Page 1 of 5 [ 70 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Mountain Goat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 May 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,202
Location: .

02 Jan 2020, 11:42 am

An increase in carbon dioxide levels gives a corresponding increase in plant growth which then decreases carbon dioxide levels. This could be the reason why the predictions did not see a noticeable global rising of tempratures.
In the decade while I was growing up there were huge concerns about the earth would freeze and we would have another mass ice age. Scientists were coming up with ways and ideas about how to combat this issue. The next decade had a heat wave and the same scientists were wondering how they were going to cool the earth down. The next decade I call the rainy decade because almoat every summer we had rain. Prior to this in the eecade I grew up in and for many decades, the summers were hot summers with not much rain.
Now this decade we seem to have normal weather back.


_________________
.


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

02 Jan 2020, 6:41 pm

jimmy m wrote:
auntblabby, there is not a universal acceptance of man-made global warming theory or man-made climate change among scientists. My best estimate is that there is a 50/50 split. And there are many shades of in-between, many shade of gray.

For example can increased carbon dioxide cause earth's temperature to warm? I might agree with that statement. But often times the question is misconstrued into the increased carbon dioxide levels observed today will lead to a radical rise in temperature and end life on our planet as we know it. That is totally false.

So a few decades ago, I added my name to a petition that said:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

34,486 other American scientists also signed that petition.

I have yet to see any proponents of man-made global warming offer a similar petition with that quantity of signatures. And a very definitive statement of what they are signing up to (in to avoid any confusion in the many shades of gray).

Image



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,605
Location: the island of defective toy santas

03 Jan 2020, 3:11 am

isaac asimov et al, have said the earth's maximum carrying capacity is around 3 billion people and all their stuff. 7+ billion is an uncontrolled experiment with possibly bad outcomes.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

03 Jan 2020, 7:24 am

auntblabby wrote:
isaac asimov et al, have said the earth's maximum carrying capacity is around 3 billion people and all their stuff. 7+ billion is an uncontrolled experiment with possibly bad outcomes.


Conditions have changed since then.
I believe he would have said that quite some time ago.
Is he still alive? 8O

My sources have mentioned that food production has increased enormously in the past decades,
And that technology is always improving.

Bottom line is,
The catastrophic predictions regarding overpopulation haven't eventuated.
But admittedly, the human race's penchant of "rabbitting" can't continue forever. :mrgreen:

Edit:
Were you alluding to: "Agenda 21"?



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,605
Location: the island of defective toy santas

03 Jan 2020, 8:29 am

fundamentally, i don't trust my fellow man any further than i could throw him through a flaming hoop. agenda 21 is less than well-meaning.



jimmy m
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jun 2018
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,462
Location: Indiana

03 Jan 2020, 9:42 am

Jørgen Randers, a Norwegian academic who decades ago warned of a potential global catastrophe caused by overpopulation, has changed his mind. “The world population will never reach nine billion people,” he now believes. “It will peak at 8 billion in 2040, and then decline.”

Similarly, Prof Wolfgang Lutz and his fellow demographers at Vienna’s International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis predict the human population will stabilise by mid-century and then start to go down.

A Deutsche Bank report has the planetary population peaking at 8.7 billion in 2055 and then declining to 8 billion by century’s end.

the UN is failing to account for an accelerating decline in fertility as a result of urbanisation. In 2007, for the first time in human history, the majority of people in the world lived in cities. Today, it’s 55%. In three decades, it will be two-thirds.

A lot happens when people move from the countryside into the city. First, a child changes from being an asset – another pair of shoulders to work in the fields – to a burden – another mouth to feed.

Even more important, a woman who moves to a city has greater access to media, to schools, to other women. She demands greater autonomy. And many women who are able to exercise control over their own bodies decide to have fewer children.

“The brain is the most important reproductive organ,” Lutz asserts. “Once a woman is socialised to have an education and a career, she is socialised to have a smaller family. There’s no going back.”

Religious and familial pressures to settle down and make babies also recede in the city; friends and co-workers, who are largely indifferent to one another’s reproductive choices, become more important.

Already, almost two dozen countries are getting smaller every year, from Poland to Cuba to Japan, which lost almost 450,000 people in 2018. In these countries, women have fewer than the 2.1 babies that they must produce, on average, for a population to remain stable. The population decline would be even steeper were it not for steadily increasing life expectancy.

The fertility rate in the UK is 1.7. Most population growth in the UK today is the result of international immigration, according to the Office of National Statistics. Without immigrants, Great Britain would eventually enter an era of population decline.

More old people and fewer young people place an increased strain on society’s ability to generate the wealth and taxes needed to fund, among other things, healthcare for the old.

The really big news, however, is found in the large countries of the developing world, where the great majority of people live. There, declines in birth rates have been simply astonishing. China, the world’s largest country, has a fertility rate of 1.5, lower than Britain’s. India, soon to overtake China as the world’s most populous nation, is at the replacement rate of 2.1 and falling. Brazil, the fifth most populous country, has a fertility rate of 1.8.

Source: What goes up: are predictions of a population crisis wrong?


_________________
Author of Practical Preparations for a Coronavirus Pandemic.
A very unique plan. As Dr. Paul Thompson wrote, "This is the very best paper on the virus I have ever seen."


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

03 Jan 2020, 10:47 pm

auntblabby wrote:
fundamentally, i don't trust my fellow man any further than i could throw him through a flaming hoop. agenda 21 is less than well-meaning.


Ditto.



NotEquius
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jun 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 30
Location: Ohio

05 Jan 2020, 9:36 am

Obviously rejoining this forum was a great mistake.



11010Joe
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

Joined: 12 Sep 2017
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 6
Location: UK

05 Jan 2020, 9:55 am

I believe we're all fkd.

I think the melting himalayas are a huge issue, given that they provide clean drinking water for over 3 billion people. On top of the desalination of the oceans due to melting ice caps & the noticable change in our weather pattens over the last 20 years, it all spells trouble.

Thankfully, I will most likely be dead before it gets really really bad.



jimmy m
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jun 2018
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,462
Location: Indiana

09 Jan 2020, 10:07 am

Globally, in 2019, about 9,000 people lost their lives in natural catastrophes compared with 15,000 in 2018. This confirms the overall trend towards lower numbers of victims thanks to better prevention measures. On average over the past 30 years, about 52,000 people per year have lost their lives in natural catastrophes.

In 2019:
- Severe typhoons in Japan cause the year’s biggest losses
- Hurricane Dorian, the strongest hurricane of the year, devastates the Bahamas – US mainland largely spared
- Natural catastrophes cause overall losses of US$ 150bn, with insured losses of about US$ 52bn – In line with long-term average
- Humanitarian tragedy caused by cyclones in Mozambique – Over 1,000 deaths – Better protection is urgently needed

820 natural catastrophes caused overall losses of US$ 150bn, which is broadly in line with the inflation-adjusted average of the past 30 years. A smaller portion of losses was insured compared with 2018: about US$ 52bn. This was due, among other things, to the high share of flood losses, which are often not insured to the same extent as wind damage in most industrial countries.

The insured portion of overall losses, slightly above 35%, matches the average of the past ten years. This is evidence that large sections of the market remain uninsured, especially in emerging and developing countries.

Source: The 2019 natural catastrophe year at a glance


_________________
Author of Practical Preparations for a Coronavirus Pandemic.
A very unique plan. As Dr. Paul Thompson wrote, "This is the very best paper on the virus I have ever seen."


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

10 Jan 2020, 4:40 am

jimmy m wrote:
Globally, in 2019, about 9,000 people lost their lives in natural catastrophes compared with 15,000 in 2018. This confirms the overall trend towards lower numbers of victims thanks to better prevention measures. On average over the past 30 years, about 52,000 people per year have lost their lives in natural catastrophes.

In 2019:
- Severe typhoons in Japan cause the year’s biggest losses
- Hurricane Dorian, the strongest hurricane of the year, devastates the Bahamas – US mainland largely spared
- Natural catastrophes cause overall losses of US$ 150bn, with insured losses of about US$ 52bn – In line with long-term average
- Humanitarian tragedy caused by cyclones in Mozambique – Over 1,000 deaths – Better protection is urgently needed

820 natural catastrophes caused overall losses of US$ 150bn, which is broadly in line with the inflation-adjusted average of the past 30 years. A smaller portion of losses was insured compared with 2018: about US$ 52bn. This was due, among other things, to the high share of flood losses, which are often not insured to the same extent as wind damage in most industrial countries.

The insured portion of overall losses, slightly above 35%, matches the average of the past ten years. This is evidence that large sections of the market remain uninsured, especially in emerging and developing countries.

Source: The 2019 natural catastrophe year at a glance


Image

https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters

WTF?
Did everyone stay in bed during 1910-1919? :scratch:



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,750
Location: Stendec

10 Jan 2020, 11:27 am

Gloom, despair, and agony on me...


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


Dear_one
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Feb 2008
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,717
Location: Where the Great Plains meet the Northern Pines

13 Jan 2020, 2:58 am

To deny climate change, you have to cherry-pick your facts. "Peak Oil" moved forward because it turned out that the companies could pollute our aquifers with fracking and not get sued to death. In the big picture, we are losing glaciers at a frightening pace. My nearest one, Banff, used to terminate in a beautiful aquamarine lake, and there is still a fine stone hotel where generations of people enjoyed the view, but now the ice is a distant white line over a rubble field. This change I have seen, and as a Canadian, I have seen melting caused by warming weather every spring. When old ice goes, that's the average temperature going up.
Otzi is just one of hundreds of "lost" items popping out of glaciers now, and the radar surveys of the ice caps show rapid shrinking. Calving has become a spectator event, it is so frequent. Satellite pictures clearly show the loss of north polar ice, and the Northwest Passage is now being used, after claiming the Franklin expedition earlier.
I could write all night, but I really think that more facts are not needed; it is the will to escape from psychological denial, and face what we have done.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

13 Jan 2020, 3:20 am

Dear_one wrote:
To deny climate change, you have to cherry-pick your facts. "Peak Oil" moved forward because it turned out that the companies could pollute our aquifers with fracking and not get sued to death. In the big picture, we are losing glaciers at a frightening pace. My nearest one, Banff, used to terminate in a beautiful aquamarine lake, and there is still a fine stone hotel where generations of people enjoyed the view, but now the ice is a distant white line over a rubble field. This change I have seen, and as a Canadian, I have seen melting caused by warming weather every spring. When old ice goes, that's the average temperature going up.
Otzi is just one of hundreds of "lost" items popping out of glaciers now, and the radar surveys of the ice caps show rapid shrinking. Calving has become a spectator event, it is so frequent. Satellite pictures clearly show the loss of north polar ice, and the Northwest Passage is now being used, after claiming the Franklin expedition earlier.
I could write all night, but I really think that more facts are not needed; it is the will to escape from psychological denial, and face what we have done.


Save the Mammoth!
Oops,
Too late. :mrgreen:

No,
I am not saying the climate is not changing.
I am saying the climate has always changed. :wink:



Dear_one
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Feb 2008
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,717
Location: Where the Great Plains meet the Northern Pines

13 Jan 2020, 9:31 am

Pepe wrote:
[

Save the Mammoth!
Oops,
Too late. :mrgreen:

No,
I am not saying the climate is not changing.
I am saying the climate has always changed. :wink:


The latest news on the Mammoths is that a meteor strike now under the ice on northern Greenland had a lot to do with the details at the end of the last Ice Age.

I'm not saying that the climate has never changed before, but the fast changes have been from meteors and volcanoes, while the slow changes have been from solar cycles, continental drift, and biology. Right now, we have a very fast change, and the only "new" factor is us.

In my lifetime, I've seen the world population triple, and lifestyles beyond the dreams of our grandfathers, all built on cheap oil. I've seen insect populations plummet - windshields used to get coated between fill-ups; now there are a few spots. Multiple extinctions are being written into the fossil record, while humans and domestic animals now far outweigh all the wild species combined.

Now, warming has gotten past the resilient zone, and methane is boiling out of the Arctic seafloor and surrounding permafrost. To avert disaster, we need to not just cut down our emissions, but recover them. The economy should be re-structured around successful carbon sequestration as a public good. Currently, it is the plaything of a few psychopaths driven mad with greed.



jimmy m
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jun 2018
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,462
Location: Indiana

13 Jan 2020, 10:24 am

Dear_one wrote:
The latest news on the Mammoths is that a meteor strike now under the ice on northern Greenland had a lot to do with the details at the end of the last Ice Age.

I'm not saying that the climate has never changed before, but the fast changes have been from meteors and volcanoes, while the slow changes have been from solar cycles, continental drift, and biology. Right now, we have a very fast change, and the only "new" factor is us.

In my lifetime, I've seen the world population triple, and lifestyles beyond the dreams of our grandfathers, all built on cheap oil. I've seen insect populations plummet - windshields used to get coated between fill-ups; now there are a few spots. Multiple extinctions are being written into the fossil record, while humans and domestic animals now far outweigh all the wild species combined.

Now, warming has gotten past the resilient zone, and methane is boiling out of the Arctic seafloor and surrounding permafrost. To avert disaster, we need to not just cut down our emissions, but recover them. The economy should be re-structured around successful carbon sequestration as a public good. Currently, it is the plaything of a few psychopaths driven mad with greed.


If CO2 was such a problem why did the environmentalist and the U.N. give China and India a free pass to grow their CO2 footprint? If the crisis is real, all must contribute.

Image

* China and India's massive increases have been driven by continued coal use and economic growth drove the increase.

* China is expected to see an estimated 4.7% increase in emissions for 2018.

* India, too, is now expected to see a steep increase, despite the rapid deployment of renewables in that nation. Greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels are expected to grow by 6.3% in 2018.

* In the U.S., emissions had declined at 1.2% per year since 2007, but in 2018 there is expected to be an increase of about 2.5%.

Source: The countries that pushed carbon emissions to record levels

If this CO2 crisis was real, why was not nuclear power plants growth and hydroelectric power plant growth front and center in the solution?

If this CO2 crisis is real, why do the environmental activist, Hollywood celebrities and the world's elites fly all over the world to attend climate conferences on private jets burning up massive amounts of fuel in the process? [Do as I say, not as I do!]


_________________
Author of Practical Preparations for a Coronavirus Pandemic.
A very unique plan. As Dr. Paul Thompson wrote, "This is the very best paper on the virus I have ever seen."