Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's just an imaginary pipe dream. You need to face up to reality.
Mankind has become more populous and widespread because of industrialization, not because of warming temperatures. Mankind only thinks its doing better while becoming more lazy and weak as a species today than it was in 1910 because of increasing industrialization and technology.
Uhm... no. Mankind was within a hair's breadth of total extinction at the height of the ice age. Our population boomed exponentially and our habitable territory grew exponentially long before the industrial revolution came along, thanks to rapid global warming.
What's more, industrialization is not causing our population growth rate to increase, it's causing it to SLOW DOWN because we don't need to breed to produce manpower any more. In fact most industrialized countries are reproducing BELOW the replacement rate; it's underdeveloped countries that are responsible for our continued population growth.
Yes, the Earth will continue to get warmer, though not at the rate the alarmists continually claim it will no matter how many times their predictions don't pan out. And mankind will continue to do just fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite
[Insert apocalyptic doom predictions here]
Yeah yeah, we've heard it all before. Yet we're still here and going strong.
And the left wingers will never consider the possibility that even after they melt, everything will still be fine. It's like they never seem to notice that the warmer the earth has become, the more populous and widespread mankind has become.
I don't know about you, but we seem to be doing better as a species today than we did in 1910 even after apparently 75% of the glaciers at Glacier National Park have melted.
Well, humans are a lot fatter than we were in 1910, so that should help get people through an extra food shortage or 2.
Uhm... no. Mankind was within a hair's breadth of total extinction at the height of the ice age. Our population boomed exponentially and our habitable territory grew exponentially long before the industrial revolution came along, thanks to rapid global warming.
What's more, industrialization is not causing our population growth rate to increase, it's causing it to SLOW DOWN because we don't need to breed to produce manpower any more. In fact most industrialized countries are reproducing BELOW the replacement rate; it's underdeveloped countries that are responsible for our continued population growth.
Yes, the Earth will continue to get warmer, though not at the rate the alarmists continually claim it will no matter how many times their predictions don't pan out. And mankind will continue to do just fine.
Yeah yeah, we've heard it all before. Yet we're still here and going strong.
That is incorrect. And I suspect you already know that and are just saying it for the sake of contrariness because you don't want to admit to the reality or the real numbers or what you'll be faced with in another 30 years from now. You are only fooling yourself by trying to pretend otherwise.
It took 12,000 years from the end of the last ice age until 1804 for the global population to reach 1 billion people.
It only took 215 years after that (1804 to 2019) for the global population to go from 1 billion to 7.2 billion, estimated to reach 9.6 billion by 2050 (that's only 31 years away).
The industrial revolution began in 1712 and has been increasing exponentially ever since then. The industrial revolution alone is entirely responsible for the global population boom regardless of whether or not countries are developed. Industrialization is what causes undeveloped countries to become developed. Without industrialization there would not have been even one quarter of the population boom of multiple billions that the world has seen in only the past 215 years.
Whether or not countries are developed and how many people each country is producing is irrelevant. It doesn't change the totality. Climate change is no respecter of populations or their locations or whether or not countries are developed. The end result for the planet as a whole is still the same and everyone / everything that lives on land needs fresh water to survive.
Well, humans are a lot fatter than we were in 1910, so that should help get people through an extra food shortage or 2.
Yeah, about that... wasn't the Earth supposed to reach its carrying capacity about 3 billion people ago? Weren't we supposed to experience worldwide famines by 1980?
I don’t know, man. My husband and I spent three full weeks up in Glacier just a few years ago. One day we took a long helicopter tour over the entire glacier region and honestly, there just isn’t much left. 2020 was a real stretch of a date, but I can definitely see depletion around 2030. I recommend anyone who has ever wanted to visit Glacier giddyup and do it pretty soon, because regardless of the cause, the glaciers are definitely shrinking.
In 2015 there was an average of around a 40% reduction in glacier coverage since the 1960s. It's not that radical. I mean, it would depend on exactly what the signs said. A number of the glaciers are already gone have shrunk to a size that is no longer considered a glacier if not completely disapeered. Will all the glaciers be gone by 2020? Certainly not. 2030, most likely not. But then it's not clear that that was what the signs said.
Glaciers grow every year. Anyone who knows anything about glaciers knows this. The question isn't did it grow, because everyone knows they grow. It's not even year over year did they grow. Decade over decade you start getting something that might be usable data. For example, Jackson glacier was specifically mentioned. Jackson is a very new glacier. It was just part of a larger glacier that as it retreated broke off from the main body so they had to call it something else.
The disappearance by 2030 was one scenario, the more extreme of the two scenarios they considered. It did not say they will disappear. It said given this set of assumptions they are predicted to disappear. That sort of detail tends to get lost though. You can't really blame the simpletons for getting excited about it since apparently the park did as well and made an at the very least incomplete interactive display.
How many people were talking about Global Warming in 1965? In one of the big canyons on Steens Mountain in Oregon, there had previously been several hanging glaciers near the top. In that year, there was just a small part of one of them remaining. A few years later, there was nothing left of it, but the empty cirque the ice had carved over millions of years. The consensus of those who visited there, of all political stripes, seemed to be that our modern habit of releasing greenhouse gases was the cause. Climate change denial seems to be an aberration adopted by the right-wingers in more recent times.
The reason the current administration is taking down those signs in our parks predicting the end of the glaciers, is because they know their dimwitted supporters would never notice their disappearance (or care), without those prominent notifications.
That is incorrect. And I suspect you already know that and are just saying it for the sake of contrariness because you don't want to admit to the reality or the real numbers or what you'll be faced with in another 30 years from now. You are only fooling yourself by trying to pretend otherwise.
It took 12,000 years from the end of the last ice age until 1804 for the global population to reach 1 billion people.
It only took 215 years after that (1804 to 2019) for the global population to go from 1 billion to 7.2 billion, estimated to reach 9.6 billion by 2050 (that's only 31 years away).
The industrial revolution began in 1712 and has been increasing exponentially ever since then. The industrial revolution alone is entirely responsible for the global population boom regardless of whether or not countries are developed. Industrialization is what causes undeveloped countries to become developed. Without industrialization there would not have been even one quarter of the population boom of multiple billions that the world has seen in only the past 215 years.
Whether or not countries are developed and how many people each country is producing is irrelevant. It doesn't change the totality. Climate change is no respecter of populations or their locations or whether or not countries are developed. The end result for the planet as a whole is still the same and everyone / everything that lives on land needs fresh water to survive.
Do the math.
.
Actually the world population doesn't really start to spike until after 1900. So no, the industrial revolution is NOT entirely responsible for today's population figure except to the extent that one attributes rapid improvements in medicine and agricultural output in the 20th century to industrialization.
Population growth in the industrialized world has stayed on a gradual upward trajectory right up to this day. By contrast, the huge 20th century spike happens in mostly NON-industrialized countries. And guess what -- their numbers are slowing down as those countries industrialize. It's no coincidence the bulk of the world's population growth now occurs in Africa, the world's least developed continent. All told, the rate of world population growth peaked 60 years ago and has been declining ever since.
St. Mary, Montana. Officials at Glacier National Park (GNP) have begun quietly removing and altering signs and government literature which told visitors that the Park’s glaciers were all expected to disappear by either 2020 or 2030.
In recent years the National Park Service prominently featured brochures, signs and films which boldly proclaimed that all glaciers at GNP were melting away rapidly. But now officials at GNP seem to be scrambling to hide or replace their previous hysterical claims while avoiding any notice to the public that the claims were inaccurate. Teams from Lysander Spooner University visiting the Park each September have noted that GNP’s most famous glaciers such as the Grinnell Glacier and the Jackson Glacier appear to have been growing—not shrinking—since about 2010.
I went to Glacier a week ago and saw those signs and had kind of an argument with wife about whether indeed the Glaciers would be gone by 2030 as claimed....I seriously doubt the accuracy of their claims...glad to see the signs coming down.
A new paper published in Quaternary Science Reviews finds that alpine glaciers in Glacier National Park, Montana retreated up to 6 times faster during the 1930’s and 1940’s than over the past 40 years.
A lacustrine-based Neoglacial record for Glacier National Park, Montana, USA
10 years ago New York City was to be under 50 feet of water, all polar bears were supposed to be dead and we would never see snow again!
The experts said so!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
