Global Warming or Over Population - Earths Biggest Threat?

UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
beenthere said:
Remind me of the coldest recorded temperature on earth in the last 100 years. (1983)

Remind me of the five coldest recorded temperatures in the lower 48 US history!

Maine: Jan. 16, 2009 on the Big Black River near Saint-Pamphile, Quebec.
Nevada: Jan. 8, 1937 in San Jacinto, a tiny unincorporated community in Nevada's northeast corner.
New Mexico: Feb. 1, 1951 in Gavilan, N.M.
Utah: Jan. 5, 1913 in East Portal, Utah.

Vermont: Dec. 30, 1933 in Bloomfield, a small town in Vermont's northeast corner


Don'y ya just love reminiscing?
Click to expand...

i noticed that you forgot to mention that we just got done with the two hottest decades on record, and all of the hottest years on record have been within the last 15 years.

so i took the liberty to remind you in the hope that it might convince you as to your own mental retardation.

instead, you listed record lows that lasted a day (weather), rather than weather patterns that stretch over the course of years and decades (climate).

i'm sorry that you're too dumb to realize the difference.
 
B

beenthere

New Member
UncleBuck said:
i noticed that you forgot to mention that we just got done wc
i'm sorry that you're too dumb to realize the difference.
Click to expand...
Were we recording temperatures before and after the last ice age, does it even count if we didn't like, have the weather channel back then, dude?
 
C

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
On one hand, if humans are causing global warming, it would make sense that increasing the population would also increase the size of the global warming problem.

On the other hand, if humans actually play a negligible role in the climate patterns of the earth, then it wouldn't really matter whether the human population was growing or shrinking. Temperature would just change on its own.

In the case that humans really are the sole cause of global warming through the burning of HC, wouldn't the peak oil/fuel theory regulate the global warming theory?
 
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
SnapsProvolone said:
Ones in midwest. When that runs out we end our fat living off grains and meat.
Click to expand...
There is an engineering solution.

Back in the 90's the Mississippi river flooded very bad. Someone in the Clinton administration proposed taking lots of water out of the Mississippi and piping it out west.

Of course it would cost a little more money than pumping water out of wells, but taking water from 3 or 4 points along the Mississippi would be a big help back east.

New Orleans is under near constant threat of flood, threat greatly reduced.
As I understand the Colorado river runs dry before it reaches the pacific. Problem solved.

We have plenty of water in the east; the Tennessee and Ohio are both huge rivers. They join together just a few miles before they join the Mississippi, and the combined Tennessee and Ohio are even bigger than the Mississippi.

I guess it would just take a couple years to lay all the pipe, could probably even do it underground.
 
DNAprotection

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
hydrogreen65 said:
I think over population is the biggest threat. Look at all the natural resources that get destroyed by the population moving into previously unpopulated areas.
Not to mention the resources being destroyed to supply the growth. Ex: deforestation of the rain forrests.
Click to expand...
what over population?

http://leaksource.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/overpopulation-debunked-every-person-in-the-world-could-fit-inside-australia-with-14-acre-of-land-each/

(excerpt)

"There are approximately 6 billion people in the world and there is 2.97 million square miles of land in the island continent of Australia. 2.97 million square miles breaks down to 1,900,800,000 acres which then converts down to 7,603,200,000 quarter acre blocks of land. So we could hypothetically give every person in the world a quarter acre block of land and they would all fit into an area the size of Australia. Each would have enough land that they could all have gardens and grow a substantial supply of their own food, and we would still have 1,603,200,000 quarter acre blocks, or an area roughly half the size of Queensland left over, plus the entire rest of the world. Now let’s pause to let that sink in to your brain for a second. All the people, that’s every man woman and child on earth, would comfortably fit inside Australia; each individual person could have a quarter acre block of land, and we would still have half of Queensland and the entire rest of the planet left totally unoccupied."
 
hydrogreen65

hydrogreen65

Well-Known Member
DNAprotection said:
what over population?

http://leaksource.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/overpopulation-debunked-every-person-in-the-world-could-fit-inside-australia-with-14-acre-of-land-each/

(excerpt)

"There are approximately 6 billion people in the world and there is 2.97 million square miles of land in the island continent of Australia. 2.97 million square miles breaks down to 1,900,800,000 acres which then converts down to 7,603,200,000 quarter acre blocks of land. So we could hypothetically give every person in the world a quarter acre block of land and they would all fit into an area the size of Australia. Each would have enough land that they could all have gardens and grow a substantial supply of their own food, and we would still have 1,603,200,000 quarter acre blocks, or an area roughly half the size of Queensland left over, plus the entire rest of the world. Now let’s pause to let that sink in to your brain for a second. All the people, that’s every man woman and child on earth, would comfortably fit inside Australia; each individual person could have a quarter acre block of land, and we would still have half of Queensland and the entire rest of the planet left totally unoccupied."
Click to expand...
Now that you've done all that figuring and typing.
Not all land is habitable by humans. So now go do some more math.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
churchhaze said:
On one hand, if humans are causing global warming, it would make sense that increasing the population would also increase the size of the global warming problem.

On the other hand, if humans actually play a negligible role in the climate patterns of the earth, then it wouldn't really matter whether the human population was growing or shrinking. Temperature would just change on its own.

In the case that humans really are the sole cause of global warming through the burning of HC, wouldn't the peak oil/fuel theory regulate the global warming theory?
Click to expand...
The climate is not hooked to monkey behavior. it is just that these monkeys think they are the center of everything. They have the idea they hold the key to some delicate balance that can only exist in the fantesy of these shinny clever monkeys.

The evidence is that our energy budget is but a fly fart, compared to the Climate's budget. The Nuts, grabbed after several tries, the most abundant element, Carbon and claimed that is the secret key. Insane for Greed and hate Big Oil. They want the money.

The population crash problem has nothing to do with climate. But, these are the same dumb, hippy types, that keep saying we have too many people on the planet and blame the 3rd world for that. Insane, and full of shit. They have known this is false and AGW is false for a while now.

But, it presses on, since the Agenda is, fooled you, ha ha. And the aim is $$.

The population crash is about the fact that enlightened women don't want to be breed slaves. It is about the already existing upside down societies in this world. Japan especially are not producing a replacement birth rate. Women around the Brave New World are saying "Fuck it, but no babies, I don't have to be a slave of one man."

In China they have done a reversal...woops. The women get a taste of no kids and they like it. China say now, "maybe 2, you ask, OK?"

This alone seems to have no foreseeable reverse. And will not take much to crash the industrialized populations. It is already happening, in Germany and France, etc. This is Women Liberation and the unintended consequence. How can women really be equal to men? No kids.

How can we get them back barefoot and preggers after they have seem Paris on TV? :)

Why do yo think Islam flips out at the Great Satan? It influences the women to not be slaves.
 
Balzac89

Balzac89

Undercover Mod
DNAprotection said:
what over population?

http://leaksource.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/overpopulation-debunked-every-person-in-the-world-could-fit-inside-australia-with-14-acre-of-land-each/

(excerpt)

"There are approximately 6 billion people in the world and there is 2.97 million square miles of land in the island continent of Australia. 2.97 million square miles breaks down to 1,900,800,000 acres which then converts down to 7,603,200,000 quarter acre blocks of land. So we could hypothetically give every person in the world a quarter acre block of land and they would all fit into an area the size of Australia. Each would have enough land that they could all have gardens and grow a substantial supply of their own food, and we would still have 1,603,200,000 quarter acre blocks, or an area roughly half the size of Queensland left over, plus the entire rest of the world. Now let’s pause to let that sink in to your brain for a second. All the people, that’s every man woman and child on earth, would comfortably fit inside Australia; each individual person could have a quarter acre block of land, and we would still have half of Queensland and the entire rest of the planet left totally unoccupied."
Click to expand...
How much of that land is uninhabitable? A quarter acre is tiny. Really the corner of a football field for everyone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top