Forum search & shortcuts

It's global co...
 

[Closed] It's global cooling, not warming!

Posts: 0
Free Member
 

It is impossible to predict what will happen to mankind in the next 3-4 billion years with any degre eof certaintity

We will die out?!


 
Posted : 21/07/2010 2:16 pm
Posts: 5559
Free Member
 

can i see the maths to support that?
It is just an opinion I can just say no we will build space ships that fold time and/or travel through worm holes and populate the entire universe.
I have as much eveidence for my suggestion as you do for yours ie none as it is a supposition on both our parts.


 
Posted : 21/07/2010 2:25 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

OMG the thread rises once again, along with Junkyards ability to mis-read / twist what anyone says! Bravo!!

As said on the other thread I don't think anyone denies that it is not acceptable or sustainable the rate that we are using up the natural resources on our planet. I also don't think you will find anyone who doesn't think that cutting emissions has to be a good thing, and that it is everyone's personal responsibility to do so. I think we are all agreed on that.

I think the biggest differences are between those who think that we can alter the natural cycles of the earth and those who don't and what that means in the short term we should be concentrating our efforts on.

Personally I think that the growing energy and food shortages is a far more important issue to deal with.


 
Posted : 21/07/2010 2:37 pm
Posts: 91180
Free Member
 

I also don't think you will find anyone who doesn't think that cutting emissions has to be a good thing

A lot of people do think this is bad. They think that reducing emissions necessitates a reduction in economic output and development.

None of the AGW advocates are saying that we should try and alter the earth's natural cycles, that'd be stupid. What they are saying is that we are altering climate far far quicker than it has ever altered before on a natural cycle (eruptions and meteorites etc notwithstanding) which means that the environment and people will not be able to cope.


 
Posted : 21/07/2010 2:50 pm
Posts: 5559
Free Member
 

Hainey if we are not altering the natural cycles what difference does it make it we reduce our emmissions ?

I do agree that other issues are equally as pressing and easier to resolve - starvation, malaria, population growth for example.


 
Posted : 21/07/2010 3:02 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Hainey if we are not altering the natural cycles what difference does it make it we reduce our emmissions ?

Good question!!


 
Posted : 21/07/2010 3:07 pm
Posts: 91180
Free Member
 

We're not altering the natural cycles, we are adding to them.


 
Posted : 21/07/2010 3:37 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Junkyard - ...what will happen to mankind in the next 3-4 billion years

You give us that long?


 
Posted : 21/07/2010 4:07 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

You give us that long?

Optimistically - 400 - 500 years tops.


 
Posted : 21/07/2010 4:11 pm
Posts: 91180
Free Member
 

Nah, I think we're here for the long haul. We'll figure something out.


 
Posted : 21/07/2010 4:16 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

We'll figure something out.

The planet would be in a better shape if we didn't.


 
Posted : 21/07/2010 4:19 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

It will be a busy little planet in 400 years time, world population has quadrupled in last 100 years, by my estimates thats over 400billion people!!

I know, i know, a little inconceivable!


 
Posted : 21/07/2010 4:20 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Junkyard historical evedence would suggest that no animal/species has ever survived that long. What give you the impression that we can? We are already running a full capacity interms of population. How can we possibly survive 4 billion years. We're no where near smart enough to ever come up with inter galactic travel. Also time travel will never happen. Fact.


 
Posted : 21/07/2010 4:22 pm
Posts: 0
 

Hainey, just think what the Lakes will be like on a bank holiday Monday!


 
Posted : 21/07/2010 4:23 pm
Posts: 91180
Free Member
 

The planet would be in a better shape if we didn't.

I'm sure all the mice, elephants, sparrows and snakes etc will appreciate that.

Re population - why would you think that past growth will continue into the future?


 
Posted : 21/07/2010 4:26 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Re population - why would you think that past growth will continue into the future?

Why would you think it wouldn't?

It was an extreme example but if say population only doubled in the next 400 years, thats still double the people as of today to feed. And if they all want steak for dinner every night, thats a lot of cows!!


 
Posted : 21/07/2010 4:28 pm
Posts: 91180
Free Member
 

It's well known that people start of having big families because lots of kids die. Then medical technology increases so more kids start to survive, but people still have big families out of habit. Then they start having only two or three, and population stabilises.

The people who actually study population dynamics think it'll top out about 9bn, IIRC.

From here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

In 2006, the United Nations stated that the rate of population growth is diminishing due to the demographic transition. If this trend continues, the rate of growth may diminish to zero, concurrent with a world population plateau of 9.2 billion, in 2050. However, this is only one of many estimates published by the UN. In 2009, UN projections for 2050 range from about 8 billion to 10.5 billion.


 
Posted : 21/07/2010 4:35 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

10.5 billion is still a lot of people!

What is it today? 6.5 billion people?

I also saw an article which had a UN high prediction of 14.5 billion by 2100

That is a lot more mouths to feed.


 
Posted : 21/07/2010 4:41 pm
Posts: 5559
Free Member
 

Hainey you are getting dangerously close to using models here to predict the future ...easy there easy 😆


 
Posted : 21/07/2010 4:47 pm
Posts: 91180
Free Member
 

It is a lot, yes. But not many times today's figure.

With a bit of planning and consideration it's probably sustainable. After all, 1.2bn of those folk are being ruled by a government that seems pretty heavily into low carbon development.


 
Posted : 21/07/2010 4:48 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

If the population doubles then i think there is a little more we need to do than "a bit of planning"

With the current population they are currently predicting a food crisis in the next 60 years. Thats without adding any more.

We need to concentrate more on our over-dependence on meat, our poor farming practices and how we can be more sustainable and stop the desertification of our farmland. And don't get me started on fishing stocks!!


 
Posted : 21/07/2010 4:53 pm
Posts: 91180
Free Member
 

A bit of planning was tongue in cheek! I mean it's sustainable if we change the way we live. Including such things as having to drive/fly for business, eating meat, eating off-season veg, building leaky buildings, water management, soil management, power generation and so on. Probably a load of things I've not thought of.

But agreed, agriculture is one of the major ones, if not the major one.


 
Posted : 21/07/2010 4:57 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

according to the Japanese it's whales that are responsible for depleting fish stocks.

don't worry though they have a plan.


 
Posted : 21/07/2010 4:58 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

But agreed, agriculture is one of the major ones, if not the major one.

Agreed.


 
Posted : 21/07/2010 4:59 pm
Posts: 91180
Free Member
 

I'm not doing a very good job of reducing meat consumption though 🙁


 
Posted : 21/07/2010 5:01 pm
Page 30 / 30