100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11695
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Oct 03, 2018 4:56 am

On energy.

It is true that energy efficiency has become a big deal lately, and this means developed nations have recently had increases in standard of living without energy increase. But globally, the relationship holds true. The more per capita energy, the higher the welfare standard.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4354
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by ElectricMonk » Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:24 am

nope.
There is no linear correlation whatsoever.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11695
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:37 am

EM

There has been a very strong correlation, expecially over time. I do not know if it is linear, but the correlation is there.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4354
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by ElectricMonk » Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:21 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:EM

There has been a very strong correlation, expecially over time. I do not know if it is linear, but the correlation is there.
Lance Kennedy wrote: The more per capita energy, the higher the welfare standard.
that's a linear (or possibly exponential) correlation you are describing.
But historically, we can see that the actual correlation is bumpy and not even positive all the time.


No doubt, there is an initial boost from widespread availability of power, But it plateaus quickly.
And it doesn't help if all the energy is used by a big airport and there is nothing left to provide light to hospitals.

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4350
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Grinanne Barrett
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:02 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Just to quibble: "Ice Ages" are not caused by "unusually warm climatic conditions." As you say: Ice will accumulate and gain mass in a few places while in general it is melting. Thats not an ice age.
Thank you. I accept the correction.
"We survivors did not seek death. We did not take to the streets when our Jewish friends were taken away. We didn’t raise an outcry until we ourselves were being annihilated. We preferred to remain alive, with the flimsy though accurate excuse that our death would not have helped. We are guilty of being alive."

Karl Jaspers (1883–1968), at the re-opening of Heidelberg University, 1945

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11695
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:26 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:21 am



But historically, we can see that the actual correlation is bumpy and not even positive all the time.


EM

You are getting confused between statistical signal and statistical noise.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14854
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:14 am

Without knowing, I'll just guess that there should be a positive correlation to different degrees between energy usage and welfare. Its concomitant causation. Live in a hut with no electricity and your welfare is low. Now...as I saw in china: mud hut with fire in the corner with smoke going up through cracks in the roof, and add a solar panel for tv and the phone and instantly, welfare goes up. Not direct causation, but definitely concomitant. All casual relationships have positive correlations. Not one to one and with sophistication, as we are seeing, the correlation could reverse and go negative, again: concomitant causation highly dependent on what "welfare" is thought to be.

Actually, all kind of interesting, …………..until the deluge because long term welfare was ignored for short term welfare...………………..
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14854
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:34 am

Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:02 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Just to quibble: "Ice Ages" are not caused by "unusually warm climatic conditions." As you say: Ice will accumulate and gain mass in a few places while in general it is melting. Thats not an ice age.
Thank you. I accept the correction.
Thanks. I only meant to "quibble" as your meaning was clear. No "correction" was intended...…..although on reread..... :D
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11695
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:27 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:14 am


Actually, all kind of interesting, …………..until the deluge because long term welfare was ignored for short term welfare...………………..
As I keep telling you, Bobbo, your pessimism is emotion based, not data based. There is no data to suggest that the future means lower welfare for humanity. Quite the contrary. Long term trends towards a better life for everyone continue. Even in Africa, on average there is an increase in wealth of 3% or more each year. Even as world population grows towards the projected (United Nations) maximum of 10 to 12 billion, the number of people malnourished continues to fall. For people, the world keeps becoming a better place to live in.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4354
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:18 am

you can't speak of a correlation when two parameters sometimes rise together and sometimes move in the opposite direction from one another.
Technological energy saving measures both increase well being and decrease energy consumption.

I am fully aware how critical energy is to modern life. But throwing more power at a society doesn't lead to a better life unless a lot of other problems are solved first. This is the problem with many Mega power plants in developing countries which take up resources to build that would be much better used on other projects.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11695
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:14 am

EM

I do not want to be rude, but it appears to me that you have little understanding of statistics. In particular, in this case, of what correlation means. The noise overlying the signal (the bits on the graph bouncing up and down ) do not obviate the underlying signal. Globally, and over a period of centuries, more energy use per capita correlates with higher human welfare. The noise on the graph does not change this.

Of course, you can argue that correlation does not prove causation. So you can argue that more energy is not the cause of greater human welfare, but that is a different argument.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4354
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:51 am

lance, hiding behind signal/noise to avoid having to admit that there is no clear correlation is weak.

You are probably right when it comes to fulfilling the basic needs (as I have mentioned in the correlation between access to electricity and well-being). But beyond that, well-being and energy consumption seems to be very much uncorrelated:
Well-being with the rise of computers and the internet has increased dramatically without an even remotely similar rise in energy consumption.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14854
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:42 am

ElectricMonk wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:51 am
lance, hiding behind signal/noise to avoid having to admit that there is no clear correlation is weak.

You are probably right when it comes to fulfilling the basic needs (as I have mentioned in the correlation between access to electricity and well-being). But beyond that, well-being and energy consumption seems to be very much uncorrelated:
Well-being with the rise of computers and the internet has increased dramatically without an even remotely similar rise in energy consumption.
Used to be that the second biggest energy consumer after the home refrigerator was the vampire drain of the router. Mine is on 24/7 ANYWAY....so I haven't confirmed my own usage whatever it might be in standby mode.

Note the rise in computer tomography and other computer BASED healthcare technologies and planning??????

Your "argument" really should proceed past mere assertion.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4350
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Grinanne Barrett
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:23 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:14 am
EM

I do not want to be rude, but it appears to me that you have little understanding of statistics. In particular, in this case, of what correlation means. The noise overlying the signal (the bits on the graph bouncing up and down ) do not obviate the underlying signal. Globally, and over a period of centuries, more energy use per capita correlates with higher human welfare. The noise on the graph does not change this.

Of course, you can argue that correlation does not prove causation. So you can argue that more energy is not the cause of greater human welfare, but that is a different argument.
While I'm not a statistician, it is a fact that you can get a correlation between any two data sets of the same length, say n. Regard them as vectors in n-dimensional space, and their coefficient of correlation is the cosine of the angle between them. If it's 1, they are perfectly correlated (the vectors point exactly the same direction in n-space). If it's 0, they are uncorrelated (the vectors are mutually perpendicular). If it's -1, they are perfectly, but negatively correlated (the vectors point in exactly opposite directions). Most correlations, of course, fall into the other range between -1 and 0 or between 0 and 1.
"We survivors did not seek death. We did not take to the streets when our Jewish friends were taken away. We didn’t raise an outcry until we ourselves were being annihilated. We preferred to remain alive, with the flimsy though accurate excuse that our death would not have helped. We are guilty of being alive."

Karl Jaspers (1883–1968), at the re-opening of Heidelberg University, 1945

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4350
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Grinanne Barrett
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:27 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:42 am

Used to be that the second biggest energy consumer after the home refrigerator was the vampire drain of the router. Mine is on 24/7 ANYWAY....so I haven't confirmed my own usage whatever it might be in standby mode.
I didn't know that! I need to rethink my energy usage, in that case, as I just assumed computers were minor factors in my household budget. The only one that ever gets turned off is the one I'm writing this message on. The other two are on all the time, as is the router.
"We survivors did not seek death. We did not take to the streets when our Jewish friends were taken away. We didn’t raise an outcry until we ourselves were being annihilated. We preferred to remain alive, with the flimsy though accurate excuse that our death would not have helped. We are guilty of being alive."

Karl Jaspers (1883–1968), at the re-opening of Heidelberg University, 1945

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11695
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:52 pm

Actually, the biggest user of electricity in the home, mostly, (as an overall average, since there are many individual exceptions ) is water heating. Winter heating of the home is also a big user. If an air conditioner is used a lot in summer, that rises to the top pretty quickly. In fact, it displaces water heating as number 1 if used a lot. Lighting may be number 2 in many cases. The refrigerator is a lot less, and computers are less also.

http://www.visualcapitalist.com/what-us ... ergy-home/

Admittedly, in putting water heating at the top, I am being a bit parochial. Here is NZ, that is absolutely true, but only because we have a more equable climate than you unfortunate Americans. Less hot in summer and less cold in winter.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14854
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:42 pm

Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:27 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:42 am

Used to be that the second biggest energy consumer after the home refrigerator was the vampire drain of the router. Mine is on 24/7 ANYWAY....so I haven't confirmed my own usage whatever it might be in standby mode.
I didn't know that! I need to rethink my energy usage, in that case, as I just assumed computers were minor factors in my household budget. The only one that ever gets turned off is the one I'm writing this message on. The other two are on all the time, as is the router.
Well....don't quote me. My info comes from a YouTuber that cut his elect bill by 1/3 JUST BY turning off his router when he went to bed. amps x volts = watts and you are billed on kilowatts of usage. Routers are not computers per se that have their own energy profiles you can work on. Used to be that you could heat your whole house with a good old analogue TV....now they hardly use anything. I assume over time the router issue has been corrected???? If interested....look up "Vampire Electrical" for some good hints.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14854
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:50 pm

Water heating, at least in Sacramento, is almost all gas. Maybe some point of use tech is being used for whole house, but not quite yet. I have my gas heater set to "Pilot Light" (joke: but it is down around 120...turn it up when I think of it for a "special" shower or bath) with a point of use at the kitchen sink. I hate waste because...………...its a waste. But I ENJOY a long hot shower now and then and don't mind draining the tank to get one. I do kinda wish I had a switch to have the clean water drain into my yard. We are charged by usage...I haven't looked at it in years.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?