|
Post by magellan on Oct 17, 2011 3:53:16 GMT
icefisher,This is a denialist centric forum. Nevertheless, it is a forum that does allow for alternative points of view. That is what makes this particular forum interesting. That is why I post here. The scientific POV is not generally represented here.
Its good you found something to do. Idle hands are the devil's playthings. Your witty replies are always a hoot and to the point.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 17, 2011 4:15:30 GMT
icefisher,This is a denialist centric forum. Nevertheless, it is a forum that does allow for alternative points of view. That is what makes this particular forum interesting. That is why I post here. The scientific POV is not generally represented here.
Magellan, The master of 'no substance'. Thanks for your implicit endorsement. Much appreciated. Its good you found something to do. Idle hands are the devil's playthings. Your witty replies are always a hoot and to the point.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 17, 2011 14:29:23 GMT
Well I was out of breath, maybe it is the CO2 but then again I have been pounded by the heat. Still looking for those goalposts. "Climate change making animals shrink" "The effects, he says, will be difficult to predict. It could, for example, mean crop harvests getting smaller, and with plant fodder declining, animal species too could be hit." www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/59088-climate-change-making-animals-shrink
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Oct 17, 2011 21:45:55 GMT
TR; and then there's this resurrection of Malthus. I don't think Jeffrey missed a single talking point. Editor's note: Jeffrey D. Sachs is director of The Earth Institute, Columbia University. He and colleagues will discuss the 7 billion mark in a free live webcast Monday, October 17. He is the author of "The Price of Civilization," published this month.
(CNN) -- Just 12 years after the arrival of the 6 billionth individual on the planet in 1999, humanity will greet the 7 billionth arrival this month. The world population continues its rapid ascent, with roughly 75 million more births than deaths each year. The consequences of a world crowded with 7 billion people are enormous. And unless the world population stabilizes during the 21st century, the consequences for humanity could be grim.
A rising population puts enormous pressures on a planet already plunging into environmental catastrophe. Providing food, clothing, shelter, and energy for 7 billion people is a task of startling complexity.
The world's agricultural systems are already dangerously overstretched. Rainforests are being cut down to make way for new farms; groundwater used for irrigation is being depleted; greenhouse gases emitted from agricultural activities are a major factor in global climate change; fertilizers are poisoning estuaries; and countless species are threatened with extinction as we grab their land and water and destroy their habitats.
The economic challenges are equally huge. Population is growing most rapidly in the world's poorest countries -- often the places with the most fragile ecological conditions. Poor people tend to have many more children, for several reasons. Many live on farms, where children can be engaged in farm chores.
Poor societies generally suffer from high rates of child mortality, leading parents to have more children as "insurance" against the possible deaths of children. Girls rarely make it to high school, and are often married at a very young age, leading to early childbearing. And modern methods of contraception may be unavailable or unaffordable.
So the arrival of the 7 billionth person is cause for profound global concern. It carries a challenge: What will it take to maintain a planet in which each person has a chance for a full, productive and prosperous life, and in which the planet's resources are sustained for future generations? How, in short, can we enjoy "sustainable development" on a very crowded planet?
Do you want to know more? www.cnn.com/2011/10/17/opinion/sachs-global-population/index.html?hpt=hp_bn9
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Oct 17, 2011 22:17:31 GMT
TR; and then there's this resurrection of Malthus. I don't think Jeffrey missed a single talking point. Editor's note: Jeffrey D. Sachs is director of The Earth Institute, Columbia University. He and colleagues will discuss the 7 billion mark in a free live webcast Monday, October 17. He is the author of "The Price of Civilization," published this month.
(CNN) -- Just 12 years after the arrival of the 6 billionth individual on the planet in 1999, humanity will greet the 7 billionth arrival this month. The world population continues its rapid ascent, with roughly 75 million more births than deaths each year. The consequences of a world crowded with 7 billion people are enormous. And unless the world population stabilizes during the 21st century, the consequences for humanity could be grim.
....
So the arrival of the 7 billionth person is cause for profound global concern. It carries a challenge: What will it take to maintain a planet in which each person has a chance for a full, productive and prosperous life, and in which the planet's resources are sustained for future generations? How, in short, can we enjoy "sustainable development" on a very crowded planet?
Do you want to know more? www.cnn.com/2011/10/17/opinion/sachs-global-population/index.html?hpt=hp_bn9Global warming to the rescue! Since warming temps will make us all shrink as in the previous post, the planet can handle more humans! It's a win-win!
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 18, 2011 2:11:58 GMT
Global warming to the rescue! Since warming temps will make us all shrink as in the previous post, the planet can handle more humans! It's a win-win!
ROTFLMAO!
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 22, 2011 4:21:45 GMT
Global warming to the rescue! Since warming temps will make us all shrink as in the previous post, the planet can handle more humans! It's a win-win!ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! while humanity stupidly ignors reality.
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Oct 22, 2011 4:56:30 GMT
Global warming to the rescue! Since warming temps will make us all shrink as in the previous post, the planet can handle more humans! It's a win-win!ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! while humanity stupidly ignors reality. "Many organisms are already getting smaller and more are likely to follow suit as warming continues." Are you suffering from... "shrinkage" T'stat?
Well, that explains a lot...
But, you gotta admit, a picnic without the dragonflies with 3-foot wingpans is a plus. Not to mention the 2-inch ants! Those things would devour your ham sandwich in a flash! Talk about shrinkage!
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 24, 2011 1:03:41 GMT
ROTFLMAO! while humanity stupidly ignors reality. "Many organisms are already getting smaller and more are likely to follow suit as warming continues." Are you suffering from... "shrinkage" T'stat?
Well, that explains a lot...
But, you gotta admit, a picnic without the dragonflies with 3-foot wingpans is a plus. Not to mention the 2-inch ants! Those things would devour your ham sandwich in a flash! Talk about shrinkage! Throttleup, What continues to fascinate me is how denialists consistently equate the anthropocene concept solely with the climate change debate, even though it is far more complex. Geologists have been driving the Anthropocence concept, not physicists. Even though this has been posted here before, perhaps it is useful to repeat this fundamental scientific source; "The Anthropocene: a new epoch of geological time?" rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/site/2011/anthropocene.xhtml
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 24, 2011 4:24:05 GMT
Throttleup,
What continues to fascinate me is how denialists consistently equate the anthropocene concept solely with the climate change debate, even though it is far more complex.
Geologists have been driving the Anthropocence concept, not physicists.
Its been well know for several years, at least since 2004, that the best way to get a grant is link it to climate change. Geologists have just been slower than most in trying to imagine how to do that.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 26, 2011 1:41:18 GMT
Throttleup,
What continues to fascinate me is how denialists consistently equate the anthropocene concept solely with the climate change debate, even though it is far more complex.
Geologists have been driving the Anthropocence concept, not physicists.Its been well know for several years, at least since 2004, that the best way to get a grant is link it to climate change. Geologists have just been slower than most in trying to imagine how to do that. icefisher, Obviously you are not a research scientist and have no understanding of how research gets funded, but frankly icefisher, fair enough. How would one know? How does science actually work when one gets down to what ideas get funding compared with those that do not? However, your objection above, icefisher, is silly. That is not how it works.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 26, 2011 5:37:30 GMT
icefisher, Obviously you are not a research scientist and have no understanding of how research gets funded, but frankly icefisher, fair enough. How would one know? How does science actually work when one gets down to what ideas get funding compared with those that do not?
However, your objection above, icefisher, is silly. That is not how it works.
Speak for yourself Tstat! I have worked on a lot of assignments with research scientists and have even written the grant requests to obtain the funding for some of those projects. You unfortunately are a bit too young and a lot too stupid to be going around claiming you know how everything works.
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Oct 31, 2011 22:35:10 GMT
Well I was out of breath, maybe it is the CO2 but then again I have been pounded by the heat. Still looking for those goalposts. "Climate change making animals shrink" "The effects, he says, will be difficult to predict. It could, for example, mean crop harvests getting smaller, and with plant fodder declining, animal species too could be hit." www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/59088-climate-change-making-animals-shrink STOP THE PRESSES!!Instead of: CLIMATE CHANGE MAKING ANIMALS SHRINKwww.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/59088-climate-change-making-animals-shrink"Many plant and animal species around the world are shrinking, thanks to climate change, National University of Singapore researchers say." [more at link] There's this:Bigger Birds in Central California, Courtesy of Global Climate Changewww.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-10/sfsu-bbi103111.phpBirds are getting bigger in central California, and that was a big surprise for Rae Goodman and her colleagues. Goodman uncovered the trend while working as a graduate student for San Francisco State University biologist Gretchen LeBuhn, analyzing data from thousands of birds caught and released each year at two sites near San Francisco Bay and the Point Reyes National Seashore. The SF State scientists, ..., found that birds' wings have grown longer and birds are increasing in mass over the last 27 to 40 years. What's making the birds bigger? The researchers think that the trend is due to climate change, but their findings put a twist in the usual thinking about climate change and body size. A well-known ecological rule, called Bergmann's Rule, states that animals tend to be larger at higher latitudes. One reason for this rule might be that larger animals conserve body heat better, allowing them to thrive in the generally colder climate of higher latitudes. Under this reasoning, some scientists have predicted that animals would get smaller as the Earth has warmed up over the past 100 years. But the study, published in the journal Global Change Biology, suggests that the connection may not be so simple. --------------- What does all this mean?? It means Einstein was correct!
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.” - A. Einstein Eh... big -- small... what's the difference? It's all relative...
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 18, 2011 2:51:35 GMT
|
|