World population is growing 20 million people every 3 months

[UAEguy]

Now that we are singing from the same songbook on energy, how about this graph? Plotted the data myself just to confirm.

Good Basic Exponential Fit
y = 0.2132007 + 4.237052*e^(+0.01055937*x)

Better Proportional Exponential Rate Growth Fit
y = 385958900 - (-0.0005816361/-0.01278802)*(1 - e^(+0.01278802*x))

[StuM]

Is the growth rate 1000 years ago really relevant to today. I've just plotted the data from World Population by Year - Worldometers

both on a linear and semi-log scale. It's clearly not exponential.

And here's another way to look at the same sort of data.. Definitely not exponential again. Exponential means that the growth rate increases as a value increases. Population growth demonstrates exactly the opposite. The growth rate started decreasing 50 odd years ago.

[UAEguy]

Well let's start reducing window,
1800 to 2017
y = 0.3535534 + 1.129473*e^(+0.01121841*x)

1900 to 2017
y = 0.4082483 + 0.4082515*e^(+0.01172528*x)

1960 to 2017
y = 0.2672612 + 0.0006118812*e^(+0.01495141*x) getting pretty much linear,

1990 to 2017
y = 0.3535534 + 0.04847914*e^(+0.01277455*x) looks like a tick up.

I concede that population growth is now linear, but not decreasing

[kmacdonald]

Some of the global warming "experts" claim the earth can support about 1 billion people. The world population now is about 7 billion. In their opinion, we need to get rid of 6 billion people one way or another. I doubt that will happen until things get desperate and then all hell breaks loose.

[kmacdonald]

I wonder if there will be some sort of genetic testing to determine ones fate or if it will be willy nilly extermination, or war casualties, famine, disease, who knows. The long term future looks pretty bleak but I'm sure most of us won't be around to see it.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

I wonder if there will be some sort of genetic testing to determine ones fate or if it will be willy nilly extermination, or war casualties, famine, disease, who knows. The long term future looks pretty bleak but I'm sure most of us won't be around to see it.

How about man caused Caldera volcanic eruption which leads to a mini ice age many will simply freeze to death.
The last one about 75,000 years ago almost wiped the human species off the face of this rock.

[UAEguy]

Originally Posted by newhaul

.
The last one about 75,000 years ago almost wiped the human species off the face of this rock.

Drop a nuke in Lake Toba Sumatra and it would go again from what I could tell.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by UAEguy

I concede that population growth is now linear, but not decreasing

If population growth is currently linear, then by definition, population growth rate is decreasing.

Which is exactly what I stated in Post #9 and you disputed in Posts #12 and #24.

Q.E.D.

[UAEguy]

Originally Posted by StuM

If population growth is currently linear, then by definition, population growth rate is decreasing.

Which is exactly what I stated in Post #9 and you disputed in Posts #12 and #24.

Q.E.D.

Almost QED but not quite. My data set shows "almost" linear with slightly increasing slope. Again everything depends on your selected x(0) point and who's data you believe.

But again, I concede no exponential over the last 100 years if you don't include prior history. I think the same can be said for US debt somewhere along the way.

A good exercise nonetheless and I continue to question the assumptions that humans are going to go retrograde in the next 30 years. But, I wont be here to find out.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by UAEguy

Drop a nuke in Lake Toba Sumatra and it would go again from what I could tell.

About 30 mt bunker buster should do it with minimal fallout. Middle of the night no one the wiser.


( now waiting for the black suits to show up)

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by UAEguy

. . . A good exercise nonetheless and I continue to question the assumptions that humans are going to go retrograde in the next 30 years. But, I wont be here to find out.

If you want to know why global population will peak -- something about which there is no controversy among serious demographers -- learn about Demographic Transition. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition

I think someone above referred to it. The model was developed in 1929, and has perfectly described everything we have observed since.

Again, there is NO controversy about this, only about how soon it will happen. One of the most common and biggest mistakes laymen make in trying to understand statistics, is to take a short-term trend and project it into the indefinite future -- just looking at a few years of data and assuming that this trend can go on and on, when in reality it's not possible. The world had a short period of rapid population growth, which happened when falling death rate line briefly crossed the birth rate line. which is now long gone. As Stu pointed out, growth rates have already decreased sharply and continue to decrease.

Talk to any actual demographer if you still think that global population even can grow "exponentially". This is simply -- nonsense. As you can see in the graph Stu posted, global population growth rate has already fallen to half of the peak rate achieved around 1960 -- and basic factors identified in the Demographic Transition Model indicate that this continues until global population begins declining.



Attachment 144864

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

If you want to know why global population will peak -- something about which there is no controversy among serious demographers -- learn about Demographic Transition. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition

I think someone above referred to it. The model was developed in 1929, and has perfectly described everything we have observed since.

Again, there is NO controversy about this, only about how soon it will happen. One of the most common and biggest mistakes laymen make in trying to understand statistics, is to take a short-term trend and project it into the indefinite future -- just looking at a few years of data and assuming that this trend can go on and on, when in reality it's not possible. The world had a short period of rapid population growth, which happened when falling death rate line briefly crossed the birth rate line. which is now long gone. As Stu pointed out, growth rates have already decreased sharply and continue to decrease.

Talk to any actual demographer if you still think that global population even can grow "exponentially". This is simply -- nonsense. As you can see in the graph Stu posted, global population growth rate has already fallen to half of the peak rate achieved around 1960 -- and basic factors identified in the Demographic Transition Model indicate that this continues until global population begins declining.



Attachment 144864

I remember the graph the 'Experts' drew for the UK economy before the Referendum..

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I remember the graph the 'Experts' drew for the UK economy before the Referendum..

Economies (extremely volatile, with violent short-term changes) and populations (very long-term changes) are entirely different things.

If you look at my graph -- from 1929!! And then compare it to Stu's graph, show what actually happened since 1929 -- you'll see.

[sailnow2011]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

We are not as "big" as we imagine ourselves. It's true that we've raped the planet in many ways and left a lot of destruction, but you can hardly even see anything of us, from space.

How "big" are we?

All of humanity comprises about 100 million tons of dry biomass, or less than 0.02% of 560 billion tons total global biomass. "But wait!", you may say -- we are apex predators -- what about all the organisms we eat?

Ok, let's throw in:

Domestic animals 700 million tons
Crops 2 billion tons
For a total, with us humans, of 2.8 billion tons, or 0.5% of total global biomass.


So we, together with all the animals and crops which feed us, amount to only about 0.5% of global biomass. Add 10% to that -- so .7 billion people and all the crops and animals to feed them -- and it's still about 0.5% -- a rounding error. We are really not nearly as big as we think.


We should manage land better (far better), and we should pollute less. But Earth is a pretty big place. We are in a stage of development of mankind where people are moving to cities and out of the countryside. Less and less land is needed for living, even as the population continues to grow. Less and less land is under cultivation as efficiency of agriculture improves. With population peaking fairly soon (the only controversy is about when this might happen, +/- 30 years or so), there is just no way we will get anywhere near to running out of space, either for us, or for all the crops and animals and whatnot we need.

Attachment 144780

You sir are 100% correct.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Economies (extremely volatile, with violent short-term changes) and populations (very long-term changes) are entirely different things.

If you look at my graph -- from 1929!! And then compare it to Stu's graph, show what actually happened since 1929 -- you'll see.

So are human beings.. last WW cost 60 million.. the next one may cost 6 billion or more.. and contaminate huge expanses of land for hundreds of years.. seem to remember an old Navajo legend where 'The People' had to live under ground for over five hundred years while the fires of hell reigned above.
Love mankinds certainty about their abilities to 'Control and Predict'..


We should manage land better (far better), and we should pollute less. But Earth is a pretty big place. We are in a stage of development of mankind where people are moving to cities and out of the countryside. Less and less land is needed for living, even as the population continues to grow. Less and less land is under cultivation as efficiency of agriculture improves. With population peaking fairly soon (the only controversy is about when this might happen, +/- 30 years or so), there is just no way we will get anywhere near to running out of space, either for us, or for all the crops and animals and whatnot we need.

Yet in spite of this we continue with de-forestation and the elimination of species when in reality we have the technology to extract oils and metals in an environmentally friendly way..
But no.. we strip the 3rd largest island in the world of its natural vegetation for what..?? Palm oil.. destroy the backwaters of the Amazon etc..
Greed for profits is the factor one cannot control or predict.. because technology can now protect those doing the damage.. they live in gated communities already so whats aa environmental dome or dozen