(11-23-2018 08:58 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  The climate is always changing, it is a cyclical thing. We are going cooler now with no sunspots..


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Although its true that climate has always been changing. The amount of carbon that has been pumped into the atmosphere is ridiculous. Asphalt and concrete have changed air temperatures. These are just a couple of things that humans have done.

(11-23-2018 05:48 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  So the solution is to TAX fossil fuels to drive up energy costs, and this will help the poor how? I fail to see how $500/mo. electricity bills and $8/gallon gasoline helps anyone, but the idiots who want carbon credits traded as a commodity.

Well, duh.

So they can burn coal, clear cut sources like the jungles and old growth forests, but put baddies like oil and nat gas out of business.

You know, send us ALL back to the stone ages (to paraphrase Crazy Uncle Joe).

They have no solutions, just bitching and moaning,

Maybe a sweet bikelock to the head on a quiet Sunday morn...

Frauds.

(11-23-2018 10:24 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(11-23-2018 08:58 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  The climate is always changing, it is a cyclical thing. We are going cooler now with no sunspots..


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's my take. The climate is changing....and has been since the dawn of time.
Medieval Warming Period followed by the Little Ice Age anyone? Man those middle ages folks sure must've been burning fossil fuels like crazy to affect the climate like they must've. Not.

Yet another right-wing talking point blown to pieces by peer-reviewed science:

Compared to the changes in the proper ice ages, the so-called Little Ice Age (LIA) is a very short-lived and puny climate and social perturbation. The term was introduced into scientific literature by François E Matthes in 1939 in relation to glacier advances in the Sierra Nevada, California. However, it is somewhat misleading and is open to misuse as it implies much greater similarities to a full ice age than really exist: some climate scientists argue the name should be abandoned (see discussion by Matthews & Briffa 2005).

https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/articl...17/3074082

(11-23-2018 08:58 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  The climate is always changing, it is a cyclical thing. We are going cooler now with no sunspots..


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

A scant 10,000 years ago (a sneeze and cup of coffee in geologic time) we (they) were enduring a freaking ICE AGE) that gave us the Grand Canton, the Great Lakes, wooly mammoths and Sabre toothed tigers.

But NOW it’s apologize for existing and panic time?!?

Yea, no.

Freed more people, raised more people out of TRUE poverty, Fed more, cured more diseases, prevented more atrocities, educated more, liberated even more, moved the human race further than ANY time in our history combined, in the last 100 years.

And we been roaming this desolate marble for tens of thousands.

First world problems. Guess we gotta have something left to ***** about...


Sad.

It took tens of thousands of years for the population of the world to reach 1 billion in approximately 1804. From there it took 123 more years to,get to 2 billion, only 33 years to get to 3 billion, and now we add a billion about every 10-12 years. We'll most likely cap out around 10-11 billion by 2050. The reason we will cap out is because we won't be able to feed any more than that.

Number most people don't know. Humans kill 56,000,000,000 animals every year for food. We don't have suitable grazing lands or enough land to grow feed for twice that amount. As population expands it reduces the area to grow food, and as population increases it requires more food. That's a tough problem to solve.

I believe the planet, to operate at an optimal level, really shouldn't have more than 3 billion humans living on it. People can worry about climate change all they want, there is simply no solution and completely changing everything to buy an extra 20-30 years is a waste. Unless you mandate no cars, no electricity, and everyone has to grow their own gardens, that's about all the difference you can make.

We aren't going to kill the planet, the planet will kill us and put itself back in equilibrium, so don't sweat it.

One thing I have observed is that if it is global warming, or a potential ice age the solution is the same, more governmental control, how can this be? Makes me go hmmmm.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(11-24-2018 01:09 AM)banker Wrote:  It took tens of thousands of years for the population of the world to reach 1 billion in approximately 1804. From there it took 123 more years to,get to 2 billion, only 33 years to get to 3 billion, and now we add a billion about every 10-12 years. We'll most likely cap out around 10-11 billion by 2050. The reason we will cap out is because we won't be able to feed any more than that.

Number most people don't know. Humans kill 56,000,000,000 animals every year for food. We don't have suitable grazing lands or enough land to grow feed for twice that amount. As population expands it reduces the area to grow food, and as population increases it requires more food. That's a tough problem to solve.

I believe the planet, to operate at an optimal level, really shouldn't have more than 3 billion humans living on it. People can worry about climate change all they want, there is simply no solution and completely changing everything to buy an extra 20-30 years is a waste. Unless you mandate no cars, no electricity, and everyone has to grow their own gardens, that's about all the difference you can make.

We aren't going to kill the planet, the planet will kill us and put itself back in equilibrium, so don't sweat it.

Great facts and logic. In particular, the last sentence. The planet has already experienced "population control" in the form of pandemics. At the rate we're going with human density and connectivity via world travel systems it would not be a shock at all if a new disease or virus made an outbreak. That said, I believe mass starvation and civil wars (over food and land) are more likely. It's amazing the amount of land we have here in the United States dedicated to the production of food. That may prove to be one of our strongest assets in the coming decades. Of course, my Christian faith tells me the Creator Lord God will determine all things with the planet according to his perfect will and timing so that is my hope and comfort.

I don't know a single person in real life that cares about any of this schit.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(11-24-2018 01:09 AM)banker Wrote:  It took tens of thousands of years for the population of the world to reach 1 billion in approximately 1804. From there it took 123 more years to,get to 2 billion, only 33 years to get to 3 billion, and now we add a billion about every 10-12 years. We'll most likely cap out around 10-11 billion by 2050. The reason we will cap out is because we won't be able to feed any more than that.

Number most people don't know. Humans kill 56,000,000,000 animals every year for food. We don't have suitable grazing lands or enough land to grow feed for twice that amount. As population expands it reduces the area to grow food, and as population increases it requires more food. That's a tough problem to solve.

I believe the planet, to operate at an optimal level, really shouldn't have more than 3 billion humans living on it. People can worry about climate change all they want, there is simply no solution and completely changing everything to buy an extra 20-30 years is a waste. Unless you mandate no cars, no electricity, and everyone has to grow their own gardens, that's about all the difference you can make.

We aren't going to kill the planet, the planet will kill us and put itself back in equilibrium, so don't sweat it.

This is why rapid desalination and desert terraforming should be on the top of the to-do list. A terraformed Australia could produce more than enough grain for livestock. A terraformed Mexico could produce enough fruits and vegetables to supply most of the Americas.

Another thing that needs to be introduced to the American diet is cricket and mealworm flour. Protein bars would be a great place to start.

(11-24-2018 10:33 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I don't know a single person in real life that cares about any of this schit.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

That's actually a problem. Mostly because we all allowed politicians to control the subject.

(11-24-2018 10:36 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 10:33 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I don't know a single person in real life that cares about any of this schit.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

That's actually a problem. Mostly because we all allowed politicians to control the subject.

They can talk all they want, but it just isn't a subject to begin with.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(11-24-2018 10:35 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  This is why rapid desalination and desert terraforming should be on the top of the to-do list. A terraformed Australia could produce more than enough grain for livestock. A terraformed Mexico could produce enough fruits and vegetables to supply most of the Americas.

Another thing that needs to be introduced to the American diet is cricket and mealworm flour. Protein bars would be a great place to start.

The Israelis are the world's leader in desalination of water as they pull their water supply from the Mediterranean. I know in the past decade some major US cities (I believe Atlanta in particular) have looked at the cost/benefit of investing in such technology and infrastructure due to drought conditions.

No one but one worlders believe this horseshit anymore

(11-24-2018 09:38 AM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 01:09 AM)banker Wrote:  It took tens of thousands of years for the population of the world to reach 1 billion in approximately 1804. From there it took 123 more years to,get to 2 billion, only 33 years to get to 3 billion, and now we add a billion about every 10-12 years. We'll most likely cap out around 10-11 billion by 2050. The reason we will cap out is because we won't be able to feed any more than that.

Number most people don't know. Humans kill 56,000,000,000 animals every year for food. We don't have suitable grazing lands or enough land to grow feed for twice that amount. As population expands it reduces the area to grow food, and as population increases it requires more food. That's a tough problem to solve.

I believe the planet, to operate at an optimal level, really shouldn't have more than 3 billion humans living on it. People can worry about climate change all they want, there is simply no solution and completely changing everything to buy an extra 20-30 years is a waste. Unless you mandate no cars, no electricity, and everyone has to grow their own gardens, that's about all the difference you can make.

We aren't going to kill the planet, the planet will kill us and put itself back in equilibrium, so don't sweat it.

Great facts and logic. In particular, the last sentence. The planet has already experienced "population control" in the form of pandemics. At the rate we're going with human density and connectivity via world travel systems it would not be a shock at all if a new disease or virus made an outbreak. That said, I believe mass starvation and civil wars (over food and land) are more likely. It's amazing the amount of land we have here in the United States dedicated to the production of food. That may prove to be one of our strongest assets in the coming decades. Of course, my Christian faith tells me the Creator Lord God will determine all things with the planet according to his perfect will and timing so that is my hope and comfort.

it gon' be testy

(11-24-2018 01:09 AM)banker Wrote:  It took tens of thousands of years for the population of the world to reach 1 billion in approximately 1804. From there it took 123 more years to,get to 2 billion, only 33 years to get to 3 billion, and now we add a billion about every 10-12 years. We'll most likely cap out around 10-11 billion by 2050. The reason we will cap out is because we won't be able to feed any more than that.

Number most people don't know. Humans kill 56,000,000,000 animals every year for food. We don't have suitable grazing lands or enough land to grow feed for twice that amount. As population expands it reduces the area to grow food, and as population increases it requires more food. That's a tough problem to solve.

I believe the planet, to operate at an optimal level, really shouldn't have more than 3 billion humans living on it. People can worry about climate change all they want, there is simply no solution and completely changing everything to buy an extra 20-30 years is a waste. Unless you mandate no cars, no electricity, and everyone has to grow their own gardens, that's about all the difference you can make.

We aren't going to kill the planet, the planet will kill us and put itself back in equilibrium, so don't sweat it.

Excellent post. Not only the US, but the Global population should be very concerned about the massive influx of illegals into the US. As the US population grows pressure on housing, healthcare, etc. will encroach on farmland in the US. I do believe world leaders realize this and are trying to herd people into large population centers where everyone either lives in small apartments/condos or "tiny houses" with virtually no land. These concentrated population centers will not only have high density populations, but be self-contained urban centers where people live, work, play, eliminating the need for individually owned cars, large homes requiring more land, etc. They hide the need to herd people into these urban centers, in order to preserve farmland by attempting to scare everyone with global warming/climate change. BTW China does the world a huge favor by trying to manage its population growth.

(11-24-2018 10:35 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 01:09 AM)banker Wrote:  It took tens of thousands of years for the population of the world to reach 1 billion in approximately 1804. From there it took 123 more years to,get to 2 billion, only 33 years to get to 3 billion, and now we add a billion about every 10-12 years. We'll most likely cap out around 10-11 billion by 2050. The reason we will cap out is because we won't be able to feed any more than that.

Number most people don't know. Humans kill 56,000,000,000 animals every year for food. We don't have suitable grazing lands or enough land to grow feed for twice that amount. As population expands it reduces the area to grow food, and as population increases it requires more food. That's a tough problem to solve.

I believe the planet, to operate at an optimal level, really shouldn't have more than 3 billion humans living on it. People can worry about climate change all they want, there is simply no solution and completely changing everything to buy an extra 20-30 years is a waste. Unless you mandate no cars, no electricity, and everyone has to grow their own gardens, that's about all the difference you can make.

We aren't going to kill the planet, the planet will kill us and put itself back in equilibrium, so don't sweat it.

This is why rapid desalination and desert terraforming should be on the top of the to-do list. A terraformed Australia could produce more than enough grain for livestock. A terraformed Mexico could produce enough fruits and vegetables to supply most of the Americas.

Another thing that needs to be introduced to the American diet is cricket and mealworm flour. Protein bars would be a great place to start.

So, your answer to all of this is to severely alter the state of the planet? Do you have any idea how the earth will respond to a modifications of vast areas of deserts? I think we are better off where we are currently at.

(11-24-2018 07:02 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 10:35 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 01:09 AM)banker Wrote:  It took tens of thousands of years for the population of the world to reach 1 billion in approximately 1804. From there it took 123 more years to,get to 2 billion, only 33 years to get to 3 billion, and now we add a billion about every 10-12 years. We'll most likely cap out around 10-11 billion by 2050. The reason we will cap out is because we won't be able to feed any more than that.

Number most people don't know. Humans kill 56,000,000,000 animals every year for food. We don't have suitable grazing lands or enough land to grow feed for twice that amount. As population expands it reduces the area to grow food, and as population increases it requires more food. That's a tough problem to solve.

I believe the planet, to operate at an optimal level, really shouldn't have more than 3 billion humans living on it. People can worry about climate change all they want, there is simply no solution and completely changing everything to buy an extra 20-30 years is a waste. Unless you mandate no cars, no electricity, and everyone has to grow their own gardens, that's about all the difference you can make.

We aren't going to kill the planet, the planet will kill us and put itself back in equilibrium, so don't sweat it.

This is why rapid desalination and desert terraforming should be on the top of the to-do list. A terraformed Australia could produce more than enough grain for livestock. A terraformed Mexico could produce enough fruits and vegetables to supply most of the Americas.

Another thing that needs to be introduced to the American diet is cricket and mealworm flour. Protein bars would be a great place to start.

So, your answer to all of this is to severely alter the state of the planet? Do you have any idea how the earth will respond to a modifications of vast areas of deserts? I think we are better off where we are currently at.

Yes. Because deserts aren't useful and a lot of them are man made. The Sahara Desert has grown around 10% over the last century. https://www.livescience.com/62168-sahara...nding.html . Australia desert was the product of the Aborigines burning the scrublands. https://theconversation.com/how-aborigin...imate-4454 , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire-stick_farming

(11-24-2018 07:41 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 07:02 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 10:35 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 01:09 AM)banker Wrote:  It took tens of thousands of years for the population of the world to reach 1 billion in approximately 1804. From there it took 123 more years to,get to 2 billion, only 33 years to get to 3 billion, and now we add a billion about every 10-12 years. We'll most likely cap out around 10-11 billion by 2050. The reason we will cap out is because we won't be able to feed any more than that.

Number most people don't know. Humans kill 56,000,000,000 animals every year for food. We don't have suitable grazing lands or enough land to grow feed for twice that amount. As population expands it reduces the area to grow food, and as population increases it requires more food. That's a tough problem to solve.

I believe the planet, to operate at an optimal level, really shouldn't have more than 3 billion humans living on it. People can worry about climate change all they want, there is simply no solution and completely changing everything to buy an extra 20-30 years is a waste. Unless you mandate no cars, no electricity, and everyone has to grow their own gardens, that's about all the difference you can make.

We aren't going to kill the planet, the planet will kill us and put itself back in equilibrium, so don't sweat it.

This is why rapid desalination and desert terraforming should be on the top of the to-do list. A terraformed Australia could produce more than enough grain for livestock. A terraformed Mexico could produce enough fruits and vegetables to supply most of the Americas.

Another thing that needs to be introduced to the American diet is cricket and mealworm flour. Protein bars would be a great place to start.

So, your answer to all of this is to severely alter the state of the planet? Do you have any idea how the earth will respond to a modifications of vast areas of deserts? I think we are better off where we are currently at.

Yes. Because deserts aren't useful and a lot of them are man made.

(11-24-2018 10:35 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 01:09 AM)banker Wrote:  It took tens of thousands of years for the population of the world to reach 1 billion in approximately 1804. From there it took 123 more years to,get to 2 billion, only 33 years to get to 3 billion, and now we add a billion about every 10-12 years. We'll most likely cap out around 10-11 billion by 2050. The reason we will cap out is because we won't be able to feed any more than that.
Number most people don't know. Humans kill 56,000,000,000 animals every year for food. We don't have suitable grazing lands or enough land to grow feed for twice that amount. As population expands it reduces the area to grow food, and as population increases it requires more food. That's a tough problem to solve.
I believe the planet, to operate at an optimal level, really shouldn't have more than 3 billion humans living on it. People can worry about climate change all they want, there is simply no solution and completely changing everything to buy an extra 20-30 years is a waste. Unless you mandate no cars, no electricity, and everyone has to grow their own gardens, that's about all the difference you can make.
We aren't going to kill the planet, the planet will kill us and put itself back in equilibrium, so don't sweat it.

This is why rapid desalination and desert terraforming should be on the top of the to-do list. A terraformed Australia could produce more than enough grain for livestock. A terraformed Mexico could produce enough fruits and vegetables to supply most of the Americas.
Another thing that needs to be introduced to the American diet is cricket and mealworm flour. Protein bars would be a great place to start.

If we are going to have a material impact on climate, these are the sorts of things we need to do. The kinds of feel-good things being proposed by most "global warming" alarmists serve more to impact advanced economies negative than to accomplish any meaningful reversal of climate change.

Do we know what will be the unintended consequences? Not that I'm aware of. And the record of humans in this area is decidedly not good. But if we are in danger of cratering the planet, then we need to do big things to change direction.

This whole idea of, "If we don't do anything, then average global temperatures will rise 3 degrees Celsius in 100 years, and life as we know it will end, but if we do all these things then we can keep it under 2 degrees, and that will be okay," is preposterous. Two degrees in 100 years, means probably 3 degrees in 150 years, and so we delay making the planet uninhabitable for 50 years. If that kind of rise in temperature will make the planet uninhabitable, then we'd better do big things to stop it.

(11-23-2018 03:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But hey...lets just keep ignoring it...after all...just a bunch of snooty scientists getting wealthy by lying, AMIRITE?

Quote:A new US government report delivers a dire warning about climate change and its devastating impacts, saying the economy could lose hundreds of billions of dollars -- or, in the worst-case scenario, more than 10% of its GDP -- by the end of the century.

The federally mandated study was supposed to come out in December but was released by the Trump administration on Friday, at a time when many Americans are on a long holiday weekend, distracted by family and shopping.

David Easterling, director of the Technical Support Unit at the NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, emphasized that there was "no external interference in the report's development." He added that the climate change the Earth is experiencing is unlike any other.

"The global average temperature is much higher and is rising more rapidly than anything modern civilization has experienced, and this warming trend can only be explained by human activities," Easterling said.

Coming from the US Global Change Research Program, a team of 13 federal agencies, the Fourth National Climate Assessment was put together with the help of 1,000 people, including 300 leading scientists, roughly half from outside the government.

Climate change will have dire consequences for US, federal report concludes

Thanks, I must have missed it somehow. But I've been busy with Thanksgiving, shopping, etc.