This is rather interesting. It's a video from TED that features Peter Ward, whom talks about his idea of the real cause of mass extinction. His theory is that instead of most of the deaths being caused by the conventional notion of a meteor hitting the earth and killing things off--instead, he says, the majority of deaths were caused by bacteria.
He then links this with another interesting phenomenon involving hydrogen sulfide, and how it occurs naturally on the planet earth; hypothesising that it starts off as sediment at the floor of the ocean and sporadically rises up every age or so to the top of the ocean, causing a chain reaction which affects all life on earth--good or bad; then talks about how it will affect us.
He puts global warming in the mix too, and if what he says is true, than the scene we saw in AI: Artificial Intelligence with cities underwater isn't really that farfetched, possibly even happening in the next 100 years.
A bit off topic, but TED always has a LOT of innovative/interesting/amazing stuff. People should check out their site more often, and you'll find yourself stuck there all day.
We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
On August 06 2009 15:02 Aegraen wrote: We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
Cause Earth can easily support another 6-7 billion people.
On August 06 2009 14:53 Fishball wrote: A bit off topic, but TED always has a LOT of innovative/interesting/amazing stuff. People should check out their site more often, and you'll find yourself stuck there all day.
Just take a lot of it with a pinch of salt, there is also a lot of crap on there too. (eg: self help stuff)
On August 06 2009 15:02 Aegraen wrote: We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
Cause Earth can easily support another 6-7 billion people.
On August 06 2009 15:22 D10 wrote: Earth has around 15 billion people capacity, but thats not the problem, the problem is when are we going to create subaquatic cities ?
I Know brazil is pretty advanced regarding deep water drilling and etc... tech, so I hope we win this race.
Um....? We have plenty of land space for easily 30 billion+ people. Take for example the US. The US only has about 5-8% developed land. Vast majority of the US 90%+ is undeveloped. Extrapolating this, at 50% developed the US alone can sustain 3.5 billion people. (350Million x 10)
With the ever increasing technology leaps in regards to desalinization, genetic manipulation, and hydroponics, etc. it is quite conceivable to even raise that to 40 billion+. By the time we reach 30 billion population we'll be traversing the stars. Limitless options abound at that point.
On August 06 2009 15:02 Aegraen wrote: We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
Cause Earth can easily support another 6-7 billion people.
Yes, it can.
I doubt it. The fact that there are already water, and food crisis right now and the fact that Humans are already stripping resources at a enormous rate, not to mention pollution. And if a warmer earth is apparently good for Humanity I find it hard to imagine where the hell were gonna put the population boom with the rising sea levels it would produce. It may have been good in the past but not the future.
On August 06 2009 15:02 Aegraen wrote: We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
he never denied meteor impacts, he was simply saying that they weren't the cause of mass extinction
We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
I love this post. One of the few designed to be truthful instead of designed to inspire fear.
BTW, if ocean levels start to rise, our cities will never 'go underwater' like in AI. At the very least, we'd build a friggin' wall. That's the very first thing humans ever did to truly master their environment. You think we wouldn't resort to it to stop oceans rising half an inch a year?
On August 06 2009 15:02 Aegraen wrote: We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
Cause Earth can easily support another 6-7 billion people.
Yes, it can.
I doubt it. The fact that there are already water, and food crisis right now and the fact that Humans are already stripping resources at a enormous rate, not to mention pollution. And if a warmer earth is apparently good for Humanity I find it hard to imagine where the hell were gonna put the population boom with the rising sea levels it would produce. It may have been good in the past but not the future.
You do know that Ice shelves and other constructs like icebergs disperse water, thereby increasing the sea level correct? Have you ever for instance, had ice in a glass filled with tea, or water? Have you noticed its effect? Now, do a quick simple test. Fill the glass halfway with water, then add in 10 ice cubes. Measure the liquids height at its crest. Next, wait until all the ice melts and measure again. I'd love for you to point out the "increased levels of liquid". Thanks.
There are food and water crisis? Where? Africa? This isn't due to the fact that they can't produce their own sustenance, they could. Africa is simply impoverished and at war with each all the damn time. The resources are there. Secondly, you are discounting mounting technological advancements. Have you noticed in the last 10-15 years we have increased our crop yields by magnitudes of greater than 50%? We have increased them untold folds since 1900. Imagine the scientific advancements and possibilities by 2050. I bet if you showed hydroponics to scientists in the 1920s they would be astonished. We can artificially increase food production to coincide with any population jumps. This is proven.
I'm not sure if you know this, but water isn't exactly a huge problem to contend with. The Earth is mostly made up of water. You have heard of desalinization correct? We're in the beginning stages of developing this technology and it is all ready proved to be very useful. By 2030 I'm sure the efficiency of this technology will have grown beyond our wildest expectations.
And lastly, developed and undeveloped land. The Earth has plenty of land to sustain numbers well beyond your estimation. Most of the Earth is actually undeveloped. If you think the US is developed well beyond most countries, what does this tell you when the US is only 5-8% developed?
Ah, yes, because warmer weather is only good for crops in the past. Gotcha.
On August 06 2009 15:02 Aegraen wrote: We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
i agree with everything except for the warmer comment.
global warming isn't about climate becoming warmer. it's about the intensities of the climate becoming more intense, with the average being warmer. in other words, cold seasons will become extremely cold, and droughts will become extremely long and dry.
this is not good for farming btw... the slight increase in temperatures is more of a side note than anything. who cares about longer growing season when it's all offset by more droughts, more intense cold spells, and over-raining.
I also think you are totally off base on your water-vapor causing 99% of greenhouse comment. that's like saying most of a starcraft map is open terrain, so open terrain, not minerals, is the most important part of a map. the addition of even a slight percentage of carbon dioxide and sulfur emissions into the atmosphere goes a long way to fucking up the equilibrium.
On August 06 2009 15:02 Aegraen wrote: We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
he never denied meteor impacts, he was simply saying that they weren't the cause of mass extinction
So, you believe that a virus or bacteria can exterminate 90% of life on Earth, when we have proven that stength in numbers disproves this hypothesis? You also believe that the Earth's oceans are covered in hydrogen sulfide and will at once rise up congruently across the globe and cause a mass chain reaction leading to mass extinction? Occams Razor is pretty apt here. The simple answer is most likely the correct answer. Meteor Impact.
On August 06 2009 15:22 D10 wrote: Earth has around 15 billion people capacity, but thats not the problem, the problem is when are we going to create subaquatic cities ?
I Know brazil is pretty advanced regarding deep water drilling and etc... tech, so I hope we win this race.
Um....? We have plenty of land space for easily 30 billion+ people. Take for example the US. The US only has about 5-8% developed land. Vast majority of the US 90%+ is undeveloped. Extrapolating this, at 50% developed the US alone can sustain 3.5 billion people. (350Million x 10)
With the ever increasing technology leaps in regards to desalinization, genetic manipulation, and hydroponics, etc. it is quite conceivable to even raise that to 40 billion+. By the time we reach 30 billion population we'll be traversing the stars. Limitless options abound at that point.
this is literally one of the dumbest most ignorant things i've ever heard on teamliquid. you are saying that the earth can support 5x the amount of people currently alive because there is space?
get your head out of your fucking ass for a minute and think a bit.
the oceans are literally almost all fished out. most of the natural forests are destroyed. fossil fuels are nearing depletion within our lifetime. our fucking factories are causing global warming. the top 1% of the world's population use 90% of its resources.
how do you propose we increase our population to 5x of what it is now?
On August 06 2009 15:02 Aegraen wrote: We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
i agree with everything except for the warmer comment.
global warming isn't about climate becoming warmer. it's about the intensities o
f the climate becoming more intense, with the average being warmer.
How do these intensities become more intense? There is no physical mechanism that would account for that, even IF we could fully understand the complexities of global climate. Which we can't. TBQH, that just sounds like something someone made up to scare ppl.
On August 06 2009 15:22 D10 wrote: Earth has around 15 billion people capacity, but thats not the problem, the problem is when are we going to create subaquatic cities ?
I Know brazil is pretty advanced regarding deep water drilling and etc... tech, so I hope we win this race.
Um....? We have plenty of land space for easily 30 billion+ people. Take for example the US. The US only has about 5-8% developed land. Vast majority of the US 90%+ is undeveloped. Extrapolating this, at 50% developed the US alone can sustain 3.5 billion people. (350Million x 10)
With the ever increasing technology leaps in regards to desalinization, genetic manipulation, and hydroponics, etc. it is quite conceivable to even raise that to 40 billion+. By the time we reach 30 billion population we'll be traversing the stars. Limitless options abound at that point.
this is literally one of the dumbest most ignorant things i've ever heard on teamliquid. you are saying that the earth can support 5x the amount of people currently alive because there is space?
get your head out of your fucking ass for a minute and think a bit.
the oceans are literally almost all fished out. most of the natural forests are destroyed. fossil fuels are nearing depletion within our lifetime. our fucking factories are causing global warming. the top 1% of the world's population use 90% of its resources.
how do you propose we increase our population to 5x of what it is now?
He was pretty clear how, breakthrought development in.... every field
Specially desalinization, because that thing is damn expensive.
On August 06 2009 15:02 Aegraen wrote: We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
he never denied meteor impacts, he was simply saying that they weren't the cause of mass extinction
So, you believe that a virus or bacteria can exterminate 90% of life on Earth, when we have proven that stength in numbers disproves this hypothesis? You also believe that the Earth's oceans are covered in hydrogen sulfide and will at once rise up congruently across the globe and cause a mass chain reaction leading to mass extinction? Occams Razor is pretty apt here. The simple answer is most likely the correct answer. Meteor Impact.
bacterial infection killing 90% of the species on the planet is ridiculous.
anyone with a biology degree or background in biology will laugh at such a claim.
bacteria are very specialized. all the bacteria are typically in equilibrium with the ecosystem. if a new form of bacteria just popped out from under the ocean, it would not be well suited for the environment and would just die. if it was well suited to the environment, it would be similar to another form of bacteria that's already in equilibrium, so the new bacteria wont get out of control.
and bacteria attacking and killing 90% of lifeforms is even more crazy. i'm not even going to address that idea.
On August 06 2009 15:22 D10 wrote: Earth has around 15 billion people capacity, but thats not the problem, the problem is when are we going to create subaquatic cities ?
I Know brazil is pretty advanced regarding deep water drilling and etc... tech, so I hope we win this race.
Um....? We have plenty of land space for easily 30 billion+ people. Take for example the US. The US only has about 5-8% developed land. Vast majority of the US 90%+ is undeveloped. Extrapolating this, at 50% developed the US alone can sustain 3.5 billion people. (350Million x 10)
With the ever increasing technology leaps in regards to desalinization, genetic manipulation, and hydroponics, etc. it is quite conceivable to even raise that to 40 billion+. By the time we reach 30 billion population we'll be traversing the stars. Limitless options abound at that point.
this is literally one of the dumbest most ignorant things i've ever heard on teamliquid. you are saying that the earth can support 5x the amount of people currently alive because there is space?
get your head out of your fucking ass for a minute and think a bit.
the oceans are literally almost all fished out. most of the natural forests are destroyed. fossil fuels are nearing depletion within our lifetime. our fucking factories are causing global warming. the top 1% of the world's population use 90% of its resources.
how do you propose we increase our population to 5x of what it is now?
You are aware I am in the Coast Guard, and one of our important functions is policing EEZ's (Exclusive Economic Zones), correct? The ocean is not "almost fished out". I'm sure you've seen the umpteen amounts of documentaries concerning crabbing, tuna runs, seals, etc. The Ocean encompasses the vast majority of land on the planet. If we haven't wiped out all forms of land based sustenance by now which comprises the tiny majority of space on Earth what makes you think that we have done that to the Oceans which are multitudes larger. The Ocean is thriving just fine. Just because a few whale species is on the endangered list does not an ocean depleted make.
Secondly, there are things called Fish farms. I'm sure you've seen them before. Quite a bit more efficient than trawling. That is going to be the future of fisheries.
Natural Forests? Whats the difference between a Natural forest and a "manufactured forest" (Ones in which we plant)? Trees are a renewable resource. Forests are not going anywhere. I mean, its not like the Amazon rainforest is 5% of its former self, or the Boreal forest is 15% of its former self, no? I'm also quite unsure what Forests have to do with the sustainability of humanity?
If our government wasn't so stubborn and didn't have such deep derision involved with the means of producing electricity we would be mostly a Nuclear powered country like France. Nuclear energy is cheap, plentiful, and in no ways going to run out anytime shortly (shortly being like 1000 years+++). By the time Fission technology is no longer feasible (haha), we'll all ready have mastered Nuclear Fusion. Fusion is unlimited in its scope. We will never have another energy need once we master Fusion.
Ah yes, Global Warming, that little thing called a theory. In which there is more evidence that disproves it than proves it. Science politicized is not science at all. I would like for you to conduct the Scientific Method on Global Warming please. The Scientific Method is the construct for science. If you cannot apply the method then you have no workable theory, period.
On August 06 2009 15:02 Aegraen wrote: We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
i agree with everything except for the warmer comment.
global warming isn't about climate becoming warmer. it's about the intensities o
f the climate becoming more intense, with the average being warmer.
How do these intensities become more intense? There is no physical mechanism that would account for that, even IF we could fully understand the complexities of global climate. Which we can't. TBQH, that just sounds like something someone made up to scare ppl.
tulkas, you are mis-understanding me. i'm not saying this from my own opinion, logic, or deduction. this information is readily available from credible scientific researches that have been performed and are accepted by 99.9% of the scientific community. The other .1% are the bastards getting bribed by big oil companies trying to make it seem like the scientific community is unsure.
You do know that Ice shelves and other constructs like icebergs disperse water, thereby increasing the sea level correct? Have you ever for instance, had ice in a glass filled with tea, or water? Have you noticed its effect? Now, do a quick simple test. Fill the glass halfway with water, then add in 10 ice cubes. Measure the liquids height at its crest. Next, wait until all the ice melts and measure again. I'd love for you to point out the "increased levels of liquid". Thanks.
Since you seem to like experiments a lot I have one you could do at home. Fill a bathtub with with water until it's half full. Then 1cm above the water write: Southeastern Asia, New york and Holland. Next step is to take a giant block of ice, say a 40cm cube and place on a shelf above the bathtub. Plug in your hairdryier then point it at the ice cube and be careful not to drop the fan into the bathtub. Come back in 30minutes. You may notice that Southeastern Asia, New york and Holland are now underwater, if not repeat the ice cube step. We may have lost a couple of million people but hey atleast the shelf is empty!
On August 06 2009 15:02 Aegraen wrote: We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
he never denied meteor impacts, he was simply saying that they weren't the cause of mass extinction
So, you believe that a virus or bacteria can exterminate 90% of life on Earth, when we have proven that stength in numbers disproves this hypothesis? You also believe that the Earth's oceans are covered in hydrogen sulfide and will at once rise up congruently across the globe and cause a mass chain reaction leading to mass extinction? Occams Razor is pretty apt here. The simple answer is most likely the correct answer. Meteor Impact.
bacterial infection killing 90% of the species on the planet is ridiculous.
anyone with a biology degree or background in biology will laugh at such a claim.
bacteria are very specialized. all the bacteria are typically in equilibrium with the ecosystem. if a new form of bacteria just popped out from under the ocean, it would not be well suited for the environment and would just die. if it was well suited to the environment, it would be similar to another form of bacteria that's already in equilibrium, so the new bacteria wont get out of control.
and bacteria attacking and killing 90% of lifeforms is even more crazy. i'm not even going to address that idea.
orion beating jd and perfectman beating iris was ridiculous but it still happened but anyway on topic i believe this is possible, this couldve happened when lifeforms were young (like dinosaurs) a couple of millions of years ago. the human race isnt even 100,000 years old. the virus couldve lasted for a million of years then died.
On August 06 2009 15:02 Aegraen wrote: We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
i agree with everything except for the warmer comment.
global warming isn't about climate becoming warmer. it's about the intensities o
f the climate becoming more intense, with the average being warmer.
How do these intensities become more intense? There is no physical mechanism that would account for that, even IF we could fully understand the complexities of global climate. Which we can't. TBQH, that just sounds like something someone made up to scare ppl.
tulkas, you are mis-understanding me. i'm not saying this from my own opinion, logic, or deduction. this information is readily available from credible scientific researches that have been performed and are accepted by 99.9% of the scientific community. The other .1% are the bastards getting bribed by big oil companies trying to make it seem like the scientific community is unsure.
Oh, you mean there are more scientists than population in the US? Thats news to me.
I remember reading from a few different sources that the earth has a max capacity gauged at about 15billion with it's current form. If however, the whole earth lived like americans do, it could onlt support 2-3 billion.
and about the ice thing, if its in the water, its already displaced the water regardless if it melts or not. The height doesn't change at all. Now if it is on land and falls into the sea then you will see a rise.
You do know that Ice shelves and other constructs like icebergs disperse water, thereby increasing the sea level correct? Have you ever for instance, had ice in a glass filled with tea, or water? Have you noticed its effect? Now, do a quick simple test. Fill the glass halfway with water, then add in 10 ice cubes. Measure the liquids height at its crest. Next, wait until all the ice melts and measure again. I'd love for you to point out the "increased levels of liquid". Thanks.
Since you seem to like experiments a lot I have one you could do at home. Fill a bathtub with with water until it's half full. Then 1cm above the water write: Southeastern Asia, New york and Holland. Next step is to take a giant block of ice, say a 40cm cube and place on a shelf above the bathtub. Plug in your hairdryier then point it at the ice cube and be careful not to drop the fan into the bathtub. Come back in 30minutes. You may notice that Southeastern Asia, New york and Holland are now underwater, if not repeat the ice cube step. We may have lost a couple of million people but hey atleast the shelf is empty!
P.S.: 1cm equals about 0.4 of an inch.
What? This makes no sense. I guess the Arctic Ice Shelves are hovering in mid-air. Also, what makes your line of where the cities are accurate? Do you know the sea levels of each city?
The glass test is the best test that simulates the effects on sea levels that ice has.
On August 06 2009 15:02 Aegraen wrote: We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
i agree with everything except for the warmer comment.
global warming isn't about climate becoming warmer. it's about the intensities o
f the climate becoming more intense, with the average being warmer.
How do these intensities become more intense? There is no physical mechanism that would account for that, even IF we could fully understand the complexities of global climate. Which we can't. TBQH, that just sounds like something someone made up to scare ppl.
tulkas, you are mis-understanding me. i'm not saying this from my own opinion, logic, or deduction. this information is readily available from credible scientific researches that have been performed and are accepted by 99.9% of the scientific community. The other .1% are the bastards getting bribed by big oil companies trying to make it seem like the scientific community is unsure.
Oh, you mean there are more scientists than population in the US? Thats news to me.
Luckily there are still foreign scientists :/ Never rely on the US to try to take care of the environment or we will all be screwed over.
Can't believe you think that the Earth can support another 6-7 billion people... I know you have cited a good deal of figures to support Earth being very underutilized, that there are more resources to go around, that African nations are in trouble only because they are embroiled in strife. You don't seem to realize that humans are not in the near future going to be able to utilize the Earth's resources in a clean and productive manner, or even in the manner that the world's highly developed nations do now.
On August 06 2009 16:06 MrHoon wrote: Aegraen I can never understand you. At one point you are the worst poster in TL and yet sometimes you are the most informative poster in TL.
WAT R U?
I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you Mr. Hoon. I am merely myself. I have a deep admiration for the Enlightenment period thinkers and scientists and as such I try to model how I view the world and science in the general sense that they would. In the end its up to each one of us to educate ourselves. If I am of any help to any of you, then I'm satisfied and if you wish further inqueries into sources of information PM me and I would be glad to suggest some great reading material.
i was searching youtube for a video of a glass with water AND ice cubes melting (Cause I've seen it before from some anti global warming thing) and I stumbled across this instead.
On August 06 2009 14:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Thus one more reason that we need to concentrate on Space exploration and the Sciences of it.
Seriously. I dont know why the vast majority of our resources are not spent on space. I really wish humans had the capacity to settle our differences and focus on the future.
On August 06 2009 15:02 Aegraen wrote: We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
i agree with everything except for the warmer comment.
global warming isn't about climate becoming warmer. it's about the intensities o
f the climate becoming more intense, with the average being warmer.
How do these intensities become more intense? There is no physical mechanism that would account for that, even IF we could fully understand the complexities of global climate. Which we can't. TBQH, that just sounds like something someone made up to scare ppl.
tulkas, you are mis-understanding me. i'm not saying this from my own opinion, logic, or deduction. this information is readily available from credible scientific researches that have been performed and are accepted by 99.9% of the scientific community. The other .1% are the bastards getting bribed by big oil companies trying to make it seem like the scientific community is unsure.
Oh, you mean there are more scientists than population in the US? Thats news to me.
Luckily there are still foreign scientists :/ Never rely on the US to try to take care of the environment or we will all be screwed over.
Can't believe you think that the Earth can support another 6-7 billion people... I know you have cited a good deal of figures to support Earth being very underutilized, that there are more resources to go around, that African nations are in trouble only because they are embroiled in strife. You don't seem to realize that humans are not in the near future going to be able to utilize the Earth's resources in a clean and productive manner, or even in the manner that the world's highly developed nations do now.
I'm sorry, but if this is the general feeling of a large group of people I'm truly scared for the future. Science has no sides. Once you pick a side in Science it no longer is science and is, but yet another skewed practice. You might as well be practicing Alchemy because that has as much basis as science does when you have made up your mind irregardless of evidence. If you ask the leading scientists and politicians promoting Global Warming (To which they changed the moniker to Climate Change, wonder why?), if you believe that the Earth is in dire straits why are you still using modern luxuries that contribute to the problem? I'm sure more people would take it a lot more seriously if they didn't see Al Gore with a huge mansion, flying around in private jets, and owning multiple cars. When you get down to it, its politicized because they realize fear-mongering can centralize power.
That is the whole point. We can sustain 7 billion off such a minimal amount of land usage right now with inferior technology than what we will have when we reach numbers of 13-14+ billion. Don't misunderstand me when I talk about sustainability. It is not the same as there will be no poor, or no malnurished, etc. Sustainability just means that the overall Death:Birth ratio is still able to be positive.
On August 06 2009 14:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Thus one more reason that we need to concentrate on Space exploration and the Sciences of it.
Seriously. I dont know why the vast majority of our resources are not spent on space. I really wish humans had the capacity to settle our differences and focus on the future.
On August 06 2009 14:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Thus one more reason that we need to concentrate on Space exploration and the Sciences of it.
Seriously. I dont know why the vast majority of our resources are not spent on space. I really wish humans had the capacity to settle our differences and focus on the future.
On August 06 2009 15:22 D10 wrote: Earth has around 15 billion people capacity, but thats not the problem, the problem is when are we going to create subaquatic cities ?
I Know brazil is pretty advanced regarding deep water drilling and etc... tech, so I hope we win this race.
Um....? We have plenty of land space for easily 30 billion+ people. Take for example the US. The US only has about 5-8% developed land. Vast majority of the US 90%+ is undeveloped. Extrapolating this, at 50% developed the US alone can sustain 3.5 billion people. (350Million x 10)
With the ever increasing technology leaps in regards to desalinization, genetic manipulation, and hydroponics, etc. it is quite conceivable to even raise that to 40 billion+. By the time we reach 30 billion population we'll be traversing the stars. Limitless options abound at that point.
this is literally one of the dumbest most ignorant things i've ever heard on teamliquid. you are saying that the earth can support 5x the amount of people currently alive because there is space?
get your head out of your fucking ass for a minute and think a bit.
the oceans are literally almost all fished out. most of the natural forests are destroyed. fossil fuels are nearing depletion within our lifetime. our fucking factories are causing global warming. the top 1% of the world's population use 90% of its resources.
how do you propose we increase our population to 5x of what it is now?
You are aware I am in the Coast Guard, and one of our important functions is policing EEZ's (Exclusive Economic Zones), correct? The ocean is not "almost fished out". I'm sure you've seen the umpteen amounts of documentaries concerning crabbing, tuna runs, seals, etc. The Ocean encompasses the vast majority of land on the planet. If we haven't wiped out all forms of land based sustenance by now which comprises the tiny majority of space on Earth what makes you think that we have done that to the Oceans which are multitudes larger. The Ocean is thriving just fine. Just because a few whale species is on the endangered list does not an ocean depleted make.
Secondly, there are things called Fish farms. I'm sure you've seen them before. Quite a bit more efficient than trawling. That is going to be the future of fisheries.
Natural Forests? Whats the difference between a Natural forest and a "manufactured forest" (Ones in which we plant)? Trees are a renewable resource. Forests are not going anywhere. I mean, its not like the Amazon rainforest is 5% of its former self, or the Boreal forest is 15% of its former self, no? I'm also quite unsure what Forests have to do with the sustainability of humanity?
If our government wasn't so stubborn and didn't have such deep derision involved with the means of producing electricity we would be mostly a Nuclear powered country like France. Nuclear energy is cheap, plentiful, and in no ways going to run out anytime shortly (shortly being like 1000 years+++). By the time Fission technology is no longer feasible (haha), we'll all ready have mastered Nuclear Fusion. Fusion is unlimited in its scope. We will never have another energy need once we master Fusion.
Ah yes, Global Warming, that little thing called a theory. In which there is more evidence that disproves it than proves it. Science politicized is not science at all. I would like for you to conduct the Scientific Method on Global Warming please. The Scientific Method is the construct for science. If you cannot apply the method then you have no workable theory, period.
Isn't technology splendid?
though I appreciate your thoughtful reply, I still believe you are seriously in err in some of your points.
first off, you are making it seem as if the coast guard is an oceanic sciences team. But let's focus on the facts and ignore that no matter how cocky we are, neither your background nor mine functions as any sort of qualification to comment on the topic beyond allowing us to find facts done by people far more qualified than we are.
So here is some evidence that I'd like to bring into the conversation. this is for our (hopefully continuing to be) thoughtful discussion, and also for the benefit of tl netters who will be reading this and unfortunately but most likely, allowing their opinion on an important topic to be determined by an online forum.
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=108149 large meta-study observing global trends in line with local trends, that oceans collapse by 2050, collapse being defined as 90% depletion. keep in mind that the ocean is a large fucking place. when most of the species are gone, most of he larger lifeforms will become extinct due to starvation.
your mention of EEZ is hilarious. do you think that by patrolling one area of the ocean, you are saving the fish? fish do swim right? The ocean isn't like a pasture that you fence off. I don't know why you are getting the idea that you can protect fish by protecting one area. Are you also tying up all the fish in that area with rope so they don't swim beyond 100 miles from your designated EEZ?
not only are you wrong in your assumption that fish farming can completely replace natural fishing, it is even more fucking damning that you are assuming that a lack of food is the main problem of depleting the oceans.
forests, coal, and other fossil fuels are still the main source of energy for creating electricity. sure, we have some manufactured forests, but do you really believe that we are growing manufactured forests to completely replace the forests we are cutting down? and why are you even asking me why trees are important? First you say that the Earth should have 5x as many people because we can, then you assume that the main problem with depletion of the oceans is food scarcity, and then you ask me why we need trees. What is this, mucho money map?
before i thoroughly rape you on your conviction that global warming doesn't exist, please confirm to me that you indeed believe it doesn't exist. I find it hard to believe that you are considering the 99.9% consensus of the scientific community to be hogwash. You do know that in addition to global consensus among any climatgologist worth his salt, the UN has also conducted an exhaustive study inviting the top scientists of each country to study the subject without influence from any one country's politics or business interests. Anyways, please let me know that you want to really argue against global warming. because when i read that part, i started thinking this might actually be a waste of my time.
but I do have to agree with you on one point, being that nuclear fussion would be the ideal source of energy in the future. the only countries making reasonable strides towards it, last time i heard, was the EU, China and Japan. A Japanese scientist just a few years ago, making good progress with making fussion more efficient and possible at lower temperatures. China investing huge amounts of money in the creation of a functional prototype fussion reactor. the EU doing something similar.
Back to the point. do you really think the earth needs 5x the population it has right now? let me know also if you mean that all 30 billion people would live at the standard of the average american right now.
CEI Files EPA’s Own Suppressed Report, Demands EPA Global Warming Proceeding Be Reopened
Public Should Have Right to Review, Comment on Gov’t Report
Washington, D.C., June 30, 2009—The Competitive Enterprise Institute today is demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency allow public comment on an internal global warming report that the agency itself suppressed.
CEI is submitting the report to the EPA and formally requesting that EPA re-open the comment period on its so-called “endangerment proceeding,” so the public can comment on both the report and on EPA’s conduct. EPA’s official comment period ended June 23.
Today’s actions follow CEI’s release of internal EPA emails a week ago that demonstrated the agency cover-up, followed by a draft version of the report released last Thursday. A day later, the author of the report was given permission by the agency to release the final report but only on his own website.
“EPA sits on this report for over three months, and then only allows it to be made public on the author’s personal website,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman. “The fact that we have to formally re-file it with the agency indicates how unreal this situation is.”
The report criticizes the agency’s proposal to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. It concludes that EPA is relying on outdated research and is ignoring major new developments. Those developments include a continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that future hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense, and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature. It finds that ocean cycles are probably the most important single factor in explaining temperature fluctuations.
VIEW THE FINAL EPA INTERNAL REPORT VIEW THE DRAFT REPORT VISIT THE AUTHOR’S WEBSITE VIEW CEI’S REQUEST TO EPA READ CEI’S JUNE 18 PUBLIC COMMENT TO EPA ON ENDANGERMENT FINDING
You can draw your own conclusions from these various sources.
On August 06 2009 15:02 Aegraen wrote: We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
i agree with everything except for the warmer comment.
global warming isn't about climate becoming warmer. it's about the intensities o
f the climate becoming more intense, with the average being warmer.
How do these intensities become more intense? There is no physical mechanism that would account for that, even IF we could fully understand the complexities of global climate. Which we can't. TBQH, that just sounds like something someone made up to scare ppl.
tulkas, you are mis-understanding me. i'm not saying this from my own opinion, logic, or deduction. this information is readily available from credible scientific researches that have been performed and are accepted by 99.9% of the scientific community. The other .1% are the bastards getting bribed by big oil companies trying to make it seem like the scientific community is unsure.
Oh, you mean there are more scientists than population in the US? Thats news to me.
Luckily there are still foreign scientists :/ Never rely on the US to try to take care of the environment or we will all be screwed over.
Can't believe you think that the Earth can support another 6-7 billion people... I know you have cited a good deal of figures to support Earth being very underutilized, that there are more resources to go around, that African nations are in trouble only because they are embroiled in strife. You don't seem to realize that humans are not in the near future going to be able to utilize the Earth's resources in a clean and productive manner, or even in the manner that the world's highly developed nations do now.
I'm sorry, but if this is the general feeling of a large group of people I'm truly scared for the future. Science has no sides. Once you pick a side in Science it no longer is science and is, but yet another skewed practice. You might as well be practicing Alchemy because that has as much basis as science does when you have made up your mind irregardless of evidence. If you ask the leading scientists and politicians promoting Global Warming (To which they changed the moniker to Climate Change, wonder why?), if you believe that the Earth is in dire straits why are you still using modern luxuries that contribute to the problem? I'm sure more people would take it a lot more seriously if they didn't see Al Gore with a huge mansion, flying around in private jets, and owning multiple cars. When you get down to it, its politicized because they realize fear-mongering can centralize power.
It's rather ignorant to say that real science has no sides. Science isn't practiced by robots -- it's practiced by humans.
Although science is based on fact, there are no facts which are concrete. If there were then what reason would scientists have to disagree? It's already clear that the US has taken a different stance on science than many other countries in the world. You seem to have misinterpreted by statement -- possibly due to your opinions being so strongly for the doing away of humanity as the cause of global warming.
In the fact of insufficient facts, a state which we are almost perpetually in, there will be differing opinions. Science does not know everything. I fear for a future where science acts only on the known and takes no sides.
On August 06 2009 15:22 D10 wrote: Earth has around 15 billion people capacity, but thats not the problem, the problem is when are we going to create subaquatic cities ?
I Know brazil is pretty advanced regarding deep water drilling and etc... tech, so I hope we win this race.
Um....? We have plenty of land space for easily 30 billion+ people. Take for example the US. The US only has about 5-8% developed land. Vast majority of the US 90%+ is undeveloped. Extrapolating this, at 50% developed the US alone can sustain 3.5 billion people. (350Million x 10)
With the ever increasing technology leaps in regards to desalinization, genetic manipulation, and hydroponics, etc. it is quite conceivable to even raise that to 40 billion+. By the time we reach 30 billion population we'll be traversing the stars. Limitless options abound at that point.
this is literally one of the dumbest most ignorant things i've ever heard on teamliquid. you are saying that the earth can support 5x the amount of people currently alive because there is space?
get your head out of your fucking ass for a minute and think a bit.
the oceans are literally almost all fished out. most of the natural forests are destroyed. fossil fuels are nearing depletion within our lifetime. our fucking factories are causing global warming. the top 1% of the world's population use 90% of its resources.
how do you propose we increase our population to 5x of what it is now?
Natural Forests? Whats the difference between a Natural forest and a "manufactured forest" Forests are not going anywhere.
On August 06 2009 15:02 Aegraen wrote: We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
he never denied meteor impacts, he was simply saying that they weren't the cause of mass extinction
So, you believe that a virus or bacteria can exterminate 90% of life on Earth, when we have proven that stength in numbers disproves this hypothesis? You also believe that the Earth's oceans are covered in hydrogen sulfide and will at once rise up congruently across the globe and cause a mass chain reaction leading to mass extinction? Occams Razor is pretty apt here. The simple answer is most likely the correct answer. Meteor Impact.
i never said i believed anything, don't assume so much. i made a simple point. i think you have a pattern that you enjoy enacting too much, we have name for this pattern and it's called scepticism. also, global warming isn't being proved either, in fact the video argues the contrary since he says that it's natural for the world to go through changes in heat--which implies that we have nothing to do with it. so i'm not sure what your going on about in your initial post. did you even watch the video?
i can't really take you seriously because you seem so certain of everything.
Mass extinction is just a sensalitionist way of saying Mass Natural Selection. Those that can't survive die off and new species take their space - see mammals living underground when the dinosaurs fell to rampant natural disasters.
On August 06 2009 14:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Thus one more reason that we need to concentrate on Space exploration and the Sciences of it.
Seriously. I dont know why the vast majority of our resources are not spent on space. I really wish humans had the capacity to settle our differences and focus on the future.
Space is expensive. Very expensive.
It's only expensive because we haven't invested as much time and effort on a global scale into space as I think we should have. Now, I completely understand that we need to take care of business here on earth as well, with things such as starvation, over crowding, etc etc, but at the same time it isn't our responsibility to take care of the entire world (I'm referring to America for that). There are even things that should be done better in America...
Just kind of wish we lived in a world that got along so all our efforts to focus on the stars. I've been watching videos and doing slight research on the universe and there is just so much awesome stuff out there. If only I knew what 2000 years from now held for our future...
There is not that much point to put all our efforts into space exploration while we haven't even solved some very basic problems on earth... Seriously...
On August 06 2009 17:04 Velr wrote: There is not that much point to put all our efforts into space exploration while we haven't even solved some very basic problems on earth... Seriously...
Colonization, Resources from other planets, Asteroids.... Not to mention the development in new technologies that space exploration has already provided.
Aegraen, I would like to hear how you would continue to argue the following points:
1- why the oceans are nowhere near depletion 2- how your little EEZ protection runs prevent fish from swimming in and out of your EEZ 3- why ocean depletion is ok 4- why Earth doesn't need trees, nor other such pesky things like coal or oil. 5- why we should even consider 30 billion population
regarding your pathetic attempt to quote the CEI, a simple google search reveals that the CEI being a not for profit organization, receive funding mainly from ExxonMobil. Connect the dots idiot.
1- your attempts to argue points 1-5, which I'm awaiting responses on more for amusement than out of serious consideration, 2- Your inability to pose even one serious point of data. the only you can come up with being seriously flawed. demonstrating that you have no ability whatsoever for quality data collection. are you completely incompetent? not only are you ignorant, you are also stupid. no offense. 3- trying to flaunt your role on the coast guard as if it somehow qualified your opinion about environment or climatology. coast guards are a branch of the military stupid. your mention of the EEZ shows that you don't even know the background reasoning behind what you are being ordered by your superiors to do.
Could you tell me, as I am curious to learn, what are the prerequisites for joining the coast guard? All that I can dig up is that you are required to have a 1000 SAT, and a 2.5 GPA. but perhaps i am missing something, perhaps you are also secretly touting a post doc in oceanography or any related field, or even anything related to objective analysis? or maybe you were one of the thousands of international experts who have committed their life to studying the topic, selected by the UN from every major country to participate in the international discussion on the topic, who have reached an unanimous consensus... but of course your little complaint went unheard, so you are voicing it on an internet forum instead?
On August 06 2009 17:04 Velr wrote: There is not that much point to put all our efforts into space exploration while we haven't even solved some very basic problems on earth... Seriously...
Colonization, Resources from other planets, Asteroids.... Not to mention the development in new technologies that space exploration has already provided.
i'm waiting for Velr to respond to this post.
the teleportation devices that space research will usher would likely be useful in the intergalactic transporation of resources back to the Earth. right?
On August 06 2009 17:04 Velr wrote: There is not that much point to put all our efforts into space exploration while we haven't even solved some very basic problems on earth... Seriously...
Colonization, Resources from other planets, Asteroids.... Not to mention the development in new technologies that space exploration has already provided.
i'm waiting for Velr to respond to this post.
the teleportation devices that space research will usher would likely be useful in the intergalactic transporation of resources back to the Earth. right?
More like medical, and engineering but whatever I enjoy Star Trek as much as the next person.
On August 06 2009 17:04 Velr wrote: There is not that much point to put all our efforts into space exploration while we haven't even solved some very basic problems on earth... Seriously...
I can say that America is doing fairly well for itself and are are striving towards things to help the environment. Other than that we can only do so much. If we wait until we fix every issue on Earth then... well that will never happen. Obviously impoverished countries need to focus on that, but the future is space no matter how you look at it.
No matter what form the threat of extinction takes, space is the only way out.
Edit: And yeah, Nasa has invented crazy amounts of stuff.
On August 06 2009 17:04 Velr wrote: There is not that much point to put all our efforts into space exploration while we haven't even solved some very basic problems on earth... Seriously...
I can say that America is doing fairly well for itself and are are striving towards things to help the environment. Other than that we can only do so much. If we wait until we fix every issue on Earth then... well that will never happen. Obviously impoverished countries need to focus on that, but the future is space no matter how you look at it.
No matter what form the threat of extinction takes, space is the only way out.
Edit: And yeah, Nasa has invented crazy amounts of stuff.
The future can be our own planet if we take care of it.
On August 06 2009 17:04 Velr wrote: There is not that much point to put all our efforts into space exploration while we haven't even solved some very basic problems on earth... Seriously...
I can say that America is doing fairly well for itself and are are striving towards things to help the environment. Other than that we can only do so much. If we wait until we fix every issue on Earth then... well that will never happen. Obviously impoverished countries need to focus on that, but the future is space no matter how you look at it.
No matter what form the threat of extinction takes, space is the only way out.
Edit: And yeah, Nasa has invented crazy amounts of stuff.
The future can be our own planet if we take care of it.
i think what husky is referring to is what if we mined out our main mineral node on Earth, then our natural and 3rd also ran out of minerals. WHAT THEN!? obviously space is the answer. it's so simple! just tell Japan to tech up while Russia builds the rockets. the US will build cannons of course. Why is everyone else so stupid that husky is the only person who can think of such a plan?
This is an extremely technical area. While it is possible to have a useful discussion, I am not sure anyone here is going to gain anything significant in the way of actual scientific knowledge from reading long posts from Brood War fans banging away at their keyboards. I of course include myself in this. And members of the coast guard.
The man-made climate change model is the overwhelming consensus of the relevant parts of the scientific community.
There is a huge amount of disinformation spread, both intentionally and unintentionally, on this topic. Due to this, the Royal Society, perhaps Britain's most important and respected scientific institution, has issued a layman's guide to the many controversies. It addresses eight different misleading arguments put forward against the man-made climate change model, some of which have already reared their ugly heads in this thread, and attempts to clarify where the weight of scientific evidence lies:
"The Royal Society has produced this overview of the current state of scientific understanding of climate change to help non-experts better understand some of the debates in this complex area of science.
"This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming. Instead, the Society - as the UK's national academy of science - responds here to eight key arguments that are currently in circulation by setting out, in simple terms, where the weight of scientific evidence lies."
On August 06 2009 17:04 Velr wrote: There is not that much point to put all our efforts into space exploration while we haven't even solved some very basic problems on earth... Seriously...
I can say that America is doing fairly well for itself and are are striving towards things to help the environment. Other than that we can only do so much. If we wait until we fix every issue on Earth then... well that will never happen. Obviously impoverished countries need to focus on that, but the future is space no matter how you look at it.
No matter what form the threat of extinction takes, space is the only way out.
Edit: And yeah, Nasa has invented crazy amounts of stuff.
The future can be our own planet if we take care of it.
i think what husky is referring to is what if we mined out our main mineral node on Earth, then our natural and 3rd also ran out of minerals. WHAT THEN!? obviously space is the answer. it's so simple! just tell Japan to tech up while Russia builds the rockets. Why is everyone else so stupid that husky is the only person who can think of such a plan?
Space is the future in maybe 5 billion years when our sun explodes. Considering the scope of our universe is limited by the inability to reach the speed of light, we will more than likely be wasting this "global effort." I'm rather happy with Earth.
i think what husky is referring to is what if we mined out our main mineral node on Earth, then our natural and 3rd also ran out of minerals. WHAT THEN!? obviously space is the answer. it's so simple! just tell Japan to tech up while Russia builds the rockets. the US will build cannons of course. Why is everyone else so stupid that husky is the only person who can think of such a plan?
On August 06 2009 17:24 Polyphasic wrote: i think what husky is referring to is what if we mined out our main mineral node on Earth, then our natural and 3rd also ran out of minerals. WHAT THEN!? obviously space is the answer. it's so simple! just tell Japan to tech up while Russia builds the rockets. the US will build cannons of course. Why is everyone else so stupid that husky is the only person who can think of such a plan?
It really is sickening how hard it is to get facts about global warming. Its not a game about who wins, climate directly effects life on earth as we know it. It is truly horrible that there are people in limbo because of dollars being thrown around.
On August 06 2009 17:04 Velr wrote: There is not that much point to put all our efforts into space exploration while we haven't even solved some very basic problems on earth... Seriously...
Colonization, Resources from other planets, Asteroids.... Not to mention the development in new technologies that space exploration has already provided.
Pensionskasse, werner hans, allschwil
I don't want to say space exploration is pointless, but it's for sure not a *primary goal* yet.
We haven't even a *solid* infrastructure on our whole planet, we are not even close. We know shit about our Oceans and we know shit about the *deeper* areas of our own planet. There are soooo many ways to gather energy on earth that haven't even been nearly exploited yet and you want to go out to other planets and mine there?
In Basel was an experiment for winning energy from Earth warmth... Result? A manmade earthquake hit the city (rather strong earthquake)... They just now want to drill for Earth-Gas (and Oil, which is less unlikely) in Switzerland under the lake of Geneva (Switzerland never had any Oil/Gas or other ressources). The Antarctic continent isn't *used* at all, deep-sea mining is also not happening yet (on proper scale)...
There are SOO many possibilities on earth itself which should and could be exploited and would net results way faster than any space exploration/harvesting in a much shorter timeframe. Yes, we should explore space... But wanting to *settle* on far away worlds when we still know shit about our own planet sounds pretty stupid to me.
The problems we see coming over us in the (near) future won't be solved by space exploration - not yet, that will probably be the solution for another, much later future.
Btw: Harvesting minerals (BIG SCALE!) on another planet/asteroid/moon and bringing it to earth could long term really have a very bad impact on earth itself (weight, to make it simple).
On August 06 2009 15:22 D10 wrote: Earth has around 15 billion people capacity, but thats not the problem, the problem is when are we going to create subaquatic cities ?
I Know brazil is pretty advanced regarding deep water drilling and etc... tech, so I hope we win this race.
Um....? We have plenty of land space for easily 30 billion+ people. Take for example the US. The US only has about 5-8% developed land. Vast majority of the US 90%+ is undeveloped. Extrapolating this, at 50% developed the US alone can sustain 3.5 billion people. (350Million x 10)
With the ever increasing technology leaps in regards to desalinization, genetic manipulation, and hydroponics, etc. it is quite conceivable to even raise that to 40 billion+. By the time we reach 30 billion population we'll be traversing the stars. Limitless options abound at that point.
this is literally one of the dumbest most ignorant things i've ever heard on teamliquid. you are saying that the earth can support 5x the amount of people currently alive because there is space?
get your head out of your fucking ass for a minute and think a bit.
the oceans are literally almost all fished out. most of the natural forests are destroyed. fossil fuels are nearing depletion within our lifetime. our fucking factories are causing global warming. the top 1% of the world's population use 90% of its resources.
how do you propose we increase our population to 5x of what it is now?
You are aware I am in the Coast Guard, and one of our important functions is policing EEZ's (Exclusive Economic Zones), correct? The ocean is not "almost fished out". I'm sure you've seen the umpteen amounts of documentaries concerning crabbing, tuna runs, seals, etc. The Ocean encompasses the vast majority of land on the planet. If we haven't wiped out all forms of land based sustenance by now which comprises the tiny majority of space on Earth what makes you think that we have done that to the Oceans which are multitudes larger. The Ocean is thriving just fine. Just because a few whale species is on the endangered list does not an ocean depleted make.
Secondly, there are things called Fish farms. I'm sure you've seen them before. Quite a bit more efficient than trawling. That is going to be the future of fisheries.
Natural Forests? Whats the difference between a Natural forest and a "manufactured forest" (Ones in which we plant)? Trees are a renewable resource. Forests are not going anywhere. I mean, its not like the Amazon rainforest is 5% of its former self, or the Boreal forest is 15% of its former self, no? I'm also quite unsure what Forests have to do with the sustainability of humanity?
If our government wasn't so stubborn and didn't have such deep derision involved with the means of producing electricity we would be mostly a Nuclear powered country like France. Nuclear energy is cheap, plentiful, and in no ways going to run out anytime shortly (shortly being like 1000 years+++). By the time Fission technology is no longer feasible (haha), we'll all ready have mastered Nuclear Fusion. Fusion is unlimited in its scope. We will never have another energy need once we master Fusion.
Ah yes, Global Warming, that little thing called a theory. In which there is more evidence that disproves it than proves it. Science politicized is not science at all. I would like for you to conduct the Scientific Method on Global Warming please. The Scientific Method is the construct for science. If you cannot apply the method then you have no workable theory, period.
Isn't technology splendid?
though I appreciate your thoughtful reply, I still believe you are seriously in err in some of your points.
first off, you are making it seem as if the coast guard is an oceanic sciences team. But let's focus on the facts and ignore that no matter how cocky we are, neither your background nor mine functions as any sort of qualification to comment on the topic beyond allowing us to find facts done by people far more qualified than we are.
So here is some evidence that I'd like to bring into the conversation. this is for our (hopefully continuing to be) thoughtful discussion, and also for the benefit of tl netters who will be reading this and unfortunately but most likely, allowing their opinion on an important topic to be determined by an online forum.
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=108149 large meta-study observing global trends in line with local trends, that oceans collapse by 2050, collapse being defined as 90% depletion. keep in mind that the ocean is a large fucking place. when most of the species are gone, most of he larger lifeforms will become extinct due to starvation.
your mention of EEZ is hilarious. do you think that by patrolling one area of the ocean, you are saving the fish? fish do swim right? The ocean isn't like a pasture that you fence off. I don't know why you are getting the idea that you can protect fish by protecting one area. Are you also tying up all the fish in that area with rope so they don't swim beyond 100 miles from your designated EEZ?
not only are you wrong in your assumption that fish farming can completely replace natural fishing, it is even more fucking damning that you are assuming that a lack of food is the main problem of depleting the oceans.
forests, coal, and other fossil fuels are still the main source of energy for creating electricity. sure, we have some manufactured forests, but do you really believe that we are growing manufactured forests to completely replace the forests we are cutting down? and why are you even asking me why trees are important? First you say that the Earth should have 5x as many people because we can, then you assume that the main problem with depletion of the oceans is food scarcity, and then you ask me why we need trees. What is this, mucho money map?
before i thoroughly rape you on your conviction that global warming doesn't exist, please confirm to me that you indeed believe it doesn't exist. I find it hard to believe that you are considering the 99.9% consensus of the scientific community to be hogwash. You do know that in addition to global consensus among any climatgologist worth his salt, the UN has also conducted an exhaustive study inviting the top scientists of each country to study the subject without influence from any one country's politics or business interests. Anyways, please let me know that you want to really argue against global warming. because when i read that part, i started thinking this might actually be a waste of my time.
but I do have to agree with you on one point, being that nuclear fussion would be the ideal source of energy in the future. the only countries making reasonable strides towards it, last time i heard, was the EU, China and Japan. A Japanese scientist just a few years ago, making good progress with making fussion more efficient and possible at lower temperatures. China investing huge amounts of money in the creation of a functional prototype fussion reactor. the EU doing something similar.
Back to the point. do you really think the earth needs 5x the population it has right now? let me know also if you mean that all 30 billion people would live at the standard of the average american right now.
Anytime. Having civil discourse is always pleasant.
Let me start off with Global Warming. First off, as the link I earlier provided clearly showed you that 99% of the scientists do not in fact agree. Secondly, consensus among the scientific community means nothing. As history proves it only takes one person to disprove the collective. Therefore the number of people who share the same feelings is irrelevant. All that matters is if the theory can hold up to the evidence and the scientific method.
This is a great read, from an astrophysics Professor. In order to fully grasp the material you would have to have a Masters in a related field, however there are many articles in which he breaks it down and summarizes the gist. A great read.
Here is another great source that points to the built in bias in many governmental agencies. You have to ask yourself, how is the data measured? Well, we have instruments devised to do this, correct? Well, how do you make sure the data is accurate. This isn't certainly how you go about it.
Says Watts a retired meteorologist who conducted the surveys with 650 volunteers:
In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations–nearly 9 of every 10–fail to meet the National Weather Services’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source. In other words, 9 or every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.
If you really want to get into the nitty gritty, which I urge you to. I will debate with you Global Warming all day long. I am quite confident that the evidence suggests that Anthropogenic Global Warming is patently false and I will lay the evidence out for you to determine yourself. Lastly, on this subject I just want to point out the logical faux-pas you made. First you say that neither you or myself have any intimate knowledge basis and thus rely on professionals in the fields of study. This is correct. However, it does not mean you or I do not have any ability to comprehend the evidence. The collection of evidence is left to the Professionals and its studies. However, you then go on to say "any scientist worth his salt", in which previously you said yourself or I have no background in this field of study, so what makes you such an expert as to disqualify or qualify a scientist? I am truely intrigued.
Needs? The Earth is not a sentient being. The Earth has no needs. I am quite alarmed at the prospect that there are actually people who advocate at some point in the future forced abortions, child limitations, and god knows what else you would conceive of.
Onto the beginning of your rebuttal. The Coast Guard mans many scientific missions. We fly HC-130s over the Arctic to monitor, photograph, and conduct research. We also have 2 Polar Rollers that have science teams on board that traverse around the Arctic, Canada, and other such places. Among my colleagues its said to be the best Afloat Billet you could get, even though you are out for more than 8+ months at a time. The Coast Guard is the most diverse multi-missioned Service in the world. You can thank Alexander Hamilton for laying the groundwork on such a storied and long standing traditioned service that is 219 years old.
Yes, fish swim. However, fish have patterns and areas they stick to. Take salmon for instance. Each fish species migrating patterns are different. Some stay in a relatively small area, others follow currents to and fro. However, the area's in which commercial vessels fish in are monitored and do have regulations that need to be abided by. Who enforces those? Why the Coast Guard. We do this at every major commercial fishing location. A dead fish being dead for too long is not a product that is sellable. There are only so many commercial fishery locations to offload the product. Small time fisherman and recreational fisherman pose no threat to the sustainability of oceanic fisheries. It also doesn't behoove any fisherman to spend more money on fuel and supplies than they have to that is why they wait until the fish are at the closest to ports and harbors, thus the existence of EEZ's. To brand all fish as having large migratory patterns when its difficult to ascertain the patterns in the first place seems to point to being unsound science.
Secondly, fish are notorious for easily reproducing. This allows for easy reconstitution of large populations, which is why fish are a great source of food. This is also why Fish Farms will become very popular in the future because the profit margins are huge and the upkeep is minimal. Very much more efficient than trawling.
Just a quick sample read as to how complicated it is to actually figure out the migratory patterns.
This is another good read, as it provides a good example as to why sustainability is very much achievable. (Though, take it with some grain of salt as its only one species)
The point about fisheries is that due to the nature of fish, our exploitation of them is very much sustainable and in conjunction with increased fish farms our supply of seafood is not in any danger, factoring in a doubling of the population of the world. I would also like to point out that many of the larger species in the ocean eat phytoplankton and other such creatures which are not in any part being fished. For example Whales rely on phytoplankton which is nothing more than algae. Many other sea creatures food is sunlight; coral, seaweed, and other oceanic plants for instance. Not every sea creature is carnivorous.
I am saying that people have inalieable rights and of those is life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Population control goes against every tenant of my beliefs.
Yes, the only problem that an increased population poses would be to the resources needed for life itself. Shelter, Food, Water etc. I have addressed all three. Yes, I place humanity above wildlife if that is what you were suggesting.
On August 06 2009 17:41 keV. wrote: It really is sickening how hard it is to get facts about global warming. Its not a game about who wins, climate directly effects life on earth as we know it. It is truly horrible that there are people in limbo because of dollars being thrown around.
On August 06 2009 17:26 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: This is an extremely technical area. While it is possible to have a useful discussion, I am not sure anyone here is going to gain anything significant in the way of actual scientific knowledge from reading long posts from Brood War fans banging away at their keyboards. I of course include myself in this. And members of the coast guard.
The man-made climate change model is the overwhelming consensus of the relevant parts of the scientific community.
There is a huge amount of disinformation spread, both intentionally and unintentionally, on this topic. Due to this, the Royal Society, perhaps Britain's most important and respected scientific institution, has issued a layman's guide to the many controversies. It addresses eight different misleading arguments put forward against the man-made climate change model, some of which have already reared their ugly heads in this thread, and attempts to clarify where the weight of scientific evidence lies:
"The Royal Society has produced this overview of the current state of scientific understanding of climate change to help non-experts better understand some of the debates in this complex area of science.
"This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming. Instead, the Society - as the UK's national academy of science - responds here to eight key arguments that are currently in circulation by setting out, in simple terms, where the weight of scientific evidence lies."
On August 06 2009 17:10 Polyphasic wrote: Aegraen, I would like to hear how you would continue to argue the following points:
1- why the oceans are nowhere near depletion 2- how your little EEZ protection runs prevent fish from swimming in and out of your EEZ 3- why ocean depletion is ok 4- why Earth doesn't need trees, nor other such pesky things like coal or oil. 5- why we should even consider 30 billion population
regarding your pathetic attempt to quote the CEI, a simple google search reveals that the CEI being a not for profit organization, receive funding mainly from ExxonMobil. Connect the dots idiot.
1- your attempts to argue points 1-5, which I'm awaiting responses on more for amusement than out of serious consideration, 2- Your inability to pose even one serious point of data. the only you can come up with being seriously flawed. demonstrating that you have no ability whatsoever for quality data collection. are you completely incompetent? not only are you ignorant, you are also stupid. no offense. 3- trying to flaunt your role on the coast guard as if it somehow qualified your opinion about environment or climatology. coast guards are a branch of the military stupid. your mention of the EEZ shows that you don't even know the background reasoning behind what you are being ordered by your superiors to do.
Could you tell me, as I am curious to learn, what are the prerequisites for joining the coast guard? All that I can dig up is that you are required to have a 1000 SAT, and a 2.5 GPA. but perhaps i am missing something, perhaps you are also secretly touting a post doc in oceanography or any related field, or even anything related to objective analysis? or maybe you were one of the thousands of international experts who have committed their life to studying the topic, selected by the UN from every major country to participate in the international discussion on the topic, who have reached an unanimous consensus... but of course your little complaint went unheard, so you are voicing it on an internet forum instead?
cheers
Ah, because I don't instantly respond to your post, I'm stupid.
As to number four I said the Earth doesn't need Forests. Trees yes, forests not so much. Remember, we are talking about humanities population sustainability, not about what you would rather see Earth as.
As to number five. It is up to no one, but the father and mother to decide whether they will have a child. Unless you someday advocate a Despotic Government in which they arbitrarily decide who can, and cannot have a child and all other sorts of Orwellian speak. The Earth will even out the population numbers itself. If we cannot sustain a certain number of people then it just won't happen. You let nature take that course, not humanity. Imagine such power, you would be God for lack of a better description.
Who funds who, doesn't matter. The facts matter. I don't discredit reports that receive money from Solar Panel companies, Wind Power companies, etc. If you're going to refute the points at least do it based on evidence and facts to either prove or disprove the points, not on who funds who. If that was the case then everything in this world would be irrelevant because people fund things they typically believe in. I guess you think the CATO Institute and Ayn Rand Institute as being completely biased and non-factual because its on the opposite side of the political spectrum than you are? Would you say the same for Al Gore funding Global Warming?
I also like your tact and playbook style. Saul Alinsky seems to be in style these days.
as global society grows increasingly obsessed with death and catastrophe the fearofclimatechange and mass extinction becomes more useful in the hands of those in power than the fearofterrorism ever was.
On August 06 2009 18:18 Velr wrote: I have problems to see what the "fearofclimatechange" has brought bad to us yet...
Hmmm, creating a commodity out of mid-air that has no value. Surely, nothing bad can come of that. You know besides farmers instead of creating crops, they're doing nothing and selling off "carbon-credits" to those who have to buy them or face penalties by the Federal Government because of Global Warming. Oh, increased energy prices because of CO2 penalties and increased regulation by the Federal Government which produces higher energy costs.
Take Coal for example that supplies 52% of America's power. If Cap and Trade passed, by Barack Obama's own words:
When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal…under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gasses, coal power plants, natural gas…you name it…whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retro-fit their operations.
That will cost money…they will pass that money on to the consumers. You can already see what the arguments are going to be during the general election. People will say Obama and Al Gore …these folks...they're going to destroy the economy
No, thats not bad. Fear-mongering for more centralized power, that has never ended up badly.
And I will pre-empt you on the enivatible, but Boooosh. All I have to say on that subject is:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
So basically we have two opinons here: 1. Global Warming and all the other annoying stuff. 2. Everything's fine.
I won't even try to argue about the correctness of either. But consider the outcomes if you ignore one of the two possibilities:
Ignore number 2 and prepare for or work against Global Warming: Will cost us some resources, will be quite bothersome at times, and if there is no Global Warming at all, we just have lost a bit of our wealth.
Ignore number 1 and do as always: If Global Warming actually becomes an issue, it will hit us completely unprepared. The effects cannot really be foreseen, and possibly they will be BAD.
So, personally I'd rather be safe than sorry. No matter how wrong all those scientists might be.
I'm skeptical of this global warming thing, the earth's climate changes all the time, 100 years ago it was colder than it is now, ~1500 years ago it was considerably warmer than now, the arctic didn't have nearly as much ice about 700 years ago as it does today, and many of these pictures that supposedly show a region going from being snow covered to not are the result of deforestation. The rising water levels will apparently come from simply the expansion of the water due to heat, ice melting into it won't make a difference. But if global warming is true then perhaps they should do something a little more drastic than energy saving lightbulbs and not having plastic bags at supermarkets....because we all know that's where ALL the emissions come from.
Also I have no doubt the earth could support many more people than it does today.
It's not like when an extinction threat happens we're gonna just sit there and do nothing especially if we have people being aware of it. Because there'll bound to be paranoid people with tin foil hats and the like preparing their own self/family-preservation plans or trying to battle the threats.
The likelier way for us to go extinct is from threats that we do not expect. WE WILL SURVIVE!
What? This makes no sense. I guess the Arctic Ice Shelves are hovering in mid-air. Also, what makes your line of where the cities are accurate? Do you know the sea levels of each city?
The glass test is the best test that simulates the effects on sea levels that ice has.
I'll gladly explain. If you look at a colored world map you will notice that places like Greenland and Antarctica are colored white and there is a vary specific reason for this. They are covered with a thing called land ice, which is also what the shelf represents. You see land ice has no effect on the sea level as long as it's actually frozen, but once it melts and flows into the sea Tada! the water level rises. Sadly global warming affects land ice as well so it's probably already melting. As for sea levels: a portion of holland is in depression(sea level is below zero) and the barriers holding back the sea are man made while New York is right next to the Atlantic. But those are just examples. If you really want to know what places will be the first to get flooded do a google search.
On August 06 2009 18:49 spinesheath wrote: So basically we have two opinons here: 1. Global Warming and all the other annoying stuff. 2. Everything's fine.
I won't even try to argue about the correctness of either. But consider the outcomes if you ignore one of the two possibilities:
Ignore number 2 and prepare for or work against Global Warming: Will cost us some resources, will be quite bothersome at times, and if there is no Global Warming at all, we just have lost a bit of our wealth.
Ignore number 1 and do as always: If Global Warming actually becomes an issue, it will hit us completely unprepared. The effects cannot really be foreseen, and possibly they will be BAD.
So, personally I'd rather be safe than sorry. No matter how wrong all those scientists might be.
Your basically giving your government unlimited power. If they say, X produces CO2 and it must be eliminated then by your belief, well its ok because what if Global Warming is true? Ack.
Basically the price of every single product and good you take for granted today will skyrocket in price. It's not just about wealth, its about living standards, power of government, and creeps into every facet of life. For example, you aren't allowed to run your heat for more than 45 minutes a day in the winter to reduce CO2, so they install monitors on your home and encourage snitching by your neighbors. You think this is far-fetched? Government benevolent? Do not show such ambivalence to history.
What? This makes no sense. I guess the Arctic Ice Shelves are hovering in mid-air. Also, what makes your line of where the cities are accurate? Do you know the sea levels of each city?
The glass test is the best test that simulates the effects on sea levels that ice has.
I'll gladly explain. If you look at a colored world map you will notice that places like Greenland and Antarctica are colored white and there is a vary specific reason for this. They are covered with a thing called land ice, which is also what the shelf represents. You see land ice has no effect on the sea level as long as it's actually frozen, but once it melts and flows into the sea Tada! the water level rises. Sadly global warming affects land ice as well so it's probably already melting. As for sea levels: a portion of holland is in depression(sea level is below zero) and the barriers holding back the sea are man made while New York is right next to the Atlantic. But those are just examples. If you really want to know what places will be the first to get flooded do a google search.
Yes, I concede the point. However, you fail to account that the sea levels would drop to due ice shelves melting, however that is off-set by land ice melting and water run-off (However, remember ice melts slow and the land does absorb and use water). In any event they cancel each other.
Secondly, I question every "reading" or ice survey conducted because of things like this.
So much for the Ice Sheet melting? Try Sensor Drift...seems someone has made ANOTHER big ERROR the size of California! Arctic Sea Ice Miscalculated As Too Scant, More Abundant Than Reported Scientists now report that due to a phenomenon referred to as "sensor drift," previous reports on Arctic ice cover were too conservative. Since the error has been discovered, it has been determined there is far more ice than previously thought. Now that the problem has been identified, scientists calculate an area of sea the size of the state of California, or 193,000 square miles, is covered with ice previously unreported. The discrepancy is in part due to differing systems of reporting. The NSIDC, which interprets the data, claims this indicates a key measurement of global temperature change and notes that this finding does not invalidate research indicating that ice is retreating; errors are discovered during checks before archiving. http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=77161 Satellite Reveals Antarctica's Ice Sheet Is Getting Thicker By Amanda Onion Jan. 18, 2002 A series of troubling reports in recent years have suggested Antarctica is warming and shedding its ice shelves at an alarming rate. But a new study that used a highly precise image-snapping satellite suggests at least one prominent ice sheet — the West Antarctic Ice Sheet — is in fact getting thicker. The report, plus other work finding that desert valleys on the continent have cooled recently, appear to contradict predictions that global warming is melting the continent's massive ice reservoirs. This may seem like good news, but scientists say: Don't count on it. They warn other ice sheets continue to shrink even as this one thickens.
Oh, who am I kidding. The ice shelves are melting rapidly, we must do everything in our power. I quite like the use of sarcasm at times, do not take it personally.
On August 06 2009 19:02 jello_biafra wrote: I'm skeptical of this global warming thing, the earth's climate changes all the time, 100 years ago it was colder than it is now, ~1500 years ago it was considerably warmer than now, the arctic didn't have nearly as much ice about 700 years ago as it does today, and many of these pictures that supposedly show a region going from being snow covered to not are the result of deforestation. The rising water levels will apparently come from simply the expansion of the water due to heat, ice melting into it won't make a difference.
Japanese: U.N. Man-Made Global Warming Theory Like 'Ancient Astrology'
Wednesday, February 25, 2009 4:04 PM
By: Jim Hirsen Article Font Size
Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the United Nations’ view on man-made global warming with a report asserting that “this hypothesis has been substituted for truth.”
Three of the five researchers involved in the report disagree with the view of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that recent warming is due primarily to industrial emissions of greenhouse gases, and say it is instead driven by natural cycles.
The report was issued by the Japan Society of Energy and Resources, an academic group representing scientists from the energy and resource fields that acts as a government advisory panel. The report has been translated from the Japanese by The Register in Britain.
Kanya Kusano, Program Director for the Earth Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology, compares computer climate modeling used to support the man-made global warming theory to “ancient astrology.”
He states that the IPCC’s “conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonous increase should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis.”
Shunichi Akasofu, head of the International Arctic Research Center in Alaska, agrees: “IPCC’s theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with [carbon dioxide increases] is nothing but a hypothesis.”
Among the points made in the report:
CO2 emissions began to increase significantly after 1946 and are still rising. Therefore, according to the IPCC, global atmospheric temperatures should continue to increase. However, temperatures stopped increasing in 2001.
The global temperature increase up to today is primarily a recovery from the “Little Ice Age” that earth experienced from 1400 to 1800. This rise peaked in 2000.
Global warming and the “halting of the temperature rise are related to solar activity.”
Despite the continuing controversy and uncertainty surrounding the claims of man-made global warming, efforts to influence major climate change legislation in Washington are heating up.
An analysis by the Center for Public Integrity found that more than 770 companies and interest groups hired an estimated 2,340 lobbyists in the past year to influence federal policy.
Politico.com notes that since 2003, the number of global warming lobbyists has risen by more than 300 percent, and “Washington can now boast more than four climate lobbyists for every member of Congress.”
On August 06 2009 19:02 jello_biafra wrote: I'm skeptical of this global warming thing, the earth's climate changes all the time, 100 years ago it was colder than it is now, ~1500 years ago it was considerably warmer than now, the arctic didn't have nearly as much ice about 700 years ago as it does today, and many of these pictures that supposedly show a region going from being snow covered to not are the result of deforestation. The rising water levels will apparently come from simply the expansion of the water due to heat, ice melting into it won't make a difference.
The Evidence shows that there has been a .8C average temperature decrease, as I said earlier which negated the increase. In 10 years, it negated the previous 100. How is this possible if CO2 levels are at an all-time high. It simply cannot be. Global Warming cannot be confirmed by both an increase or decrease. That is just absurd.
Secondly, if you read the actual article they show no correlation between CO2 and increased temperatures. Saying it doesn't make it true. If increased CO2 is accountable for the increased temperature, then how do you explain a .8C decrease?
While there is evidence and proof that Solar Activity (Sun cycles / Sun spots) accounts for the fluctuations of temperature in Earth's history. You can see dips and rises correlated by Solar Activity consistently and accurately.
On August 06 2009 19:02 jello_biafra wrote: I'm skeptical of this global warming thing, the earth's climate changes all the time, 100 years ago it was colder than it is now, ~1500 years ago it was considerably warmer than now, the arctic didn't have nearly as much ice about 700 years ago as it does today, and many of these pictures that supposedly show a region going from being snow covered to not are the result of deforestation. The rising water levels will apparently come from simply the expansion of the water due to heat, ice melting into it won't make a difference.
On August 06 2009 18:18 Velr wrote: I have problems to see what the "fearofclimatechange" has brought bad to us yet...
Hmmm, creating a commodity out of mid-air that has no value. Surely, nothing bad can come of that. You know besides farmers instead of creating crops, they're doing nothing and selling off "carbon-credits" to those who have to buy them or face penalties by the Federal Government because of Global Warming. Oh, increased energy prices because of CO2 penalties and increased regulation by the Federal Government which produces higher energy costs.
Take Coal for example that supplies 52% of America's power. If Cap and Trade passed, by Barack Obama's own words:
When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal…under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gasses, coal power plants, natural gas…you name it…whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retro-fit their operations.
That will cost money…they will pass that money on to the consumers. You can already see what the arguments are going to be during the general election. People will say Obama and Al Gore …these folks...they're going to destroy the economy
No, thats not bad. Fear-mongering for more centralized power, that has never ended up badly.
And I will pre-empt you on the enivatible, but Boooosh. All I have to say on that subject is:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
These are just baseless assumptions?
I could also say that these new *penaltys* enforce faster technological development which is good and gives opportunities to an unknown amount of chances for new products.
But we won't agree, probably on anything ever. I liked your first few post in this tread, after that you drifted farer and farer away from my point.
On August 06 2009 17:41 keV. wrote: It really is sickening how hard it is to get facts about global warming. Its not a game about who wins, climate directly effects life on earth as we know it. It is truly horrible that there are people in limbo because of dollars being thrown around.
On August 06 2009 17:26 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: This is an extremely technical area. While it is possible to have a useful discussion, I am not sure anyone here is going to gain anything significant in the way of actual scientific knowledge from reading long posts from Brood War fans banging away at their keyboards. I of course include myself in this. And members of the coast guard.
The man-made climate change model is the overwhelming consensus of the relevant parts of the scientific community.
There is a huge amount of disinformation spread, both intentionally and unintentionally, on this topic. Due to this, the Royal Society, perhaps Britain's most important and respected scientific institution, has issued a layman's guide to the many controversies. It addresses eight different misleading arguments put forward against the man-made climate change model, some of which have already reared their ugly heads in this thread, and attempts to clarify where the weight of scientific evidence lies:
"The Royal Society has produced this overview of the current state of scientific understanding of climate change to help non-experts better understand some of the debates in this complex area of science.
"This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming. Instead, the Society - as the UK's national academy of science - responds here to eight key arguments that are currently in circulation by setting out, in simple terms, where the weight of scientific evidence lies."
I was speaking in generalities but thank you for flaming me.
I was referring to the way liberals blow it out of proportion and conservatives pretend that nothing at all is happening. Why would I want to start an argument with a nerd like you, you cant win against your type.
"before i thoroughly rape you on your conviction that global warming doesn't exist"
On August 06 2009 15:22 D10 wrote: Earth has around 15 billion people capacity, but thats not the problem, the problem is when are we going to create subaquatic cities ?
I Know brazil is pretty advanced regarding deep water drilling and etc... tech, so I hope we win this race.
Um....? We have plenty of land space for easily 30 billion+ people. Take for example the US. The US only has about 5-8% developed land. Vast majority of the US 90%+ is undeveloped. Extrapolating this, at 50% developed the US alone can sustain 3.5 billion people. (350Million x 10)
With the ever increasing technology leaps in regards to desalinization, genetic manipulation, and hydroponics, etc. it is quite conceivable to even raise that to 40 billion+. By the time we reach 30 billion population we'll be traversing the stars. Limitless options abound at that point.
this is literally one of the dumbest most ignorant things i've ever heard on teamliquid. you are saying that the earth can support 5x the amount of people currently alive because there is space?
get your head out of your fucking ass for a minute and think a bit.
the oceans are literally almost all fished out. most of the natural forests are destroyed. fossil fuels are nearing depletion within our lifetime. our fucking factories are causing global warming. the top 1% of the world's population use 90% of its resources.
how do you propose we increase our population to 5x of what it is now?
By stop being such fucking idiots. All the arguments you just lined up are caused by human stupidity.
I think we should shut the fuck up. I find it insane that you can even hope to debate these issues with so little background. You "disprove" the claim about bacterial infection causing extinction with a one line argument to the effect of "hydrogen sulfide doesn't cover the ocean floor". A scientist who is respected enough to be invited to one of the biggest conferences of the year has put his reputation on the line to make a hypothesis based on potentially years of research. And you think your incredibly naive reasoning that took 0 education and 5 seconds can have a part to play in the debate? Same with all your arguments about global warming. Do any of you have the qualifications to engage in the scientific debate regarding this? Could any of you produce research that would be published in a respected paper within the field? If not, why are you bothering to debate this? Why are you continuing with your juvenile arguments against netizens who will not give up their firmly rooted ideologies at pain of death? Thankfully the people who actually make things happen speak to scientists as opposed to political pundits on the TL General forums. I hope so anyway.
We do it for fun? And actually, in the end, after most of these treads you are a tiny little bit smarter or at least know some other *views* no matter how strongly you disagree with them.
Thats enough reason for me to read and occasionally post in such treads...
On August 06 2009 23:01 searcher wrote: I think we should shut the fuck up. I find it insane that you can even hope to debate these issues with so little background. You "disprove" the claim about bacterial infection causing extinction with a one line argument to the effect of "hydrogen sulfide doesn't cover the ocean floor". A scientist who is respected enough to be invited to one of the biggest conferences of the year has put his reputation on the line to make a hypothesis based on potentially years of research. And you think your incredibly naive reasoning that took 0 education and 5 seconds can have a part to play in the debate? Same with all your arguments about global warming. Do any of you have the qualifications to engage in the scientific debate regarding this? Could any of you produce research that would be published in a respected paper within the field? If not, why are you bothering to debate this? Why are you continuing with your juvenile arguments against netizens who will not give up their firmly rooted ideologies at pain of death? Thankfully the people who actually make things happen speak to scientists as opposed to political pundits on the TL General forums. I hope so anyway.
Look, if the Bubonic plague couldn't kill humanity off in the best of conditions for such an occurence, what makes you think a bacterial infection can wipe out 90% of the species on Earth when everything modern science tells us this is impossible. How many bacteria and virus do you know that is deadly to every species? There are none, period. It simply can't happen. You don't have to be a geneticist to know this.
Per your expertly and eloquently crafted thesis that you have to be in the actual field of study to even debate the issues is baseless. For one, I'm not the one formulating the scientific processes. I am merely comprehending and citing studies, sources, and other information that other scientists and persons have concluded. For example, it doesn't take a scientist to understand the pre-requisites to a proper siting station. Any schlub can count distance, it isn't that difficult.
Lastly, you don't need a PhD. to understand the theories and conclude based on evidence presented whether a theory holds up to the rigors of the scientific method. When the hypothesis is that increasing CO2 levels based on humanities consumption of fossil fuels is a direct correlative of increasing temperatures, and temperatures have been on the decline for the past 9-10 years you don't think you ought to take a step back and say, that theory has been debunked. Especially when the IPCC comes out and says that temperatures will be ever increasing if we continue to use Fossil Fuels, and as of now the usage is at an all-time high, yet the temperature is not increasing. Holy fuck, I didn't know I needed a PhD to understand that. Thanks for the insight. Truely beneficial.
On August 06 2009 23:01 searcher wrote: I think we should shut the fuck up. I find it insane that you can even hope to debate these issues with so little background. You "disprove" the claim about bacterial infection causing extinction with a one line argument to the effect of "hydrogen sulfide doesn't cover the ocean floor". A scientist who is respected enough to be invited to one of the biggest conferences of the year has put his reputation on the line to make a hypothesis based on potentially years of research. And you think your incredibly naive reasoning that took 0 education and 5 seconds can have a part to play in the debate? Same with all your arguments about global warming. Do any of you have the qualifications to engage in the scientific debate regarding this? Could any of you produce research that would be published in a respected paper within the field? If not, why are you bothering to debate this? Why are you continuing with your juvenile arguments against netizens who will not give up their firmly rooted ideologies at pain of death? Thankfully the people who actually make things happen speak to scientists as opposed to political pundits on the TL General forums. I hope so anyway.
Bu- bu- but arguing on the internet is what it's all about! Have you not read the comments sections of news articles? At least TL people do it civilly and on topic (most of the time). I tried reading through this thread but gave up after the same posts over and over - "We can survive!" "We are fucked!" , repeat. But hey, that's just me, they're having fun so I say let them have it.
I agree that it's good to know that rhetoric and arguments don't actually lead to any real action that affects what said argument is about. However, it's good to hear both sides of a debate - a trait lacking in many politicians (decision makers) these days.
On August 06 2009 15:40 Aegraen wrote: You do know that Ice shelves and other constructs like icebergs disperse water, thereby increasing the sea level correct?
.. yeah, whatever..
On August 06 2009 15:40 Aegraen wrote: You have heard of desalinization correct?
.... definitely, how could i not?..
On August 06 2009 16:04 Aegraen wrote: You are aware I am in the Coast Guard, and one of our important functions is policing EEZ's (Exclusive Economic Zones), correct?
I really enjoyed reading this thread. I used to think opposition to "anthropogenic" Global Warming was hogwash, but Aegrean has persuaded me that I'll need to dig deeper before concluding such.
On August 06 2009 19:11 Aegraen wrote: Yes, I concede the point. However, you fail to account that the sea levels would drop to due ice shelves melting, however that is off-set by land ice melting and water run-off (However, remember ice melts slow and the land does absorb and use water). In any event they cancel each other.
sad they just cancel each other land ice doesnt win cuz.. land sucks up the water.. and after all the calculations.. it cancels each other out anyways
On August 06 2009 15:02 Aegraen wrote: We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
On August 06 2009 23:29 Aegraen wrote: Look, if the Bubonic plague couldn't kill humanity off in the best of conditions for such an occurence, what makes you think a bacterial infection can wipe out 90% of the species on Earth when everything modern science tells us this is impossible. How many bacteria and virus do you know that is deadly to every species? There are none, period. It simply can't happen. You don't have to be a geneticist to know this.
On August 06 2009 15:40 Aegraen wrote: You do know that Ice shelves and other constructs like icebergs disperse water, thereby increasing the sea level correct?
On August 06 2009 16:04 Aegraen wrote: You are aware I am in the Coast Guard, and one of our important functions is policing EEZ's (Exclusive Economic Zones), correct?
WHAT THE FUCK?
the way you post is so incredibly annoying LOL
I lol'd. I dont read, or even skim, any of his posts that start so condescending.
sooner or later,, the world will be unsustainable.. even now there are people dying of hunger and lack basic necessities such as clean water. money might be useless in the future..
On August 06 2009 15:02 Aegraen wrote: We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
Cause Earth can easily support another 6-7 billion people.
Yes, it can.
Maybe if those 6 or 7 billion live like the poorest Africans.
But if we are talking about living the American way, i doubt the Earth could sustain even one billion more people.
What would be the point of having 15 billion humans on Earth if 60% of the live below the absolute poverty line?, there would just be more suffering and wars, and as an extra we would put a massive burden in the Earth's resources.
On August 06 2009 15:02 Aegraen wrote: We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
Cause Earth can easily support another 6-7 billion people.
Yes, it can.
Maybe if those 6 or 7 billion live like the poorest Africans.
But if we are talking about living the American way, i doubt the Earth could sustain even one billion more people.
What would be the point of having 15 billion humans on Earth if 60% of the live below the absolute poverty line?, there would just be more suffering and wars, and as an extra we would put a massive burden in the Earth's resources.
On August 06 2009 15:29 Aegraen wrote: Um....? We have plenty of land space for easily 30 billion+ people. Take for example the US. The US only has about 5-8% developed land. Vast majority of the US 90%+ is undeveloped. Extrapolating this, at 50% developed the US alone can sustain 3.5 billion people. (350Million x 10)
With the ever increasing technology leaps in regards to desalinization, genetic manipulation, and hydroponics, etc. it is quite conceivable to even raise that to 40 billion+. By the time we reach 30 billion population we'll be traversing the stars. Limitless options abound at that point.
How is this quote not getting any love, this is seriously the best post this year
On August 06 2009 15:29 Aegraen wrote: The US only has about 5-8% developed land. Vast majority of the US 90%+ is undeveloped. Extrapolating this, at 50% developed the US alone can sustain 3.5 billion people. (350Million x 10)
You may not have considered this but the bits of land which people have chosen not to farm/mine/develop have less potential than the bits that they have decided to develop. People start by developing the most profitable bits of land and then move down the scale. You can't just take the best bits of land and multiply them by the total. What you've done is comparable to taking the example of oil in Texas, saying Texas is only one of fifty states, then declaring the US energy fears over because the US now has 50x the oil it thought it did.
There's a town in Britain supported by the income from tin mines. There are thousands of towns in Britain, ergo Britain could produce the worlds entire supply of tin.
Majority of people in Egypt live a small strip of land by the Nile. Not many people live in the desert. Ergo Egypt could easily have 10x the population it does now.
On August 06 2009 17:26 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: This is an extremely technical area. While it is possible to have a useful discussion, I am not sure anyone here is going to gain anything significant in the way of actual scientific knowledge from reading long posts from Brood War fans banging away at their keyboards. I of course include myself in this. And members of the coast guard.
The man-made climate change model is the overwhelming consensus of the relevant parts of the scientific community.
There is a huge amount of disinformation spread, both intentionally and unintentionally, on this topic. Due to this, the Royal Society, perhaps Britain's most important and respected scientific institution, has issued a layman's guide to the many controversies. It addresses eight different misleading arguments put forward against the man-made climate change model, some of which have already reared their ugly heads in this thread, and attempts to clarify where the weight of scientific evidence lies:
"The Royal Society has produced this overview of the current state of scientific understanding of climate change to help non-experts better understand some of the debates in this complex area of science.
"This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming. Instead, the Society - as the UK's national academy of science - responds here to eight key arguments that are currently in circulation by setting out, in simple terms, where the weight of scientific evidence lies."
CEI Files EPA’s Own Suppressed Report, Demands EPA Global Warming Proceeding Be Reopened
Public Should Have Right to Review, Comment on Gov’t Report
Washington, D.C., June 30, 2009—The Competitive Enterprise Institute today is demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency allow public comment on an internal global warming report that the agency itself suppressed.
CEI is submitting the report to the EPA and formally requesting that EPA re-open the comment period on its so-called “endangerment proceeding,” so the public can comment on both the report and on EPA’s conduct. EPA’s official comment period ended June 23.
Today’s actions follow CEI’s release of internal EPA emails a week ago that demonstrated the agency cover-up, followed by a draft version of the report released last Thursday. A day later, the author of the report was given permission by the agency to release the final report but only on his own website.
“EPA sits on this report for over three months, and then only allows it to be made public on the author’s personal website,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman. “The fact that we have to formally re-file it with the agency indicates how unreal this situation is.”
The report criticizes the agency’s proposal to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. It concludes that EPA is relying on outdated research and is ignoring major new developments. Those developments include a continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that future hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense, and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature. It finds that ocean cycles are probably the most important single factor in explaining temperature fluctuations.
VIEW THE FINAL EPA INTERNAL REPORT VIEW THE DRAFT REPORT VISIT THE AUTHOR’S WEBSITE VIEW CEI’S REQUEST TO EPA READ CEI’S JUNE 18 PUBLIC COMMENT TO EPA ON ENDANGERMENT FINDING
You can draw your own conclusions from these various sources.
Read that article but be informed where its coming from at least cei is a libertarian "think tank" off wiki "Past and present funders include the Scaife Foundations, Exxon Mobil the Ford Motor Company Fund, Pfizer, and the Earhart Foundation"
Author Bio Christine Hall is director of communications at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Prior to joining CEI, Ms. Hall was a reporter with CNS News, where she focused on economic and political reporting. Ms. Hall also served as a policy analyst for Steve Forbes's 2000 presidential campaign, a social security policy analyst for former Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.), and editor of the Seniors Coalition Advocate magazine. She holds a Juris Master from George Mason University School of Law and an undergraduate degree in history from George Mason University.
Okay, the post deriving carrying capacity based on inhabited land area was outlandish, comical, and reminiscent of http://xkcd.com/605/ . The rest of his posts aren't entirely unreasonable. It's disappointing that all TL decides to field in response is a host of parodies and amusements.
On August 07 2009 02:10 EchOne wrote: Okay, the post deriving carrying capacity based on inhabited land area was outlandish, comical, and reminiscent of http://xkcd.com/605/ . The rest of his posts aren't entirely unreasonable. It's disappointing that all TL decides to field in response is a host of parodies and amusements.
"Just because some of the arguments he passionately puts forward are laughably stupid doesn't mean we should think less of his judgement."
When he genuinely put forward that argument which you agree with outlandish and comical as something he believed to not only be true but a well thought out argument that pretty much discounts him from being taken seriously.
On August 06 2009 18:49 spinesheath wrote: So basically we have two opinons here: 1. Global Warming and all the other annoying stuff. 2. Everything's fine.
I won't even try to argue about the correctness of either. But consider the outcomes if you ignore one of the two possibilities:
Ignore number 2 and prepare for or work against Global Warming: Will cost us some resources, will be quite bothersome at times, and if there is no Global Warming at all, we just have lost a bit of our wealth.
Ignore number 1 and do as always: If Global Warming actually becomes an issue, it will hit us completely unprepared. The effects cannot really be foreseen, and possibly they will be BAD.
So, personally I'd rather be safe than sorry. No matter how wrong all those scientists might be.
Your basically giving your government unlimited power. If they say, X produces CO2 and it must be eliminated then by your belief, well its ok because what if Global Warming is true? Ack.
Basically the price of every single product and good you take for granted today will skyrocket in price. It's not just about wealth, its about living standards, power of government, and creeps into every facet of life. For example, you aren't allowed to run your heat for more than 45 minutes a day in the winter to reduce CO2, so they install monitors on your home and encourage snitching by your neighbors. You think this is far-fetched? Government benevolent? Do not show such ambivalence to history.
Just a few things to think about.
Did I say anything about any kind of government? No. I only said that I would want to be prepared. HOW to prepare is a different issue, and your version of a government with unlimited power may be the only possibility you can imagine, but I doubt everyone has such a limited view.
Don't expect me to carry on that discussion, though. I generally don't like arguing with people that put words in other's mouths and ignore whatever they actually were talking about.
Yes, I concede the point. However, you fail to account that the sea levels would drop to due ice shelves melting, however that is off-set by land ice melting and water run-off (However, remember ice melts slow and the land does absorb and use water). In any event they cancel each other.
Secondly, I question every "reading" or ice survey conducted because of things like this.
If sea ice melts the water level stays the same. On the "how fast is the ice melting note" though it should be noted that the process of ice melting is autocatalytic because ice reflects most of the sun energy that hits it's surface while water absorbs most of the sun energy that hits it's surface. This affects sea ice more than it does land ice. However, as little pools of water start to form on top of land ice they start to melt the ice around it and below it, essentially forming tunnels in the ice that go from top to bottom. This accelerates the process of land ice flowing into the ocean where is becomes sea ice and melts even faster.
Since I haven't posted on anything else in this thread I'd just like to calm some nerves by linking this Carlin video.
He then links this with another interesting phenomenon involving hydrogen sulfide, and how it occurs naturally on the planet earth; hypothesising that it starts off as sediment at the floor of the ocean and sporadically rises up every age or so to the top of the ocean, causing a chain reaction which affects all life on earth--good or bad; then talks about how it will affect us.
This I can almost assuredly call BS. My professor was asked if this phenomenon poses any real threat and he replied that the amount isn't enough. If you were to blow a hydrogen bomb in the bottom of the ocean, it still wouldn't be enough to trigger a chain reaction, much less all of it spontaneously rise up out of nowhere and be separated in such a way that the chain affects the entire globe, which is HIGHLY improbable due to its low amount.
The real answer to the OP is a nuclear winter from Pakistan vs. India. The whole world won't be wiped out, but they could probably take down 80% of the population with their small-mid sized arsenals.
Global warming is moot because this will happen first!
I see many people are mis informed about this video.
The guy on the video is arguing about the Permian extinction, not the KT extinction. KT extinction has hard geological proof that it was cause by impact. But permian extinction (the one that killed like 99% of life on earth) does not have a layer of rock world wide like the KT extinction event has.
Secondly, When he argue bacteria are the cause of the extinction, he didn't mean bacteria infection on individual organisms. He meant bacterias created H2S world wide and killed off all organisms. He support his theory with evidence on different fronts both geologically, and biologically.
First biologically, He found evidence on every mammal's cells, including human have a adaptive system when our cells are exposed to large among of H2S. Which indicated that since we all come from the same origin life form, this adaptive system to H2S is encoded in our DNA, which suggested that our ancestors back some hundreds of millions years ago have exposed to H2S and only those with this gene survived and passed this H2S adaptive gene down to all the existing mammals.
2nd geologically, He found records of H2S in Rock layers that are dated around the end of Permian (Permian extinction), also when he fit the that data graph into the data graph of CO2, and sea level, and Ice level in the same time X-axis ( in order to make correlations, BUT NOT causation), He found that every time we have High amount of H2S record, we have high CO2 record, and high sea level, no ice. Which suggests that the temperature of earth were very hot.
On August 06 2009 15:02 Aegraen wrote: We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
Cause Earth can easily support another 6-7 billion people.
Yes, it can.
I doubt it. The fact that there are already water, and food crisis right now and the fact that Humans are already stripping resources at a enormous rate, not to mention pollution. And if a warmer earth is apparently good for Humanity I find it hard to imagine where the hell were gonna put the population boom with the rising sea levels it would produce. It may have been good in the past but not the future.
I guess Aegraen is saying that in theory and under perfect circumstances earth could hold that amount of additional humans. However, we fuck up the environment and there are HUGE class issues between different countries, which makes it pretty unlikely in reality.
On August 06 2009 15:02 Aegraen wrote: We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
i agree with everything except for the warmer comment.
global warming isn't about climate becoming warmer. it's about the intensities o
f the climate becoming more intense, with the average being warmer.
How do these intensities become more intense? There is no physical mechanism that would account for that, even IF we could fully understand the complexities of global climate. Which we can't. TBQH, that just sounds like something someone made up to scare ppl.
tulkas, you are mis-understanding me. i'm not saying this from my own opinion, logic, or deduction. this information is readily available from credible scientific researches that have been performed and are accepted by 99.9% of the scientific community. The other .1% are the bastards getting bribed by big oil companies trying to make it seem like the scientific community is unsure.
Oh, you mean there are more scientists than population in the US? Thats news to me.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/reports/skeptics.html Area of Expertise: Dubbed by Business Week "the granddaddy of global-warming skeptics" in 2000, Dr. Seitz is a physicist who served as the president of the National Academy of Science during the 1960s and of Rockefeller University from 1968 to 1978. In 1973, he received the National Medal of Science.
From the late 1970s to the late 1980s, Seitz worked as a paid consultant to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. Hot Politics editorial consultant Mark Hertsgaard reported in Vanity Fair that helped the cigarette maker distribute $45 million for scientific research, which the company then touted in its advertising. Seitz himself eventually made over $585,000 during the approximately ten years that he worked for the tobacco industry.
In the 1990s, Dr. Seitz began publishing opinion pieces dismissing the dangers of global warming. In 1998, he circulated a petition through the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying that carbon dioxide poses no threat to climate and rejecting the Kyoto Protocol. Seitz was also a signatory of the 1995 Leipzig Declaration, which disputed that there was any scientific agreement about climate change.
Affiliations & Funding: Among the several skeptical organizations with which Dr. Seitz has been affiliated, he has been Chairman Emeritus of the George C. Marshall Institute, which received $630,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005, according to the Greenpeace's Exxonsecrets.org and a review Exxon's financial documents. Seitz also served on the Board of Academic and Scientific Advisors for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which received $472,000 from Exxon from 1998 to 2005, according to the same sources.
Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.
The findings appear today in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.
In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.
I don't think population density is as much of an issue.
We'll certainly have solvable methods for it, we already do? Aegrean is definitely right about that. And about Fission/Fusion.
I'll leave the rest to the debate. Either way, people simply agreeing with the majority because it's the majority without much knowledge or research of any evidence means that you are basically absorbed by propaganda. Not fun.
I definitely would commend Aegrean for showing the people here, whether he is right or not, that most people don't know enough to make a claim either way. haha
On August 06 2009 15:02 Aegraen wrote: We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
i agree with everything except for the warmer comment.
global warming isn't about climate becoming warmer. it's about the intensities o
f the climate becoming more intense, with the average being warmer.
How do these intensities become more intense? There is no physical mechanism that would account for that, even IF we could fully understand the complexities of global climate. Which we can't. TBQH, that just sounds like something someone made up to scare ppl.
tulkas, you are mis-understanding me. i'm not saying this from my own opinion, logic, or deduction. this information is readily available from credible scientific researches that have been performed and are accepted by 99.9% of the scientific community. The other .1% are the bastards getting bribed by big oil companies trying to make it seem like the scientific community is unsure.
Oh, you mean there are more scientists than population in the US? Thats news to me.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/reports/skeptics.html Area of Expertise: Dubbed by Business Week "the granddaddy of global-warming skeptics" in 2000, Dr. Seitz is a physicist who served as the president of the National Academy of Science during the 1960s and of Rockefeller University from 1968 to 1978. In 1973, he received the National Medal of Science.
From the late 1970s to the late 1980s, Seitz worked as a paid consultant to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. Hot Politics editorial consultant Mark Hertsgaard reported in Vanity Fair that helped the cigarette maker distribute $45 million for scientific research, which the company then touted in its advertising. Seitz himself eventually made over $585,000 during the approximately ten years that he worked for the tobacco industry.
In the 1990s, Dr. Seitz began publishing opinion pieces dismissing the dangers of global warming. In 1998, he circulated a petition through the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying that carbon dioxide poses no threat to climate and rejecting the Kyoto Protocol. Seitz was also a signatory of the 1995 Leipzig Declaration, which disputed that there was any scientific agreement about climate change.
Affiliations & Funding: Among the several skeptical organizations with which Dr. Seitz has been affiliated, he has been Chairman Emeritus of the George C. Marshall Institute, which received $630,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005, according to the Greenpeace's Exxonsecrets.org and a review Exxon's financial documents. Seitz also served on the Board of Academic and Scientific Advisors for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which received $472,000 from Exxon from 1998 to 2005, according to the same sources.
Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.
The findings appear today in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.
In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.
From the other side, it's worth remembering that climatologist assholes like James Hanson are not authorities on global warming either. Their models are flawed at best, and more likely useless because they fail to account for the vast majority of variables and look down upon every other discipline but their own. Notice how that list doesn't even touch on areas of biology or geology, when both of those fields should be on the forefront of every discussion about global warming. For Hansen (who is essentially the leading global warming advocate atm), those fields don't exist.
Believing in current data is one thing, but I wouldn't put too much trust in the predictions/models from either side.
On August 07 2009 02:10 EchOne wrote: Okay, the post deriving carrying capacity based on inhabited land area was outlandish, comical, and reminiscent of http://xkcd.com/605/ . The rest of his posts aren't entirely unreasonable. It's disappointing that all TL decides to field in response is a host of parodies and amusements.
"Just because some of the arguments he passionately puts forward are laughably stupid doesn't mean we should think less of his judgement."
When he genuinely put forward that argument which you agree with outlandish and comical as something he believed to not only be true but a well thought out argument that pretty much discounts him from being taken seriously.
I believe theism is strange, unjustified, and really somewhat amusing, but there's no way someone's belief in it would cloud my judgment of their arguments. One argument is not literally another just because it is expressed by the same speaker.
I agree with the advice that one should separate the argument with the arguer. I hope you do too.
Inference on someone's judgments based on another of his judgments that is unrelated relies on the assumption that they are consistent. It may be convenient for people to hold consistent beliefs, but it is in no way guaranteed or even provable to be common. Of course, if you feel one argument's premises or conclusions directly relate to how another should play out, the story is different.
On August 07 2009 03:46 rei wrote: I see many people are mis informed about this video.
The guy on the video is arguing about the Permian extinction, not the KT extinction. KT extinction has hard geological proof that it was cause by impact. But permian extinction (the one that killed like 99% of life on earth) does not have a layer of rock world wide like the KT extinction event has.
Secondly, When he argue bacteria are the cause of the extinction, he didn't mean bacteria infection on individual organisms. He meant bacterias created H2S world wide and killed off all organisms. He support his theory with evidence on different fronts both geologically, and biologically.
First biologically, He found evidence on every mammal's cells, including human have a adaptive system when our cells are exposed to large among of H2S. Which indicated that since we all come from the same origin life form, this adaptive system to H2S is encoded in our DNA, which suggested that our ancestors back some hundreds of millions years ago have exposed to H2S and only those with this gene survived and passed this H2S adaptive gene down to all the existing mammals.
2nd geologically, He found records of H2S in Rock layers that are dated around the end of Permian (Permian extinction), also when he fit the that data graph into the data graph of CO2, and sea level, and Ice level in the same time X-axis ( in order to make correlations, BUT NOT causation), He found that every time we have High amount of H2S record, we have high CO2 record, and high sea level, no ice. Which suggests that the temperature of earth were very hot.
See this is where one finally realizes that these scientists who put their reputations at stake by presenting such a "theory" are not easily refuted by know-it-all-netizens. lol
On August 07 2009 02:10 EchOne wrote: Okay, the post deriving carrying capacity based on inhabited land area was outlandish, comical, and reminiscent of http://xkcd.com/605/ . The rest of his posts aren't entirely unreasonable. It's disappointing that all TL decides to field in response is a host of parodies and amusements.
"Just because some of the arguments he passionately puts forward are laughably stupid doesn't mean we should think less of his judgement."
When he genuinely put forward that argument which you agree with outlandish and comical as something he believed to not only be true but a well thought out argument that pretty much discounts him from being taken seriously.
I believe theism is strange, unjustified, and really somewhat amusing, but there's no way someone's belief in it would cloud my judgment of their arguments. One argument is not literally another just because it is expressed by the same speaker.
I agree with the advice that one should separate the argument with the arguer. I hope you do too.
Inference on someone's judgments based on another of his judgments that is unrelated relies on the assumption that they are consistent. It may be convenient for people to hold consistent beliefs, but it is in no way guaranteed or even provable to be common. Of course, if you feel one argument's premises or conclusions directly relate to how another should play out, the story is different.
You have a good point not to pre-judge someone's opinion, but there is a limit. If I read person x's first 100 posts, and every single one of them represents a laughably stupid opinion, then I'm not even going to seriously consider his opinion anymore without a specific reason. Some people on tl go over the threshold.
On August 07 2009 03:46 rei wrote: I see many people are mis informed about this video.
The guy on the video is arguing about the Permian extinction, not the KT extinction. KT extinction has hard geological proof that it was cause by impact. But permian extinction (the one that killed like 99% of life on earth) does not have a layer of rock world wide like the KT extinction event has.
Secondly, When he argue bacteria are the cause of the extinction, he didn't mean bacteria infection on individual organisms. He meant bacterias created H2S world wide and killed off all organisms. He support his theory with evidence on different fronts both geologically, and biologically.
First biologically, He found evidence on every mammal's cells, including human have a adaptive system when our cells are exposed to large among of H2S. Which indicated that since we all come from the same origin life form, this adaptive system to H2S is encoded in our DNA, which suggested that our ancestors back some hundreds of millions years ago have exposed to H2S and only those with this gene survived and passed this H2S adaptive gene down to all the existing mammals.
2nd geologically, He found records of H2S in Rock layers that are dated around the end of Permian (Permian extinction), also when he fit the that data graph into the data graph of CO2, and sea level, and Ice level in the same time X-axis ( in order to make correlations, BUT NOT causation), He found that every time we have High amount of H2S record, we have high CO2 record, and high sea level, no ice. Which suggests that the temperature of earth were very hot.
Without going into the whole climate change debate, I just want to back this up a bit by saying that the first real mass extinction actually happened about 3 billion years ago and was actually caused by Oxygen. As most probably now, there are still organisms alive now that consider O2 poisonous (I can't think of a better word at the moment), but back then the earth was mostly populated by them and most of them got extinct when the organisms that produce O2 started populating the earth.
As for the whole climate change debate (here I go anyway), for every scientific articly stating that it is not true there are at least 10 that provide evidence that it is true. Is it as bad as Al Gore wants us to believe? Most probably not, but denying the impact humans and the industrial revolution have on earth is just kidding yourself.
Besides that, the public debate on global warming has become far too poluted by opinions stated by people like Al Gore (the extremists, who have to pretend the worst possible scenario to release research funds etc.) or companies that have a lot invested in things staying the way things currently are (oil based economy etc.). I can't really go into discussion there though because my knowledge is heavily lacking in this departement.
On August 07 2009 03:46 rei wrote: I see many people are mis informed about this video.
The guy on the video is arguing about the Permian extinction, not the KT extinction. KT extinction has hard geological proof that it was cause by impact. But permian extinction (the one that killed like 99% of life on earth) does not have a layer of rock world wide like the KT extinction event has.
Secondly, When he argue bacteria are the cause of the extinction, he didn't mean bacteria infection on individual organisms. He meant bacterias created H2S world wide and killed off all organisms. He support his theory with evidence on different fronts both geologically, and biologically.
First biologically, He found evidence on every mammal's cells, including human have a adaptive system when our cells are exposed to large among of H2S. Which indicated that since we all come from the same origin life form, this adaptive system to H2S is encoded in our DNA, which suggested that our ancestors back some hundreds of millions years ago have exposed to H2S and only those with this gene survived and passed this H2S adaptive gene down to all the existing mammals.
2nd geologically, He found records of H2S in Rock layers that are dated around the end of Permian (Permian extinction), also when he fit the that data graph into the data graph of CO2, and sea level, and Ice level in the same time X-axis ( in order to make correlations, BUT NOT causation), He found that every time we have High amount of H2S record, we have high CO2 record, and high sea level, no ice. Which suggests that the temperature of earth were very hot.
See this is where one finally realizes that these scientists who put their reputations at stake by presenting such a "theory" are not easily refuted by know-it-all-netizens. lol
It is hard, people wants to engage in this discussion, but in the same time the knowledge this video talks about is out of their perception.
On August 07 2009 04:48 Lenwe wrote:
Without going into the whole climate change debate, I just want to back this up a bit by saying that the first real mass extinction actually happened about 3 billion years ago and was actually caused by Oxygen. As most probably now, there are still organisms alive now that consider O2 poisonous (I can't think of a better word at the moment), but back then the earth was mostly populated by them and most of them got extinct when the organisms that produce O2 started populating the earth.
On August 07 2009 05:16 Eniram wrote: This is so speculative its not even worth discussing imo
It's more like it's so out of the general areas of expertise that unless you really research it you don't know if hes got a valid point.
Global Warming, on the other hand, everybody and their moms are an expert. I mean, just "look outside," right? It's is cooler in Memphis this summer, afterall.
On August 06 2009 15:29 Aegraen wrote: The US only has about 5-8% developed land. Vast majority of the US 90%+ is undeveloped. Extrapolating this, at 50% developed the US alone can sustain 3.5 billion people. (350Million x 10)
You may not have considered this but the bits of land which people have chosen not to farm/mine/develop have less potential than the bits that they have decided to develop. People start by developing the most profitable bits of land and then move down the scale. You can't just take the best bits of land and multiply them by the total. What you've done is comparable to taking the example of oil in Texas, saying Texas is only one of fifty states, then declaring the US energy fears over because the US now has 50x the oil it thought it did.
Actually, most of the undeveloped land is undeveloped because of Government intervention and not allowing any development. Take Alaska, which is 60% federal land. The hoops you have to jump through to even start the process to obtain the rights to develop on that land is enormous and not even worth the effort. On top of that, the other %'s of land are either Federal reserves, Parks, and other such Federal property. That land is not less palatable for human existence and sustenance. The fact is, the Government decides not to allow anyone to develop on it. Take away the Governments grip on these land barriers and look at that, you open up a vast host of possibilities.
Secondly, just take for example the west coast of Florida ranging from Tampa to Pensacola. 25 Years ago that stretch of land was hardly built up. Some of it was swampy, but most of it just undeveloped. It wasn't undeveloped because it was less habitable, but because there was no market, no need. Now with Florida's explosion of growth suddenly it becomes a market, desirable, and guess what? It is now one of the most built up stretches of Florida. This is just one example upon many that shatter your notion that because the land is yet developed that it is somehow a barren wasteland incapable of sustaining human lives. I'm not sure how you went to those lengths.
The real answer to the OP is china reaching first world life standards with equivalent impact and consumption, which would put us over the phototrophic limit.
On August 07 2009 01:50 RaGe wrote: Don't try to argue with him, it's pointless.
You were right. I typed out a response but realised against his wall of constitution, founding fathers wishes and federal government intervention it just wouldn't get through.
On August 07 2009 01:50 RaGe wrote: Don't try to argue with him, it's pointless.
You were right. I typed out a response but realised against his wall of constitution, founding fathers wishes and federal government intervention it just wouldn't get through.
Obviously because 90% of America cannot sustain human existence. Let's even break that down to 25%. 25% is still on the order of nearly 1.75 billion people. You don't think America has the capacity to sustain existence on 25% of the land?
Stop getting the thread off topic Aegraen, this is about Mass extinction, not human population, this is about geological evidence, biological evidences, and earth evolution, human population sustain existance are insignificant in comparison, and off topic. The planet will still be here till the sun engulf earth, but the people are fucked, people might be fucked long long before that.
if u look at the contact between upper mesozoic and lower neozoic strata is fairly common to find a layer of "carbone" and Iridyum wich is commonly related to meteorites...
On August 07 2009 01:50 RaGe wrote: Don't try to argue with him, it's pointless.
You were right. I typed out a response but realised against his wall of constitution, founding fathers wishes and federal government intervention it just wouldn't get through.
Obviously because 90% of America cannot sustain human existence. Let's even break that down to 25%. 25% is still on the order of nearly 1.75 billion people. You don't think America has the capacity to sustain existence on 25% of the land?
With current consumption patterns, it's quite possibly no.
EPT
