BF2S Forums A Warming Planet Struggles to Feed Itself

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

To those making claims... prove that the earth can not sustain a population double what it is supporting today. Hint: You can't. So fuck off with this whole the earth is dying, we need to eradicate humans bullshit.

Why don't you prove that it could?
Until then fuck off with your bullshit.

Once oil has run out I doubt we could sustain 1/10th of the current population.

Lol oil isn't going to run out for ages.

We cannot destroy the earth, this is common sense. At worst we can make it less habitable for us but we would struggle to make it uninhabitable. Technically we haven't left the last ice age as we still have ice on the poles, not the forests / jungles that the dinosaurs inhabited. Remember that next time you read "the planet has never been this warm ever!"

For the last 10-15 years climate science has been predicting doomsday, unfortunately current data is a very long way from fitting any of the suggested trends. Shock horror. Climate refugees anyone?

Sure polluting is not beneficial and we should always strive to improve efficiency but we don't need a load of BS scare mongering to make it happen.

Hell its not even called global warming anymore because the whole world isn't going to heat up.

Look back at the medieval warm period. This was a time of great wealth and prosperity, when Cathedral building became prolific and when wine was made as far north as Scotland. Compare that to the famines of "the little ice age" and explain to me why a return to medieval warm period temperatures is such a bad thing for mankind.

Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2011-06-06 06:58:27)

my 1st post wrote:

Lol oil isn't going to run out for ages.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4681935.stm

Kuwait: 92bn (64bn)
UAE: 92bn (34bn)
Iran: 93bn (64bn)
Iraq: 100bn (48bn)
Saudi Arabia: 258bn (170bn)
Claimed oil reserves, bn barrels 1990s/1970s

The link is an old one but my main reason for raising this is the constant revision of each oil producers reserves. From a colleague who has moved into the oil industry, the reserve figures are mainly to control price. How long have we been forecast to have 20 years of oil remaining? No I do not have a huge amount to back it up but it doesn't surprise me at all.

We cannot destroy the earth, this is common sense. At worst we can make it less habitable for us but we would struggle to make it uninhabitable. Technically we haven't left the last ice age as we still have ice on the poles, not the forests / jungles that the dinosaurs inhabited. Remember that next time you read "the planet has never been this warm ever!"

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjec … rs/plants/

PANGAEA AND WEATHER DURING THE MESOZOIC ERA
The dinosaurs evolved early in the Mesozoic Era, during the Triassic period (about 228 million years ago). At the start of the Mesozoic Era, the continents of the Earth were jammed together into the supercontinent of Pangaea; this land mass had a hot, dry interior with many deserts. The polar regions were moist and temperate. During the Mesozoic, Pangaea began breaking apart and the weather changed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous

Warm-adapted plant fossils are known from localities as far north as Alaska and Greenland, while dinosaur fossils have been found within 15 degrees of the Cretaceous south pole.[11]

A very gentle temperature gradient from the equator to the poles meant weaker global winds, contributing to less upwelling and more stagnant oceans than today. This is evidenced by widespread black shale deposition and frequent anoxic events.[12] Sediment cores show that tropical sea surface temperatures may have briefly been as warm as 42 °C (107 °F), 17 °C (31 °F) warmer than at present, and that they averaged around 37 °C (99 °F). Meanwhile deep ocean temperatures were as much as 15 to 20 °C (27 to 36 °F) higher than today's.

I could find further reference but I was not aware this was in debate especially.

For the last 10-15 years climate science has been predicting doomsday, unfortunately current data is a very long way from fitting any of the suggested trends. Shock horror. Climate refugees anyone?

http://itsfaircomment-climategate.blogs … t-dud.html

The United Nations Environment Programme has tried to erase one of its glaring failed predictions about climate refugees by removing a map from its website purporting to show where 50 million climate refugees will come from by 2010.

I believe there was a thread on this earlier in the year.

Sure polluting is not beneficial and we should always strive to improve efficiency but we don't need a load of BS scare mongering to make it happen.

Common sense.

Hell its not even called global warming anymore because the whole world isn't going to heat up.

It is referred to as "climate change" and the whole world isn't going to heat up, does this need referencing?

Look back at the medieval warm period. This was a time of great wealth and prosperity, when Cathedral building became prolific and when wine was made as far north as Scotland. Compare that to the famines of "the little ice age" and explain to me why a return to medieval warm period temperatures is such a bad thing for mankind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

The IPCC Third Assessment Report from 2001 summarised research at that time, saying "... current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries".

I will make a concession in that these phenomena appear to have been fairly localized around Europe.

However:

"Evidence has been accumulating in many fields of investigation pointing to a notably warm climate in many parts of the world, that lasted a few centuries around A.D. 1000–1200, and was followed by a decline of temperature levels till between 1500 and 1700 the coldest phase since the last ice age occurred."

ties in nicely with my Cathedral reference.

http://www.lycos.com/info/medieval-warm-period.html

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a period of higher temperatures, that was recorded particularly in northern Europe, during the mid-9th to mid-13th Centuries AD. It presents a difficulty for the AGW lobby, which tries (a) to dimiss it as a local anomaly (see You Can't Have it Both Ways) and (b) claim that the temperatures then were cooler than now. It was during the MWP that vinyards flourished in Britain (Lamb, H.H., 1966, The Changing Climate, Methuen, London.) and during which the Vikings settled Greenland. It was a period when Europe flourished economically and during which the great gothic cathedrals were built.

Maybe its not all 100% accurate but I would not go so far as to say my post was "wrong"

I'll post more in depth later but for now - K period climate as evidence? seriously? When there was a supercontinent and the chemical composition of the atmosphere was significantly different?

the ice age cycle is only a (geologically) very recent phenomenon. It's really not useful to talk about climate before it - you might as well talk about a different planet.

Wreckognize wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Meh, I live in California. When it gets bad the f**king retarded environmentalists will let us irrigate certain areas of the Central Valley again. As opposed to making hundreds lose their jobs to save a fking 1inch long fish nobody gives a crap about.

Fucking christ someone get shitty some crayons so he can express himself in a more appropriate fashion.

No way, I'm very correct. California had a huge wheat crop, it still sort of does, but it would be nice to see all that irrigation up and working again so we can make more wheat and whatnot.

Blue Herring wrote:

Kmar wrote:

We should accept global climate unconditionally until we return to the late heavy bombardment. Ya know, cause its been hotter in the past.

That's not an argument. It's a strawman at best and a very very bad joke at worst. Now, if you and Dilbert are done sucking each other off..

Someone's jealous.

You're being mocked because you're logic is at a kindergarten level.. at best.

Kmar wrote:

You're being mocked because you're logic is at a kindergarten level.. at best.

If the best you can do is attack me, then there's little point in debating you.

Kmar wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Kmar wrote:

How do we go about that?

In the west? Easy, provide economic incentives for limiting reproduction. Add a bunch tax penalties for having children.Combine that with more sex education and you could begin to drive down the population in U.S.

I don't know why you would want to do that though. There isn't really a population problem in most industrialized countries. Hell the Japanese and Taiwanese are trying to get their people to start reproducing again.

So your easy solution is to tax the people trying to support children? Sex education isn't going to change much. Almost everyone knows the consequences of unprotected sex and they still do it. The US population has gone from 150 mil to over 300 mil in about 50 years. It's true that European nations have stalled. But most of the rest of the world has not.

Examples: http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb- … &dl=en
Tick the world box to see the trend as a whole.

Most of the U.S.'s population growth has been from immigrants, and the children they have when they get here. Otherwise the established U.S. population stalled also. It's been the cause of hand wringing in some circles when the subject of demographic shift comes up. Japan has stalled out too. I also know the Taiwanese are now trying to get their people to pump out more kids by providing economic incentives like tax breaks.

The European, Japanese, and established American birth rate decline has been because of economic conditions. Life improved, people wanted to have more fun and enjoy life and not raise a lot of children. It's pretty much a fact that as conditions improve birth rates go down. I do think if the government provided economic incentives to not reproduce the birth rate would continue to slide among those groups.

Jay wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Kmar wrote:

So your easy solution is to tax the people trying to support children? Sex education isn't going to change much. Almost everyone knows the consequences of unprotected sex and they still do it. The US population has gone from 150 mil to over 300 mil in about 50 years. It's true that European nations have stalled. But most of the rest of the world has not.

Examples: http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb- … &dl=en
Tick the world box to see the trend as a whole.

Most of the U.S.'s population growth has been from immigrants, and the children they have when they get here. Otherwise the established U.S. population stalled also. It's been the cause of hand wringing in some circles when the subject of demographic shift comes up. Japan has stalled out too. I also know the Taiwanese are now trying to get their people to pump out more kids by providing economic incentives like tax breaks.

The European, Japanese, and established American birth rate decline has been because of economic conditions. Life improved, people wanted to have more fun and enjoy life and not raise a lot of children. It's pretty much a fact that as conditions improve birth rates go down. I do think if the government provided economic incentives to not reproduce the birth rate would continue to slide among those groups.

Umm, why? Why would you want us to reproduce less? If you feel that way, join http://www.vhemt.org/.

From my first post ITT.

I don't know why you would want to do that though. There isn't really a population problem in most industrialized countries.

I was just providing a solution to ''the problem''.

I know. In a lot of the world at least.

Last edited by Macbeth (2011-06-06 16:06:04)

Killed in the womb or shot into a condom, it doesn't matter the method. The point is births aren't happening among those groups.

it's sad that we'd have to resort to showing the cost benefit

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

my 1st post wrote:

Lol oil isn't going to run out for ages.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4681935.stm

Kuwait: 92bn (64bn)
UAE: 92bn (34bn)
Iran: 93bn (64bn)
Iraq: 100bn (48bn)
Saudi Arabia: 258bn (170bn)
Claimed oil reserves, bn barrels 1990s/1970s

The link is an old one but my main reason for raising this is the constant revision of each oil producers reserves. From a colleague who has moved into the oil industry, the reserve figures are mainly to control price. How long have we been forecast to have 20 years of oil remaining? No I do not have a huge amount to back it up but it doesn't surprise me at all.

Oil is not running out any time soon. Cheap oil in easily accessible geological strata, that's probably running out. I don't know how long it will last, 10 years, 20 years, 100 years, whatever.

We cannot destroy the earth, this is common sense. At worst we can make it less habitable for us but we would struggle to make it uninhabitable. Technically we haven't left the last ice age as we still have ice on the poles, not the forests / jungles that the dinosaurs inhabited. Remember that next time you read "the planet has never been this warm ever!"

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjec … rs/plants/

PANGAEA AND WEATHER DURING THE MESOZOIC ERA
The dinosaurs evolved early in the Mesozoic Era, during the Triassic period (about 228 million years ago). At the start of the Mesozoic Era, the continents of the Earth were jammed together into the supercontinent of Pangaea; this land mass had a hot, dry interior with many deserts. The polar regions were moist and temperate. During the Mesozoic, Pangaea began breaking apart and the weather changed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous

Warm-adapted plant fossils are known from localities as far north as Alaska and Greenland, while dinosaur fossils have been found within 15 degrees of the Cretaceous south pole.[11]

A very gentle temperature gradient from the equator to the poles meant weaker global winds, contributing to less upwelling and more stagnant oceans than today. This is evidenced by widespread black shale deposition and frequent anoxic events.[12] Sediment cores show that tropical sea surface temperatures may have briefly been as warm as 42 °C (107 °F), 17 °C (31 °F) warmer than at present, and that they averaged around 37 °C (99 °F). Meanwhile deep ocean temperatures were as much as 15 to 20 °C (27 to 36 °F) higher than today's.

I could find further reference but I was not aware this was in debate especially.

The point is this is not particularly relevant as you may as well be talking about a different planet. The climate of a supercontinent-dominated planet and one with continents scattered all over are very very different, which is why no one bothers to qualify "since the start of the ice age cycle".

For the last 10-15 years climate science has been predicting doomsday, unfortunately current data is a very long way from fitting any of the suggested trends. Shock horror. Climate refugees anyone?

http://itsfaircomment-climategate.blogs … t-dud.html

The United Nations Environment Programme has tried to erase one of its glaring failed predictions about climate refugees by removing a map from its website purporting to show where 50 million climate refugees will come from by 2010.

I believe there was a thread on this earlier in the year.

Last I heard climate change was not about the number of refugees around.

http://crecherche.ulb.ac.be/facs/scienc … tt2003.pdf
http://eprints.ifm-geomar.de/7878/1/965 … d13120.pdf
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/ is always useful.

The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for the January–April period was the 14th warmest such period on record. This value is 0.48°C (0.86°F) above the 20th century average.

I'm not exactly sure how that fits into the models having not seen them in a while (I have other papers to read) but my gut feeling is that it's pretty well in the range.

This is two minutes of searching, with more time I could find more.

Sure polluting is not beneficial and we should always strive to improve efficiency but we don't need a load of BS scare mongering to make it happen.

Common sense.

CFCs didn't ban themselves, did they?

Hell its not even called global warming anymore because the whole world isn't going to heat up.

It is referred to as "climate change" and the whole world isn't going to heat up, does this need referencing?

It's called "climate change" because it's a far more accurate description. Duh. Are you seriously suggesting scientists are now backtracking from "the earth will warm in the 21st century"?

Look back at the medieval warm period. This was a time of great wealth and prosperity, when Cathedral building became prolific and when wine was made as far north as Scotland. Compare that to the famines of "the little ice age" and explain to me why a return to medieval warm period temperatures is such a bad thing for mankind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

The IPCC Third Assessment Report from 2001 summarised research at that time, saying "... current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries".

I will make a concession in that these phenomena appear to have been fairly localized around Europe.

However:

"Evidence has been accumulating in many fields of investigation pointing to a notably warm climate in many parts of the world, that lasted a few centuries around A.D. 1000–1200, and was followed by a decline of temperature levels till between 1500 and 1700 the coldest phase since the last ice age occurred."

ties in nicely with my Cathedral reference.

http://www.lycos.com/info/medieval-warm-period.html

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a period of higher temperatures, that was recorded particularly in northern Europe, during the mid-9th to mid-13th Centuries AD. It presents a difficulty for the AGW lobby, which tries (a) to dimiss it as a local anomaly (see You Can't Have it Both Ways) and (b) claim that the temperatures then were cooler than now. It was during the MWP that vinyards flourished in Britain (Lamb, H.H., 1966, The Changing Climate, Methuen, London.) and during which the Vikings settled Greenland. It was a period when Europe flourished economically and during which the great gothic cathedrals were built.

Maybe its not all 100% accurate but I would not go so far as to say my post was "wrong"

Firstly, the anomaly around AD 1000-1200 (as they say, although my suspicion is that it was much shorter and based on very old, vague data with very low resolution) had a maximum of at most 1C above global average. (
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1579/0044-7447-29.1.51)

We are at 1C above global average. No one sensible is claiming that the serious affects are being felt now, potentially enlarged droughts aside and the like.

Secondly, it's a massive bow to draw that "building cathedrals" equals prosperity and good crops. Indeed

There is
some similarity between this reconstruction and that produced independently by
Graumlich (1993) for the same region, who notes drought periods between A.D.
800-859, 1020-1070, 1197-1217, 1249-1365, 1443-1479, 1566-1602, 1764-
1794, 1806-1861 and 1910-1934. She finds no evidence of century-scale or longer
deviations in her reconstruction.

I would suggest that building cathedrals had little to do with the welfare of the common serf. Cathedrals was build because power was being increasingly centralized in Europe around that time - more powerful people are more likely to build big cathedrals. In particular the onset of feudalism, which has nothing to do with climate.