muso wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 9:40am:



There is no fallacy in my logic. Let's have some quantitative analyses.

Since population grow in Australia and America does not make that much difference to total population grow of the world we can assume that it is not the factor of exponential nature of the PG curve.

Now suppose that an Australian produce 5 units of emissions whil 3rd worlder produces 1 unit.
Approximately just to show logical trend \|/
Emission from Australia is 5x20x10^6=10^8
Emission from the rest of world 1x6x10^9=6x10^9

6x10^9 is larger then 10^8

That is for current population but as we know population explosion still going on unchecked so it is going to get worse so even if Australians stop produce any emissions the world is screwed due to exponential nature of population growth.

According to UN the world's population is expected to rise by 40% to 9.1 billion by 2050.

tallowood wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 10:29am:


Good try but no cigar.  I'll save you the calculation. Developed countries produce 70% of the total global anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions but have less than 25% of the world's population.

Let's redo that calculation. Current World population: 6.8 Billion. By 2050, we'll say 9.1 billion with roughly 80% of that growth in developing countries. Caution - Approximation only, but not as approximate as yours  



Current Situation:
Developed World 1.7 billion produce 4.97 Gigatonnes of Carbon annually

Third World (5.1 billion produce 2.13 Gigatonnes of Carbon.

Using current emission rates:

2050:

Developed World: (2.1 billion people) produce 6.43 Gigatonnes of Carbon
Third World  (7 Billion) produce 2.93 Gigatonnes of Carbon.

So you can see that it's nothing like a magnitude of 10 as you suggest.

Even factoring in China and India doesn't appreciably change the picture.

If we have a major world famine, do you think that will affect the developed countries' population or the third world countries most, and what effect will that have on the emissions scenario?

tallowood wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 12:17pm:


Good. You obviously now appreciate the true magnitude of the problem. Now can you please help me convince the "fingers in the ears" crowd?

It's better to be informed than not. Do you agree or not?

The Earth still has some buffering capacity, but that's rapidly disappearing.

Long before we have significant sea level change, other consequences will have hit the globe, such as effects on coral and other organisms depending on calcification.

I think it's possible to avoid the more drastic effects of anthropogenic GHG emissions and the various consequences of this.

"That's how it is, but it doesn't have to be like that"

I'm sorry...  a peak is a peak and a downwards slope a downwards slope in my book muso...  oh and if you wait another 50 years you may see a long term trend.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  half-truths and hypocrisy.

I posted a graph...  it's on a downwards trend ...  you want to post another...  feel free.

Good grief...  polly want another?

Oh look...  peaked in 1998

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/19/another-global-temp-index-dives-in-jan08-this-time-hadcrut/

So no one can dismiss stuff off-hand except you.

No one can use "short" term data except you.

You are the only one permitted to cherry-pick information.

People who disagree with you are to be ridiculed and belittled without addressing the actual issue.

Any points addressed are quickly complicated and run off at tangents and onto ever more complex paths.

No point is to be addressed simply and on its own merit.

But then all other factors are to be ignored if inconvenient.

You can misquote and reinterpret information as a way of ridicule.

Anyone who disagrees with you and is quoted in the media etc is dismissed off-hand or shot yet anyone in agreement is a paragon of virtue and has no vested inte5rests etc, etc, etc...

Oh and anything that doesn't follow your belief is wrong and of course can be dismissed...  OFF-HAND.

Quite funny actually.

Seems you just don't get it muso... there are none so blind...

Arguing with you and winning or losing is irrelevent... mind you...   you can never win against some people and I gather you are one of them.

No skin off my nose.
See you in 50 years if I'm still around...  bet you'll still be in denial and still doing the same old things.

I'm going to be a bit busy for the next few days, so Grendel will probably be busy cutting and pasting from the usual sites.

The contrarian arguments are actually quite predictable and when you examine them any more than superficially, it becomes quite obvious that they don't hold ground.

The Urban Heat Island nonsense is an example of that. It takes the premise that a motley group of contrarians can somehow identify the urban heat island effect as being a problem whereas professional climatologists have somehow missed this rather obvious fact, or are deliberately failing to compensate for the effect (take your pick).

The truth is that the effect has been known about for many years, and for a similar length of time, it has been compensated for.

Dig slightly below the surface of these claims and they fall over like cardboard cutouts because they simply lack substance.

The people who are actually drawn by these claims range from being totally naive to being criminally aware of the true state of affairs.

To be skeptical in science is a good thing. It's important to question everything. That's all part and parcel of the scientific technique.

I draw the line at deliberate lies.  We have so far demonstrated three examples of deliberate lies.

In the first case, a highly respected research scientist was characterised as being a contrarian, to the extent that he felt it necessary to post a disclaimer on his personal website.

In the second case, short term data was deliberately used to try to demonstrate that in fact the trend was cooling, not warming.

In the third case, a graph was deliberately photoshopped to make a trend appear bigger than it actually was.

These techniques would have been instantly noted if they were part of a scientific paper. The paper would never have got past peer review, and the researcher would very quickly have found himself without a job for deliberately falsifying data.

The people who put out these reports in the public media are basically crooks - professional con artists. They have prostituted whatever scientific qualifications they have for short term gain.

I don't believe in hell personally, but it would be poetic justice for the likes of Jennifer Marohasy, Bob Carter, Tim Ball, Steve Mcittrick et al to be condemned to a hell where the temperature was gradually turned up with minor fluctuations on an hourly scale, and when they complain about the heat, a guy with a trident and red suit would announce:

"I don't know what you're talking about. The temperature for the last 20 minutes shows an obvious cooling trend. I have the graph to prove it"