Global Warming: Man made or Nature's Cycle
- Thread starter bizousoft
- Start date
No, they aren't 'bad', just not economically prudent at this point..
My question is pretty simple.. What is the ideal temperature of the world?? It was a mostly frozen ball at one point, do we go back to that cold?? Do we go back to 1780 temps?? 1970 temps?? Back to the mini ice age?? Where is this magic number that is less than it is today??
And finally, why is a warmer planet actually a "bad thing"?? Sure, some regions may get too hot to live in comfortably, maybe not, but there are plenty of new places that could open up and be usable that aren't now..
Doesn't mean it's not a worthy pursuit.
Again, doesn't mean it's not a worthy pursuit.
Not sure what you mean, here.
False/ subjective/ subjective. Not that anyone needs to go faster than 80mph (nor will I lie and say that I don't), people need to realize that the Honda Insight and Toyota Prius aren' the end-all, be-all of fuel efficient vehicles.
I've already pre-ordered a Brammo Empulse, and the Fisker Karma, Mercedes-Benz SLS E-Cell, and Porsche 918 Spyder are pretty good indicators of what's coming down the pipeline.
Hence, fuel-efficient vehicles.
If telecommuting somehow implies a lack of oversight, then you're doing it wrong. You not trusting your own people is largely your own issue, and not an indicator of telecommuting's feasibility.
Just like making money on the internet is hard. Nothing worth having is truly easy. I mean, isn't that what senior members around here are constantly telling IM noobs that get suckered by flashy titles promising $$$ with little/no effort ?
I would assume that when climatologists find a time period where the ozone layer didn't have a hole in it, and seasonal temperatures were fairly predictable and steady, that they would then be able to give us the ideal global temperature.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if such a time period existed long before industrialization.
There is a whole page on Wikipedia that outlines the effects of global warming.
Actually, this has completely changed recently. Solar, Wind, and Geothermal enerergy have just had a Renaissance in 2009-2010 and are already emerging CHEAPER than oil and coal to produce energy for the grid.
Thorium (nuclear) has long been far cheaper to produce and completely safe, but sadly held up in political issues for 20 years now.
The ONLY thing holding back green energy and an economy based on it is conservative politics that are being heavily lobbied by the oil industry to the tune of $20+ BILLION dollars a year, just in the USA.
As for auto tech, both the Nissan Leaf and the Chevy Volt, ELECTRIC cars are now on the roadways here. Time will tell if they can get more than a foot in the door but the same lobbying is holding them back in Washington as well, obviously.
Scientists don't seem to have any problem with that point... They use the phrase "pre-industrial conditions" in quite a lot of their papers.
Makes sense to me.
NOT SURE IF SERIOUS!
I hope you realize that the earth doesn't heat up uniformly... Look at what happend in Russia and Pakistan this year. Those are both exactly the kinds of things that Global warming causes, manmade or not.
Global warming is really more about deadly storms (both hot and cold) than it is about the temperature you feel.
However, the most obvious problem with a temp increase is the already-way-to-quickly rising sea level.
Just a 3 Degrees Celsius rise will completely & permanently flood major cities like London, LA, New Orleans, and thousands of others sitting too low to the shore.
Lost lives: Millions. Lost real estate and business? $ QUADRILLIONS. The world could not afford this, not at all, and we're headed directly for it now. They are pretty convinced it will happen sometime between 2050 and 2080 at this rate.
I think all of the hand wringing and oh noes is pretty funny.. And while most people wouldn't expect it, I am FAR more green than I would wager most of the people arguing FOR MMGW are.. I grew up as an architect in the 80s and have always built with sustainability in mind..
The house we are building in Tenn. is roughly 80% self sufficient when it comes to power "and" water.. That may change as tech improves.. The problem is that it is DAMNED expensive to do.. I could build a "regular" house and cut my cost by 30 to 40%.. This is what I mean by "economics".. Only wealthy people can truly have an impact on things that have so many tree huggers and hippies so bent out of shape.. And they spend their money where it is smart to spend it.. Not paying 5x more for something just to make people feel better about themselves..
We have these wonderful roofing materials available that actually convert CO2 and other gasses in to O2 and other safe gasses, then are washed clean in the rain.. Wonderful for dense urban areas where CO2 emissions are higher.. Problem is, they cost roughly 7x what an asphalt shingle costs, and work best on densely packed homes, which happen to be where less wealthy people live.. Economics.. The payback for using them is roughly 70 years vs asphalt..
You want to solve the environmental problem in the world.. Go to Asia and many other developing countries.. The pollution levels being pumped out over there are as bad, or worse, than anything done in the Western world.. the problem is, many solutions do nothing to solve the underlying issues and simply move the problem from one place to another.. Want more electric cars in California, great.. Except California has a severe shortage of electricity in the summer so rolling brown outs will require new power generation plants.. What will those be?? Coal, nuclear?? Wind (hardly).. Water?? possibly, but there are water issues there as well..
Build a giant solar plant in the desert where the sun is strong and population almost zero?? Great idea.. but it requires a staggering amount of water if you look at the steam system recently completed in Cali, something not really available in abundance..
Want to make people be more proactive about carbon footprints?? Let individuals sell their carbon credit on their own instead of forcing them to route it through one single company in the entire US.. A company that happens to be owned by the founder of the internet.. Take a look at the CCX:
Chicago Climate Exchange
Barack Obama funded the establishment of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) while a Senator in Illinois..
Fifty percent ownership is GOLDMAN SACHS. Another 10% is owned by an outfit out of London which includes Al Gore, David Blood/Goldman Sachs, + 3-4 other former Goldman Sachs executives.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are heavily invested in the CCX.
The CCX stands to make its 10 TRILLION DOLLARS per year once the Cap & Trade Bill, personally crafted and overseen by Obama is passed.
The Head of the CCX quotes the future worth of the annual business of the CCX at TEN TRILLION DOLLARS, 2/3 of the worth of the trading of all American businesses on the financial exhanges per year (FIFTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS).
As they say, follow the money..
And then we have our man Al.. The poster child for responsible living, as long as it isn't him.. Public records show that Gore’s Nashville mansion used in one month more than twice the electricity the typical American household uses in a year.. That is 24x the national average.. Really?? You want to follow these people down the rabbit hole??
There are plenty of solutions, just NO MONEY to make them happen.. Do you think the CCX with turn around and pump most, or even some, of that $10T in to solving the energy and climate issues?? You want to solve MMGW, then solve the economy.. Taxing people more to create grant programs to give this stuff away is not the solution either.. You'll just make those of us with money hide more of it because we are tired of paying for everything every time society gets a bug up it's ass..
Personally, I'm sort of tired of hearing.. I've been hearing the world is going to end any day now for going on 25 years now, 35 if you count the gas shortages of the 70s, and have seen almost "no" progress in this area.. I simply don't care any more.. I'll do my own thing, build my own sustainable house, recycle things that make sense to recycle, and drive my 500hp V8 truck when I damned well feel like it..
The house we are building in Tenn. is roughly 80% self sufficient when it comes to power "and" water.. That may change as tech improves.. The problem is that it is DAMNED expensive to do.. I could build a "regular" house and cut my cost by 30 to 40%.. This is what I mean by "economics".. Only wealthy people can truly have an impact on things that have so many tree huggers and hippies so bent out of shape.. And they spend their money where it is smart to spend it.. Not paying 5x more for something just to make people feel better about themselves..
We have these wonderful roofing materials available that actually convert CO2 and other gasses in to O2 and other safe gasses, then are washed clean in the rain.. Wonderful for dense urban areas where CO2 emissions are higher.. Problem is, they cost roughly 7x what an asphalt shingle costs, and work best on densely packed homes, which happen to be where less wealthy people live.. Economics.. The payback for using them is roughly 70 years vs asphalt..
You want to solve the environmental problem in the world.. Go to Asia and many other developing countries.. The pollution levels being pumped out over there are as bad, or worse, than anything done in the Western world.. the problem is, many solutions do nothing to solve the underlying issues and simply move the problem from one place to another.. Want more electric cars in California, great.. Except California has a severe shortage of electricity in the summer so rolling brown outs will require new power generation plants.. What will those be?? Coal, nuclear?? Wind (hardly).. Water?? possibly, but there are water issues there as well..
Build a giant solar plant in the desert where the sun is strong and population almost zero?? Great idea.. but it requires a staggering amount of water if you look at the steam system recently completed in Cali, something not really available in abundance..
Want to make people be more proactive about carbon footprints?? Let individuals sell their carbon credit on their own instead of forcing them to route it through one single company in the entire US.. A company that happens to be owned by the founder of the internet.. Take a look at the CCX:
Chicago Climate Exchange
Barack Obama funded the establishment of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) while a Senator in Illinois..
Fifty percent ownership is GOLDMAN SACHS. Another 10% is owned by an outfit out of London which includes Al Gore, David Blood/Goldman Sachs, + 3-4 other former Goldman Sachs executives.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are heavily invested in the CCX.
The CCX stands to make its 10 TRILLION DOLLARS per year once the Cap & Trade Bill, personally crafted and overseen by Obama is passed.
The Head of the CCX quotes the future worth of the annual business of the CCX at TEN TRILLION DOLLARS, 2/3 of the worth of the trading of all American businesses on the financial exhanges per year (FIFTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS).
As they say, follow the money..
And then we have our man Al.. The poster child for responsible living, as long as it isn't him.. Public records show that Gore’s Nashville mansion used in one month more than twice the electricity the typical American household uses in a year.. That is 24x the national average.. Really?? You want to follow these people down the rabbit hole??
There are plenty of solutions, just NO MONEY to make them happen.. Do you think the CCX with turn around and pump most, or even some, of that $10T in to solving the energy and climate issues?? You want to solve MMGW, then solve the economy.. Taxing people more to create grant programs to give this stuff away is not the solution either.. You'll just make those of us with money hide more of it because we are tired of paying for everything every time society gets a bug up it's ass..
Personally, I'm sort of tired of hearing.. I've been hearing the world is going to end any day now for going on 25 years now, 35 if you count the gas shortages of the 70s, and have seen almost "no" progress in this area.. I simply don't care any more.. I'll do my own thing, build my own sustainable house, recycle things that make sense to recycle, and drive my 500hp V8 truck when I damned well feel like it..
I would guess you are thinking right now: "Great, Luke's back to tell us why we're wrong about this, and should care more..."
If Feydakin's point had been something other than how it's Politically impossible to go green economically, I would have.
But hell, I too can pile on shitloads of depressing facts about how green energy is being swept under the carpet and politicians are setting us up to fail so they can make money... That's been happening for as long as we have records.
My personal favorite quote on the subject is that the US budget spends $72 Billion a year propping up the Oil companies with subsidies, but only $1 billion a year so far on solar. WTF?? :angryfire::angryfire::angryfire:
Source: http://i.imgur.com/3P9yP.jpg <--Fascinating Solar energy comparrison there, BTW.
But there is one glimmer of hope for us all, Feydakin:
Countries outside the US aren't bound by our politics.
Germany has an almost-entirely Solar energy economy, with a bit of nuclear but no oil nor coal.
France has an almost-entirely Nuclear energy economy, with a bit of Solar, but no oil nor coal.
China, the world's worst polluter, has invested $ Trillions in green energies lately, already owning the world's largest solar array.
If there is one thing you can't argue about China, it's that if the dictatorship there wants to do something, it does it... No fucking around with a congress. After a trillion dollars spent, it would appear that they do indeed want green energy.
So bottom line: The USA does NOT need to lead the world on this one. It Will happen anyway, and we'll be forced to follow suit. The world isn't waiting for us to be the first to make bloom boxes or high-efficiency solar; they've built their own and are putting us to shame.
So the real question is; How much longer are the American people and their elected officials going to allow themselves to look like cavemen?
I'd say that 5-10 more years, or until the oil supply fizzles, whichever comes first. That's about it. If we keep going past that point, every last American will yearn for the tech that other countries have access to but isn't sold here. -Kind of like how we are with Broadband but even worse, because movies and TV will feature these shiny objects and tech.
Until then, expect small strides and little care from the politicians that have no vested interests like O does.
After that day, we will be in an emergency state to catch up since everyone is online worldwide and we can all see the shiney new toys our neighbors are using.
If Feydakin's point had been something other than how it's Politically impossible to go green economically, I would have.
But hell, I too can pile on shitloads of depressing facts about how green energy is being swept under the carpet and politicians are setting us up to fail so they can make money... That's been happening for as long as we have records.
My personal favorite quote on the subject is that the US budget spends $72 Billion a year propping up the Oil companies with subsidies, but only $1 billion a year so far on solar. WTF?? :angryfire::angryfire::angryfire:
Source: http://i.imgur.com/3P9yP.jpg <--Fascinating Solar energy comparrison there, BTW.
But there is one glimmer of hope for us all, Feydakin:
Countries outside the US aren't bound by our politics.
Germany has an almost-entirely Solar energy economy, with a bit of nuclear but no oil nor coal.
France has an almost-entirely Nuclear energy economy, with a bit of Solar, but no oil nor coal.
China, the world's worst polluter, has invested $ Trillions in green energies lately, already owning the world's largest solar array.
If there is one thing you can't argue about China, it's that if the dictatorship there wants to do something, it does it... No fucking around with a congress. After a trillion dollars spent, it would appear that they do indeed want green energy.
So bottom line: The USA does NOT need to lead the world on this one. It Will happen anyway, and we'll be forced to follow suit. The world isn't waiting for us to be the first to make bloom boxes or high-efficiency solar; they've built their own and are putting us to shame.
So the real question is; How much longer are the American people and their elected officials going to allow themselves to look like cavemen?
I'd say that 5-10 more years, or until the oil supply fizzles, whichever comes first. That's about it. If we keep going past that point, every last American will yearn for the tech that other countries have access to but isn't sold here. -Kind of like how we are with Broadband but even worse, because movies and TV will feature these shiny objects and tech.
Until then, expect small strides and little care from the politicians that have no vested interests like O does.
After that day, we will be in an emergency state to catch up since everyone is online worldwide and we can all see the shiney new toys our neighbors are using.
Nope, I don't disagree with you again.
That would be far better than what we have now. -But the reality is that prices would skyrocket for too much everyday crap made from petro and our economy would take the biggest nosedive ever. -So I'd go so far as saying they need to remove that oil subsidy slowly.
If not for worldwide pressures that'd be just fine with me. -However, such a scenario means that the US still can't get a foothold in with green tech for decades, and like I said above, the world ain't waiting. We'll still look like cavemen to everyone else.
Global Warming Man made because of nature run its on way .. like sun rise form east and down into west , Montanans are still on there place .. these all change done by us mean human being .. Tree cut down
Blast mountains
Disturb the claimts by pollution act
Blast mountains
Disturb the claimts by pollution act
Awesome. You can start by killing yourself.
But seriously, overpopulation / surplus is a myth.
For example, New York City has a population density of about 27,000 per square mile. So now take the total square miles of Texas, which is 268,581, then calculate the earth's population of 6,800,000,000 divided by 268,581, which equals a population density of 25,318 per square mile. So that means you can fit the entire population of the earth into the state of Texas with a population density lower than New York city. The landmass of the world is 732 times that of Texas.
As far as natural resources go, I seriously think we will find a way to adapt. Even if we run out of oil, or copper, or whatever the fuck else we're running out of, there's way too many other sources of energy out there that aren't oil-based, but are totally being suppressed by those in power, such as the oil companies and the government. We will survive.
I did the next best thing. I'm not having kids for this reason.
OMFG you couldn't be more wrong! :ugone2far:
Wow. Just wow. Where to start? You really stepped into it today...
Ever heard of the Carrying Capacity of the Earth?
wikipedia said:
Scientists and hippies alike have been freaked out about this since the 1970s... It's been watched and studied a lot since then and the facts found have far exceeded all fears. This shit is happening fast.
You don't need to take INRAN's word for it, but basically we're already at 200% of how many people the planet can support without sustaining serious stress.
What kind of stress? All kinds. They've PROVEN dozens of cases of are already occurring, but common sense will tell you that all of these do:
- Inadequate fresh waterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-Shiklomanov-11-32-143http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-168
- Depletion of natural resources, especially fossil fuelshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-169
- Increased levels of air pollution, water pollution, soil contamination, light and noise pollution.
- Changes in atmospheric composition and consequent global warming
- Irreversible loss of arable land and increases in desertification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-176
- Mass species extinctions. Present extinction rates may be as high as 140,000 species lost per year.
- High infant and child mortality.
- Increased chance of the emergence of new epidemics and pandemics
- Starvation & malnutrition
- Poverty coupled with inflation in some regions and a resulting low level of capital formation.
- Low life expectancy in countries with fastest growing populations
- Unhygienic living conditions for many based upon water resource depletion, discharge of raw sewagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-187 and solid waste disposal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-188
- Elevated crime rate due to drug cartels and increased theft by people stealing resources to survivehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-189
- Conflict over scarce resources and crowding, leading to increased levels of warfarehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-190
- Less Personal Freedom / More Restrictive Laws. -My personal worst fear about overpopulation.Ask any TSA Agent if this could start happening soon...
Sounds like a good argument on the surface; Very seductive to those who aren't horrified by the tight living conditions of NYC as I am.
But it doesn't address the real costs of NYC on the planet. In drinking water, in sewage discharge, in food production, in atmospheric gases, etc... NYC costs the Earth TOO MUCH to sustain as it is...
Humanity couldn't dream of surviving, at all, if suddenly we all had to live within the boundaries of Texas. Food & water would be too far away. It would be a 7-Billion player game of "Kill everything that moves."
Speaking of Texas, did you know that the stress we've placed on America's croplands (at least since the invention of liquid fertilizer) has created a drainage runoff problem so serious that there is a completely dead patch in the middle of the gulf of mexico so large that you could put Texas inside it?
It's a major reason we're running out of Tuna.
I agree with this point on Energy, because solar is so plentiful.
It's not energy I am worried about in the least, however.
Food and Water. That's the whole ball game. They're already being strained WAY, WAY, WAY TOO FAR.
I'll spare you the lecture on this exactly, there are many documentaries on both the world agricultural problems and the water crisis. Let's just say it's not looking good if we continue on our current path, even in the short-term.
By many estimates we (including the USA) won't be able to grow enough food anymore due to water problems by 2030... That's only 19 years from now! The need for more crops is killing us, starting with our groundwater supply. US Geologists say that the aquifers are in a sad state that has never been witnessed before in the Earth's history.
Anyway, Crowded cities are bad enough. I've been to a few southeast asian countries, and I've seen how bad pollution and overcrowding can be. Trust me man, you DO NOT WANT it to get worse than it is here now in the USA.
Things go downhill very, very quickly and unless you want the USA to look and smell like India, you better change that attitude quick and vote someone into office who gives a shit about the quality & quantity of your food and water supplies.
Oh yeah, and AGW too, because if we rise 3 degrees worldwide this Century like all climatologists are convinced we will, then the landmass of this planet will go down significantly, pushing all lowlanders inwards to make all countries far more crowded the hard way.
Currently a very large percentage of urban areas are in the lowlands that will be affected, including NewOrleans, Los Angeles, London, Mumbai, Miami, Bangkok, Sydney, and dozens of other huge cities. Perhaps 30% of the world's population!
I had given up on this thread until Feydakin's post. Too much emoting, and too little logic from most of you.*
At Feydakin: +rep
At Feydakin: +rep
science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/04jun_swef/
news.discovery.com/space/is-the-sun-emitting-a-mystery-particle.html
Peer Review science:
G, how can someone who offers such a smart service as DFB still think this way about the Earth?
A person technically COULD stand in a 2 foot square plot of land for his/her entire lifetime. In NYC that approximation of person to square footage is not actually that far off considering how vertical the city has become.
In India, they've surpassed this number, and their countryside looks like our ghettos... With less sanitation.
Of course, you can't grow crops in your 2 feet, and good luck having a wellhead come up in your two feet as well.
Is this what you're fighting for? Your facts like that 12.5% badge makes it seem like humanity doesn't need to stretch it's legs or get air or water or food from outside its' 2-foot plot of land.
The amount of land each person really needs is of course a matter of debate... People have different standards. I'd wager that the 12.5% estimation you're showing there is closer to the 2-foot figure than it is the 20,000 ft reality which I feel crowded within today.
Anyway, you point doesn't address half of the consequences I've outlined above, like these:
-No scientists doubt this and the documentaries exposing each of these together number into the thousands.
I guess it's obvious that I'm a little concerned here. I just haven't seen so many people doubt what is blatantly clear in front of their own noses. (And damn important!)
I'm not telling anyone to run out and kill their first-borns here or even start recycling, but when you adopt the position where you don't accept that the world is overcrowded is frankly very disturbing and harmful to the rest of us. -And yes, I do live in the city. It's more about running out of resources for me than it is lack of green spaces.
For those still unconvinced about this carrying capacity thing, allow me to demonstrate quickly;
According to the UN estimates that are revised every single year like a global census, the world population is currently growing by approximately 74 million people per year. (2010 numbers)
Current predictions estimate that the world population will reach 9.0 billion around 2050. This is an extremely conservative estimate that assumes a DEcrease in the average fertility rate from 2.5% down to 2.0%. (Many doubt a decrease will happen at all as China is showing signs of slacking off their 1-child-per-household rule. If they do away with it we'll actually INCREASE.)
In 2011 we will reach 7 billion. We're damn close now.
Meanwhile, the advances in pharmaceuticals and medicine in general have extended the average life expectancy from 40 years a century ago to 67.2 years today. Now that the human genome has been decoded there is great expectation that we'll be able to double that number within our lifetimes too. (Wouldn't be hard; people in Japan and northern China regularly hit 120 years of age.)
THEN there is the issue with sea levels rising, and our likelihood of losing a lot of landmass in populated areas like the big cities mentioned before by 2050 or 2080. -You don't have to blame humans for that; the sea level rise is very well known with or without global warming:
SO, putting these facts together it is apparent that all of these UN estimates are lowballs, and the future IS going to turn out much more crowded, much dirtier, much faster, and with far less food to go around.
Now, back to Guerilla's argument that I skimmed by before...
G said: "Humans can and do increase carrying capacity."
No argument there. We're always improving crop output, usaully through more artificial fertalizers though that wind up destroying the ocean, but your point is sound.
Even with water itself; the desalinization efficiency grows ever so slighty each year. (Desal is the only way new fresh water can be made in bulk.)
However, the rate of growth of these things simply cannot keep up with the rate of growth of humanity. Not even close:
Rate of Land use improvement:
During this time period, it is estimated that we improved our food production faster than our population grew. This is likely what G was talking about before.
However, that's just a little island of tech advancement on a multi-hundred-thousand year timeline of human growth. Even in just the last 10k years, look at our growth curve:
This simply cannot keep up, even if we were doing it in an enviornmentally friendly way, which we are most definitely not.
Here's a better way to look at Guerilla's land use chart:
Looks like there is at least 7% of the land 'vacant' for our expansion into, right?
Wrongo.
The Agricultural land has to double every time we do... If we want to eat, that is.
So if we were to take up 0.1% of the usable land for habitation, then the Ag use land would take up 24%.
Bottom line though; I feel too crowded as it is now.
I'm not telling anyone to run out and kill their first-borns here or even start recycling, but when you adopt the position where you don't accept that the world is overcrowded is frankly very disturbing and harmful to the rest of us. -And yes, I do live in the city. It's more about running out of resources for me than it is lack of green spaces.
For those still unconvinced about this carrying capacity thing, allow me to demonstrate quickly;
According to the UN estimates that are revised every single year like a global census, the world population is currently growing by approximately 74 million people per year. (2010 numbers)
Current predictions estimate that the world population will reach 9.0 billion around 2050. This is an extremely conservative estimate that assumes a DEcrease in the average fertility rate from 2.5% down to 2.0%. (Many doubt a decrease will happen at all as China is showing signs of slacking off their 1-child-per-household rule. If they do away with it we'll actually INCREASE.)
In 2011 we will reach 7 billion. We're damn close now.
Meanwhile, the advances in pharmaceuticals and medicine in general have extended the average life expectancy from 40 years a century ago to 67.2 years today. Now that the human genome has been decoded there is great expectation that we'll be able to double that number within our lifetimes too. (Wouldn't be hard; people in Japan and northern China regularly hit 120 years of age.)
THEN there is the issue with sea levels rising, and our likelihood of losing a lot of landmass in populated areas like the big cities mentioned before by 2050 or 2080. -You don't have to blame humans for that; the sea level rise is very well known with or without global warming:
SO, putting these facts together it is apparent that all of these UN estimates are lowballs, and the future IS going to turn out much more crowded, much dirtier, much faster, and with far less food to go around.
Now, back to Guerilla's argument that I skimmed by before...
G said: "Humans can and do increase carrying capacity."
No argument there. We're always improving crop output, usaully through more artificial fertalizers though that wind up destroying the ocean, but your point is sound.
Even with water itself; the desalinization efficiency grows ever so slighty each year. (Desal is the only way new fresh water can be made in bulk.)
However, the rate of growth of these things simply cannot keep up with the rate of growth of humanity. Not even close:
Rate of Land use improvement:
During this time period, it is estimated that we improved our food production faster than our population grew. This is likely what G was talking about before.
However, that's just a little island of tech advancement on a multi-hundred-thousand year timeline of human growth. Even in just the last 10k years, look at our growth curve:
This simply cannot keep up, even if we were doing it in an enviornmentally friendly way, which we are most definitely not.
Here's a better way to look at Guerilla's land use chart:
Looks like there is at least 7% of the land 'vacant' for our expansion into, right?
Wrongo.
The Agricultural land has to double every time we do... If we want to eat, that is.
So if we were to take up 0.1% of the usable land for habitation, then the Ag use land would take up 24%.
Bottom line though; I feel too crowded as it is now.