn't be any purpose for science. |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2009 : 09:47:31
|
Yeah, you already said that. I GET IT!
It's hardly an argument for or against man-made global warming though, is it?
Now, back to the point in question. Are man-made CO2 emissions a significant factor in global warming, or is the whole system that regulates our planets climate a highly complex network of interacting factors, and in fact CO2 is pretty negligible.
I am still VERY sceptical about this so-called science, and looking very deeply for evidence that convinces me of the anthropogenic climate-change hypothesis.
|
|
|
|
floop
= Wannabe Volunteer =
Mexico
15297 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2009 : 09:48:58
|
| yur sk8alex |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2009 : 09:55:06
|
I was answering your apparent lack of knowledge about the philosophy of science that was shown by this quote:
"What the hell is that supposed to mean, proof only exists in maths? Yeah.... IF the proof is about maths! All other branches of science require this thing called EVIDENCE to prove their respective theories." |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2009 : 10:03:06
|
Are you deliberately circumambulating to avoid the real issues in this debate?
Besides, there is nothing at all wrong with what I said. It's basic science. Theories require proof, or at least evidence, and the anthropogenic climate change theory is not exempt from that rule.
|
Edited by - pot on 12/17/2009 10:06:22 |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2009 : 10:06:48
|
| You don't listen (or read or think I'm full of shit) because what you said is wrong. Scientists do not collect evidence to "prove their respective theories". Proof and evidence are not synonymous. |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2009 : 10:09:37
|
Is this really helping to progress the debate forward? Arguing over semantics?
|
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2009 : 10:15:06
|
I'm not debating with you. I don't really care if you want to be a member of the denier crowd.
I just like to pop in when you say something incorrect, such as a one-baby policy would cause an instantaneous decrease in population sizes or scientist try to prove theories, or when you cite an article as evidence for your beliefs and that article is pretending to be peer-reviewed. |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2009 : 10:18:00
|
I'm not a member of any crowd. I am just trying to get to the bottom of the debate on climate change, as opposed to what everyone else seems to do and believe what they want to believe. Unlike you, I have an open mind on the subject and I am prepared to dig deep to see what the science really says, as opposed to what the new world government wants it to say.
|
|
|
|
floop
= Wannabe Volunteer =
Mexico
15297 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2009 : 11:05:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by pot
I'm not a member of any crowd
except maybe the "i'm-actually-sk8alex" crowd |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2009 : 11:15:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by floop
quote:
Originally posted by pot
I'm not a member of any crowd
except maybe the "i'm-actually-sk8alex" crowd
You stole my 'Dean-and-Brian-are-actually-the-same-person' theory.
|
|
|
|
Ziggy
* Dog in the Sand *
United Kingdom
2462 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2009 : 12:40:23
|
I'd love it for AGW to be found not to exist, I really would. Unfortunately, the wealth of evidence, as it stands, seems to suggest otherwise.
And 'new world government'? Are you nuts?
|
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
|
|
trobrianders
> Teenager of the Year <
Papua New Guinea
3302 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2009 : 13:03:54
|
If darwin and pot were the same person, that would be pretty fucked up right there. Hypothesize that!
_______________
Ed is the hoo hoo |
|
|
|
danjersey
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
2792 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2009 : 13:58:59
|
Hugo Chavez, and his adoring audience finally let the polar bear out of the bag.
Down with Capitalism! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMz4QDYy1fo
A least Chavez is upfront about it, Obama has to keep his bright red button downs tucked away until his second term. After which he will move on to the UN where as Secretary-General he and his leftist buddies will secure the new world government.
As for population control, charts and graphs are nice but enforcement is what I'm concerned with. Just who will decide how many children a woman gives birth to, former Generals?
|
Edited by - danjersey on 12/17/2009 14:02:52 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
things to talk about - climate change
