LQD: Population growth as Ponzi scheme | 44 comments (44 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: LQD: Population growth as Ponzi scheme (4.00 / 3)

"The United Nations is predicting the world's population will stabilize by 2050 at 416 million people"

I think that should read "around 9.2 billion"...

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake

by talos (mihalis at gmail dot com) on Tue Aug 18th, 2009 at 11:20:26 AM EST

My mistake, that is the developed world's population at 2050. I will fix... been reading too much Lovelock, so the number seemed right. ;-)

by Magnifico on Tue Aug 18th, 2009 at 11:25:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wait, what? (none / 0)

The developed world's population is quite a bit higher than that today. How much are we assuming it's going to shrink by?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu Aug 20th, 2009 at 06:00:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait, what? (none / 0)

Lovelock claims The Earth is about to catch a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years

We are in a fool's climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.

According to wikipedia, he predicts the population will drop by 80% by 2100.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 20th, 2009 at 06:13:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait, what? (none / 1)

Recession must be hitting his speaking fees.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Aug 20th, 2009 at 06:42:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait, what? (4.00 / 2)

If one is concerned about speaking fees one is advised to deliver feel-good lectures. There is a much larger audience than for hair shirt lectures. Ask Jimmy Carter.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Aug 21st, 2009 at 05:30:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait, what? (none / 1)

Their's is a much larger audience...

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Aug 21st, 2009 at 09:33:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait, what? (none / 0)

He's already developed a niche market. I'm sure he's kept adequately busy by the people who want to be told that civilisation is doomed because the unenlightened won't listen.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Sep 16th, 2009 at 01:27:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait, what? (none / 0)

And I predict that we will have a happy world with at least 9.2 billion human inhabitants. But in 1 billion years, yes 80% will die off and 1.3 billion years the earth will slam into the sun...
That's all folks.

Rutherfordian ------------------------------ RDRutherford

by Ronald Rutherford (rdrradio1 -at- msn -dot- com) on Thu Aug 20th, 2009 at 02:39:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait, what? (4.00 / 2)

His basic premise is that, with the controls we are likely (not) to put in place, temperatures will rise 8*C in the temperate zones and 4*C in the tropics by 2100. He notes the effect that particulate emissions are having at present in reducing solar heating and notes that it can and probably will disappear well before then. I recall a PBS program, NOVA, I believe, that addressed the particulate emissions issue and made a comment this time last year. Turned out poemless had written a diary on the subject the year before and I had been watching a re-run. Most of the estimates I have seen predict 6C increases if we do little. None of them, to my knowledge, include the present moderating effect of industrial haze on greenhouse temperature increases.

The rest of Lovelock's conclusions deal with his estimates of the impact of these changes. I do not believe any "serious" person or organization has yet published an analysis of the impact of such changes on the carrying capacity of the planet. I do recall a comment by asdf regarding the extenction of species as climate change proceeds faster than species can adapt. Given our species' known aversion to bad news, I would be reluctant to write off Lovelock's analysis out of hand. We do know that the Pentagon and the CIA are taking these issues seriously.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Aug 21st, 2009 at 05:52:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait, what? (none / 0)

The effect of particle emissions is not as great as Lovelock assumes.

A 6.4 degree Celcius rise in 2100 is the top of the range of likely warming for the most fuel-intensive scenario in the fourth IPCC assessment report. I don't think it's going to happen because we're not going to get that scenario, although it could be possible if there is a runaway warming effect.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Fri Aug 21st, 2009 at 06:22:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait, what? (4.00 / 2)

But then he is only 1.6C above that worst case and he is a single concerned individual whereas the IPCC is a consensus report from a large group. And he only refers to +8C for the temperate zones, with +4C for the tropics. Is the IPCC +6c figure for an earth average? If so, they could be saying the same thing. Either way, I certainly hope we can hold the overall average to something like +4C. That would be bad enough.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Aug 21st, 2009 at 09:30:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait, what? (none / 0)

The IPCC makes its estimates by 1) setting scenarios and 2) evaluating predictions of a range of models on these scenarios. This results in a 'likely' range on its fossil fuel intensive scenario between 2.4 and 6.4 degrees celsius, with a best estimate on that scenario of 4 degrees celsius.

So this is the upper bound of the likely range for the scenario with the highest emissions. In other words, Lovelock is assuming the worst case rather than the most likely.

That's his right, of course. But it would be silly to start taking it as the most likely picture of what's going to happen rather than a worst case possibility.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sat Aug 22nd, 2009 at 04:16:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait, what? (none / 1)

But it would be silly to start taking it as the most likely picture of what's going to happen rather than a worst case possibility.

Agreed. Yet, at this point it seems to me very unwise to minimize worst case possibilities. People should keep in mind that such an outcome IS as possibility.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat Aug 22nd, 2009 at 10:09:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, but if China or the US essentially ... (none / 1)

... burn all the coal we can dig up or buy from somewhere around the world until its all finished, even if there is less oil available than assumed in some of the high fossil fuel scenarios, that's still awful close to the top end of the high fossil fuel scenario.

We are presently on track for very near the worst case, and will stay there until we show a capacity to leave coal in the ground unconsumed.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Sep 15th, 2009 at 10:15:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait, what? (none / 1)

Maybe some countries will drop off the "developed world"...

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 20th, 2009 at 06:14:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait, what? (none / 1)

Lovelock seems to question how much of what we laughingly call "civilization" will survive the sort of climate catastrophe he is seeing.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Aug 21st, 2009 at 05:56:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LQD: Population growth as Ponzi scheme (none / 1)

From the cited CSM reference, 416 million is the estimated number of people aged 60 years or more by 2050.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Aug 21st, 2009 at 05:28:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

416 million IS CORRECT! (none / 0)

http://www.docudharma.com/diary/16081/job-fair-by-Lasthorseman

by Lasthorseman on Wed Sep 16th, 2009 at 01:11:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LQD: Population growth as Ponzi scheme | 44 comments (44 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Struggle NWO Unipolar or Multilateralism

City Agriculture - March 17, 2023

What's Next, After the Slam?

Shock Election Loss Rutte IV In Senate Race

Honduras Establishes Close Ties with China

A Return to Normalcy?

A Grand Slam for Ireland?

Recent Diaries

KS: Barrister, Judge, Prison Warden, Assassin

History Hillsdale College, Alumni and Domestic Terror

Struggle NWO Unipolar or Multilateralism

Neo-Nazi Marches Across Europe

Fascism Unites America, Israel and EU Neo-Nazis

What's Next, After the Slam?

Settler Extremism Blessed by Jerusalem Leaders

US Interference In Lebanon-Syria-Ira
q

City Agriculture - March 17, 2023

Shock Election Loss Rutte IV In Senate Race

Stalemate Endures, Pessimism Grows, Deaths Mount

Honduras Establishes Close Ties with China

A Grand Slam for Ireland?

Living In Spain and Social-Democracy

USA Censorship Act to Kill Disinformation

Flying Fortresses and Nuclear Threat

Universal Criticism Asylum Threshold EU Fortress

China Trade and Relations

SBU As a Terror Network

A Return to Normalcy?

Occasional Series