• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
One child per female limit, globally. Every generation approximately halves the human population. Lift the restriction when safe levels are reached. China did similar to control their population growth.

It's a consequence of not enough war, famine, and disease which has kept the human population in check until the 20th century.
 
One child per female limit, globally. Every generation approximately halves the human population. Lift the restriction when safe levels are reached. China did similar to control their population growth.

It's a consequence of not enough war, famine, and disease which has kept the human population in check until the 20th century.

Trouble with that idea is its not culturally acceptable
your example of china has resulted in a population inbalance where girl children were killed ( because everyone wanted sons ) in the past and now Vast number of Chinese men do not have wives women are kidnaped to become captive brides for these men in increasing numbers
you and the world need to review their idea's not everyone can afford a mail order bride from Russia :)
 
The alternatives are much, much worse.
 
One child per female limit, globally. Every generation approximately halves the human population. Lift the restriction when safe levels are reached. China did similar to control their population growth.

It's a consequence of not enough war, famine, and disease which has kept the human population in check until the 20th century.

You do realize that this is implausible right? Renewables are a reality. This borders on insanity.

[Edit] - If you actually look into the Science and politics of overpopulation, the stats are pretty debatable. I'm not that well-versed in the topic (beyond flawed common-sense arguments) so I can't really play devils advocate on this one.
I'd be interested in learning more about the topic though, if anyone else is well versed in the socio-political side vs. scientific evidence.
From what I do understand about the arguments, it is all about blaming those pesky
Chinese/poor-people for all the worlds problems.
 
Last edited:
Define "renewable." If you're talking biological (e.g. ethanol and biodiesel): CO2, yes because the aggregate removes CO2 from the atmosphere; CH4, no because decomposition of plant life releases large amounts of CH4 which the atmosphere is already struggling to cope with.

I do not classify wind/solar/geothermal/hydro as renewable. You're replacing nature with something mechanical. All of them have unintended negative effects on nature (kills birds/function of surface area/degradation of rock structure/devastating to downstream wild life).

Humanity is going to have to face reality eventually:
methane_eoe_atmosphere.jpg

FYI, that chart ends in about 2000...we're off the chart now (>1800).

Mankind has a long history of using technology to afford further population growth (sharpened stones to improve efficiency of the hunt and aqueducts making dry land farmable are two examples). Due to mechanization and genetically modified organisms, food supply is relatively secure. The new problems that aren't so easy to tackle are atmospheric in nature and not just greenhouse gases. If technology does not provide a solution (e.g. an efficient means of producing OH from H2O) the atmosphere will eventually become poisonous.
 
Last edited:
Define "renewable." If you're talking biological (e.g. ethanol and biodiesel): CO2, yes because the aggregate removes CO2 from the atmosphere; CH4, no because decomposition of plant life releases large amounts of CH4 which the atmosphere is already struggling to cope with.

I do not classify wind/solar/geothermal/hydro as renewable. You're replacing nature with something mechanical. All of them have unintended negative effects on nature (kills birds/function of surface area/degradation of rock structure/devastating to downstream wild life).

Humanity is going to have to face reality eventually:
methane_eoe_atmosphere.jpg

FYI, that chart ends in about 2000...we're off the chart now (>1800).

Mankind has a long history of using technology to afford further population growth (sharpened stones to improve efficiency of the hunt and aqueducts making dry land farmable are two examples). Due to mechanization and genetically modified organisms, food supply is relatively secure. The new problems that aren't so easy to tackle are atmospheric in nature and not just greenhouse gases. If technology does not provide a solution (e.g. an efficient means of producing OH from H2O) the atmosphere will eventually become poisonous.

Again you're overstating the impact of Methane. For reference, the general life cycle of methane is ~20 years, compared to ~100 years for CO2 and ~100,000 years for phosphorus
(not that the phosphorus cycle and carbon cycle are anyway related, it's just a fun fact). It's all about them cycles. Your also ignoring the fact that a fossil fuels emitt roughly equal amounts of methane as agriculture.

And again, your solution boils down to kill all humans. I have yet to read a viable alternate way of reducing the magnitude of the enhanced greenhouse effect.
 
Last edited:
And you're missing the fact that the cycle is saturated--it cannot handle the amount of CH4 in the atmosphere already, nevermind the amount we're adding annually.

Even if you eliminate the industry/transportation sources of methane (which all indicators point it growing due to governmental action against CO2), agriculture is still producing more CH4 than the cycle can handle.


I never said "kill all humans." I said population control which aides the environment in far more ways than just greenhouse gasses.

The only way to control CH4 without reducing human population is mass producing hydrodxl radicals (they're toxic to life) and venting them into the air.
 
Last edited:
Cut beef production.

images
 
Stupidest comment in this thread for a while and the award goes to
The only way to control CH4 without reducing human population is mass producing hydrodxl radicals (they're toxic to life) and venting them into the air.
 
7.4.5.1 Changes in the Hydroxyl Radical Over Time

Pre-industrial to present estimates on decrease in atmospheric hydroxyl radicals is <10% to 33% (a subject of debate). Estimates of atmospheric hydroxyl radicals projecting to 2100: +5% to -19% from present. Remember, we want more hydroxyl radicals to combat the CH4 that is already in the atmosphere. Decreases in hydroxyl radicals inevitably translates to extended CH4 lifespan in the air.
 
The only way to control CH4 without reducing human population is mass producing hydrodxl radicals (they're toxic to life) and venting them into the air.

Erm, no. We could also reduce our consumption of fossil fuels and meat.
 
Good luck with that:
750px-World_energy_consumption.svg.png

Meat%20(World%20Production).png

world_pop.jpg
 
Last edited:
Very well, I guess the best place to start with these eugenics projects would be in the richer nations. Poor people contribute very very little in the way of greenhouse gasses.

By rich people, I mean anyone living on more than $2 a day. Lets just prevent them from having more children and the problem would be solved!

Here's a link to base some further research on:
http://sciencenordic.com/well-heeled-leave-biggest-carbon-footprint
 
Last edited:
People earning less than $ 2.00 a day are unable to buy beef.

Perhaps the heatwave affecting areas of cattle production will help to even out the balance.?

Are we victims of our own greed? or gullible to the marketing that force feeds inefficient and wasteful food production on us.?

World grain reserves are so dangerously low that severe weather in the United States or other food-exporting countries could trigger a major hunger crisis next year, the United Nations has warned.
Failing harvests in the US, Ukraine and other countries this year have eroded reserves to their lowest level since 1974. The US, which has experienced record heatwaves and droughts in 2012, now holds in reserve a historically low 6.5% of the maize that it expects to consume in the next year, says the UN.


http://thetruthwins.com/archives/gl...reached-their-lowest-level-in-almost-40-years



 
Last edited:
Are we victims of our own greed? or gullible to the marketing that force feeds inefficient and wasteful food production on us.?

Those are - largely - statements, not questions.
 
will global markets crash?
will consumerism win?
are global markets crashing?
is consumerism winning?
@CAPSLOCKSTUCK I would rather eat less organic food than eat that artificial gmo crap. Here in the US they cant keep enough organic food on the shelves. Part of it is we have all been education about it and 90% percent of us are pissed off and ready to get what we want. The crashes that are going on seems to be apart of economic re localization.
DEATH TO MONSANTO! WE ARE THE 90%??
 
I said I'd stop responding to this thread, but at this point I'm frustrated at the rather crap level of consistency that I'm seeing here.

From the 28th page of this discussion:
Which is also a misnomer because if man never existed, the climate would still change. Case in point: all of that oil in the middle east strongly suggests that area was once covered in lush forest/jungle. It hasn't been that in over 10,000 years (when man first learned to document what he/she saw). There is absolutely nothing unnatural about climate changing. The only thing we can pin on man, at this point, is the relatively high levels of atmospheric CO2.

From the 35th page of this discussion:

Define "renewable." If you're talking biological (e.g. ethanol and biodiesel): CO2, yes because the aggregate removes CO2 from the atmosphere; CH4, no because decomposition of plant life releases large amounts of CH4 which the atmosphere is already struggling to cope with.

I do not classify wind/solar/geothermal/hydro as renewable. You're replacing nature with something mechanical. All of them have unintended negative effects on nature (kills birds/function of surface area/degradation of rock structure/devastating to downstream wild life).

Humanity is going to have to face reality eventually:
methane_eoe_atmosphere.jpg

FYI, that chart ends in about 2000...we're off the chart now (>1800).

Mankind has a long history of using technology to afford further population growth (sharpened stones to improve efficiency of the hunt and aqueducts making dry land farmable are two examples). Due to mechanization and genetically modified organisms, food supply is relatively secure. The new problems that aren't so easy to tackle are atmospheric in nature and not just greenhouse gases. If technology does not provide a solution (e.g. an efficient means of producing OH from H2O) the atmosphere will eventually become poisonous.




If I didn't know better, I'd say that somebody had slipped me the brown acid. In one instance I argue that climate change is a thing, and that man needs to do something about it. I'm then told that climate change is BS, and it'd occur completely without man.

In less than 10 pages of discussion the person who told me this has now decided that population control and genocide is our best solution.

WTF?


I couldn't make this s*** up if I tried. So tell me now, what's the logic? I haven't seen a single fact presented here that should turn somebody denying relevance into somebody calling for murders on the order of death camps. I haven't seen any justification for further shrinking of the birth rate, especially not justification in large 1st world countries where the birth rate is already surprisingly low. I haven't seen any justification for killing all life to make the temperature more stable (releasing radical chemicals doesn't just kill humans, those radicals damage DNA).

Can you say heel-turn into insanity? Can you say bat-s*** crazy? Most importantly, can you say unstable person who shouldn't be allowed to play with a soup spoon, because they might decide that the person eating across from them is going to steal their food and thus deserves to be murdered? The proposed solution is to "fix" things by introducing a completely unknown element into a complex system, that's toxic to a large portion of the system, and hope that fixes things. This is either the plot of a B sci-fi movie, or insanity and hubris that hasn't been rivaled in the course of human history. I can't decide which, but listening to it now is both frightening and sheds a weird light on the previously reasonable discussion.


Edit:
will global markets crash?
will consumerism win?
are global markets crashing?
is consumerism winning?
@CAPSLOCKSTUCK I would rather eat less organic food than eat that artificial gmo crap. Here in the US they cant keep enough organic food on the shelves. Part of it is we have all been education about it and 90% percent of us are pissed off and ready to get what we want. The crashes that are going on seems to be apart of economic re localization.
DEATH TO MONSANTO! WE ARE THE 90%??

?

Genetic modification is a fundamental part of agriculture. Those orange carrots, they're the product of selective breeding. Selective breeding is modifying the genetic makeup of an organism based upon desired outcome, via controlled breeding.

Do you like wheat, corn, or bananas? You're chowing down on items bred for specific traits for generations. In the case of bananas we've actually gotten to the point where consumer bananas are all clones, to the point where we can no longer grow bananas from seeds. Sci-show did an excellent job covering the topic on youtube,

Best yet, do you know why India has the population it does today? It sure as hell isn't because of its food output. Look up Norman Borlaug. By introducing hybridized crops into the third world he save millions, if not billions, from death by starvation.

Believing that Monsanto's scientific modification of genes is anything new is hubris. The methodology may be new, but humanity has been genetically modifying its animals and plant since the inception of agriculture. If that's somehow impossible to see, tell me how a modern day cow would have fared a few hundred years ago? It didn't, cows were selectively bred from Aurochs.


Believe that GMO is bad, but if you decide that your backwards belief means that people should starve you are a monster. There's a special place in hell for you, right next to Tantalus.
 
Last edited:
I saw this the other day, and even though I wasn't going to respond to this thread anymore, it was too interesting not to share.

Dr. Michio Kuko sounds hopeful because of market forces that Greenhouse effects are temporary.
 
Last edited:

I'm sorry, I have no clue what this means. I've been following the posts passively, as this thread made the front page. I see the reason for the conclusions, but how exactly we got from "it's not our fault" to "kill most of the humans" is just...I can't square it up.


Edit:
Check that. There's one way I could conceive it happening. Clockwork Orange style programming, but all of the screens are playing the greatest clips from Bender. The focus would be on the global warming "solution" episode where they proposed killing all robots, while the filler would be Bender yelling "Kill all humans!"

Wow, Futurama and a Clockwork Orange reference. I think that was enough crazy for me for today.
 
Last edited:
If I didn't know better, I'd say that somebody had slipped me the brown acid. In one instance I argue that climate change is a thing, and that man needs to do something about it. I'm then told that climate change is BS, and it'd occur completely without man.
First quote, I said climate is always changing (true). The topic was about CO2 at the time and that statement was explicitly responding to the CO2 question.

The second quote is about CH4 which, nevermind climate, is a dangerous, volatile gas. The comment about population control applies to levels of CH4 rising, food and water shortages, land shortages, and so on. CH4 is a much bigger problem than CO2 because it is much more difficult to combat.


See the Kissinger Report. Population control is not a new idea and it certainly isn't my idea. I'd argue it is an inevitability unless humans master space travel soon.


I saw this the other day, and even though I wasn't going to respond to this thread anymore, it was too interesting not to sharw.

Dr. Michio Kuko sounds hopeful because of market forces that Greenhouse effects are temporary.
Kaku has always been an optimist.

He's wrong: nuclear receives no subsidies. Solar does.
 
Last edited:
How on earth is CH4 a bigger problem and more difficult to combat!

Science disagrees with you on it being a bigger problem, and the solutions to rising CO2 levels and CH4 levels are the same!
 
Compare:
"The solutions" are not "the same." Earth already has an extremely effective tool for dealing with CO2; it does not for CH4.
 
First quote, I said climate is always changing (true). The topic was about CO2 at the time and that statement was explicitly responding to the CO2 question.

The second quote is about CH4 which, nevermind climate, is a dangerous, volatile gas. The comment about population control applies to levels of CH4 rising, food and water shortages, land shortages, and so on. CH4 is a much bigger problem than CO2 because it is much more difficult to combat.


"Population control" has been the policy of the US military for decades. It get leaked in literature occasionally. Most recent example:
http://www.infowars.com/dod-population-control-part-of-us-stability-operations/



Kaku has always been an optimist.

I would ask that you read that one more time. I gave you the page number partially so you could look back if you believed the quote was unfairly taken out of context, and partially so that I could be assumed to not be altering the facts.

What you said is global climate change is a misnomer. You said that this change wasn't man made, and that the only thing we could attribute to man is a relatively high level of CO2.

None of that discussion was about which greenhouse gas is being put out. You interjected the fact that all man was responsible for was CO2 increase. I didn't argue it then because by your own logic, which demonstrates consistency throughout the discussion, CO2 was a relatively weaker influence on atmospheric conditions.


I'm not asking for a lot here. What I'm asking is for you to start squaring your beliefs, and make them consistent. You've bounced back and forth on the fundamentals, and none of the data which has been presented here would be a reason for such a change.



So help me explain the fundamentals, and square up your reasoning to some consistent logic.
1) Does climate change exist?
2) Assuming you answered yes to question 1 (because you have agreed to that implicitly in the past), is it anthropogenic?
3) If you answered no in question 2, how does murdering a bunch of humans and preventing births help to address it?
4) Assuming you answered yes in question 2, why did you initially say that man wasn't responsible?
5) Assuming that you answered anything but "new data changed my opinion on the topic" for 4, why does CO2 versus CH4 emission matter? While arguably the impact is greater, anthropogenic causes are by definition a product of human influence. Square the initial statement with the recent statement that humanity will pay for its decisions with the initial statement that it isn't our actions.


Here's the point that I get to discover whether you're an ideolog or a reasonable operator. A reasonable operator looks back at their statements, and if the dissonance between initial points and current theory is great enough they admit to being wrong. There's no shame in being wrong, only shame in not being able to admit that you can't see it. An ideolog will continue to spout whatever they believed most recently, and hold that to very disparate ideas are somehow the same. I have enough respect for you that I hope you are a reasonable operator. At the same time, I've learned that assuming reasonable motivation from someone is never a good place to start when it comes to big ideas.

Please, give me a reason to believe that this discussion can bear some fruit. Tell me it's not another debate that can't be had because of an underlying unreasonable difference. I've stayed out of this discussion for a long time to try and lend perspective, but what I'm seeing is about as consistent as vegetable soup. Take this opportunity to reevaluate what it is you want to say, because it's starting to get contradictory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top