Peak Oil is You

Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)

Page added on February 8, 2017

Bookmark and Share

Why the world population won’t exceed 11 billion

In part 5 of a 6-part lecture, Hans Rosling uses statistics to give an overview of population growth and an explanation of why the total human population will never reach 11 billion, as others predict and fear.

59 Comments on "Why the world population won’t exceed 11 billion"

  1. Cloggie on Sat, 11th Feb 2017 6:00 am 

    Ap mentions only a few of the ongoing unusual weather and it’s effects that happen every day. There are many more. I see them in my reading as do some of you. Ignore the warning at your peril. It is too late to do more than make preparations for your self for the events to come.

    Makati, I’m not denying anything. But the European justice system has a method of pursuing the truth based on two opposing parties using dialectics/arguments of finding the truth.

    And since everybody here is deep into the climate religion, after quietly abandoning the fake peak oil religion without saying sorry, I deeply enjoy playing the devil’s advocate and climate contrarian. Not because I am convinced that climate change doesn’t exist [*], but because I see which type of (mostly nihilist) characters are trying to hijack climate science for no other purpose than to create a pretext to condemn the entire world (“cancer monkeys”) and make themselves look good, or so they think.

    So every time Vancouver-Mohamed makes a claim, I’m spending some time to if I can find counter arguments. Nothing wrong with presenting facts, right makati?

    One peak oil debacle is enough, thank you very much.

    [*] – deep in my heart I suspect it is real, the question is: what is the cause, how far will it go and is it really that bad?

  2. Davy on Sat, 11th Feb 2017 7:53 am 

    “Climate Change denial is rampant”
    Makati, you are in extreme denial when you always talk how the P’s will be fine with climate change. You are not worried at all. Climate change is a US problem for you. You do realize the UN has ranked you in the top 3 exposed to the wrath of climate change. You are the biggest denier with the worst heading your way. One of these days your wet bulb temp is going to render your life their miserable. Too much for an old man on a jungle farm. Yet, you are never on the farm. You sit by the pool or in your AC in the condo above 20MIL mega urban dwellers. Huge typhoons are going to sweep across your country tearing it apart and it will not be rebuilt once society goes into a severe downturn.

  3. GregT on Sat, 11th Feb 2017 11:54 am 

    “deep in my heart I suspect it is real, the question is: what is the cause, how far will it go and is it really that bad?”

    More heat on the way as North Pole temps spike by 30º Celsius

    Causes of Global Warming: the Human impact

    “Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are not only higher than they have been in over 800,000 years, the current increase that we are seeing today is more than 100 times faster than that experienced at the end of the last ice age. This is largely due to human activities; primarily the burning of fossil fuels, but also due to deforestation as a result of logging for timber and clearing for agriculture and development.”

    Catastrophic Dangers

    “The question now is whether we can avoid catastrophic human interference in the climate system.” John Holdren 2008

    The climate change science presented here (including the IPCC) is agreed that global climate change can be catastrophic, abrupt and irreversible.

    ​We are in a state of planetary emergency because we face a number of global climate catastrophes.

    There are three obvious greatest catastrophes.

    1. Agricultural collapse – The collapse of regional or global agriculture would be a global catastrophe for humanity​​.
    2. Arctic multiple, inter-reinforcing amplifying carbon feedback, rapid warming and runaway ​climate change would be a planetary catastrophe to all life.
    3. Ocean collapse ​​from heating, acidification and de-oxygenation, also a catastrophe to all life

  4. Cloggie on Sat, 11th Feb 2017 12:24 pm 

    Arctic ice satellite contours measurements began in 1979:

    The Arctic is often perceived as a region stuck in a permanent deep freeze. While much of the region does experience very low temperatures, there is considerable variability with both location and season. Winter temperatures average below freezing over all of the Arctic except for small regions in the southern Norwegian and Bering Seas, which remain ice free throughout the winter. Average temperatures in summer are above freezing over all regions except the central Arctic Basin, where sea ice survives through the summer, and interior Greenland.

    “North Pole” in Alaska temperature recordings since 1968:

    No “run away” trend.

    As with the rest of the planet, the climate in the Arctic has changed throughout time. About 55 million years ago it is thought that parts of the Arctic supported subtropical ecosystems (Serreze and Barry 2005) and that Arctic sea-surface temperatures rose to about 23 °C (73 °F) during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. In the more recent past, the planet has experienced a series of ice ages and interglacial periods over about the last 2 million years, with the last ice age reaching its maximum extent about 18,000 years ago and ending by about 10,000 years ago.

    Arctic climate is highly variable, without any human interference, at least so far.

  5. Cloggie on Sat, 11th Feb 2017 12:32 pm 

    Average North Pole temperatures since 1979 (satellite age):

    Max. temp. can very well be up to 30 degrees Celsius above average.

    Over 35 years indeed 1 degree upwards trend.

  6. Apneaman on Sat, 11th Feb 2017 12:36 pm 

    Clogdrivel, “climate religion” & “peakoil religion”? Is that the kind of language they use in your European justice system? Ad hom’s and cheap rhetorical tricks? There’s your trouble. You’re using the wrong toolkit. AGW is a scientific question and like all scientific questions it is put to the rack of the scientific method. Your untrained judges, weasley lawyers and juries and bloated bloated are the last people who ever get to the truth of anything. The scientific method. This is what the humans used to create all the goodies you have and answer many questions about our world and the universe. Not one ever came from any court. That you don’t even know what tools to use says it all – fucking tool. You need to ask for a refund for those physics courses you claimed to have taken because you are a clueless fucking moron on every comment you have ever made regarding science.

  7. Cloggie on Sat, 11th Feb 2017 1:22 pm 

    Jeez, Friday is completely missing the point, namely that it is a healthy development to have both sides of an argument being heard. My reference to the European justice system was a comparison, nothing more. The dialectical method applies to science as well as to criminal cases. That was my point.

    Pearls for the swines.

  8. Danny on Sun, 12th Feb 2017 1:57 am 

    “Rosling is the definition of techno-fix, cornucopian belief systems. His happy story line never changes.”

    He has died now, not having to face his delusion.

  9. Kenz300 on Sun, 12th Feb 2017 1:28 pm 

    Cost of raising a child.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *