Do You Believe in an Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect?

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Do you believe in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect?

Yes.
2
40%
No.
3
60%
I do not know.
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 5

Do You Believe in an Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect?

Postby Arminius » Mon Aug 29, 2016 6:12 pm

Do you believe in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect?

-------------------------------------------------------------

Concerning the poll: Re-voting is allowed.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Do You Believe in an Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect?

Postby One Liner » Mon Aug 29, 2016 9:04 pm

I voted yes but even if it is not due to human activities I believe it is a beneficial belief to hold.
One Liner
Thinker
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: Do You Believe in an Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect?

Postby Amorphos » Mon Aug 29, 2016 11:25 pm

A measured and sympathetic attitude towards this and other planets, will yield a living philosophy which can endure.

Doing things to planets that don't usually occur, are probably not what they are built to handle. Although the weather seams to reduce carbons over time.

Ethically we cannot really travel to other planets and rape their resources, because if they have life they may one day have intelligent life. Naturally they wont be able to move into an industrial or metal age even, if we eat up their resources. If we consider that for our civilisation to survive, it is going to come close to the limits [of use/resources] before reaching a permanent solution. I mean that we will use most of what the earth has, before we have technology which takes us into 100% re-use.

So that is our only known example, to be what it takes for an intelligent species to survive.

We have to find the 100% re-use solutions, or we will fail. There is nothing else going to happen here?

_
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7048
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Do You Believe in an Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect?

Postby The Golden Turd » Tue Aug 30, 2016 12:53 pm

I believe it can happen in areas, but the confluence of factors leading to explaining global is based on embarrassingly faulty mathematical understandings, and it becomes evident this is the case in other fields, especially paleoarcheology, when we are clearly seeing different climate shifts during our species tenure on the planet. I don't believe the manipulation of carbon output will "save" jackshit, cause Climate Change > Human Carbon Footprints by a massive, terribly large margin. It's a fucking joke from a archaeological perspective, if I'm forced to accept humans are causing sea levels to rise, then I'm forced to accept Flint Knapping caused the Bearing Land bridge to submerge, and that the origins of metal working culture cut off the last off the Wolly Mammoths on a Island off Alaska 4,000 Yeats ago.

That's retarded, but that's exactly the clever logic I'm being asked to accept when looking back in time, and I'm deeply unimpressed with attempted forced change in definitions such as changing it from "Global Warming" to "Global Climate Change".... Didn't stop it from bring a retarded theory, still as fucked up and stupid as before. Might of worked on me in 4th Grade, but I'm a adult, I know that is a lousy gimmick. Likewise further adapting it as "it is mostly natural, but ALSO human influence, and these complicated, ludicruse carbon tax schemes will save us, reversing it..... " is 100% certainly wrong. We were already trending hotter, last interglacier period was hotter than this.... no amount of carbon manipulation will reverse that, again Nature > Human. We are barely renting it, and currently can't make it any cooler through carbon emission tricks than what it already would of been- and it was by default getting hotter and hotter, definitely has the last 10,000 year. So I see that as a idiotic psuedo-science, as solutions go.

As an analogy, let's say someone sold you a burning house.... previous tennent didn't want it anymore.... was on fire. Gave you a fantastic deal.... you move in. No real problems at first, tad bit muggy, you sit on the couch (graciously came fully furnished) and you light a cigarette. Smoke it.... Then light another.... Smoke it, finish it.... Then light another.

Your wife never approved of your nasty smoking habit, and notices it is getting hotter. She sees the flame and smoke in your cigarette, blames it.

"Every time you light that cigarette, it gets hotter. Your cigarette emissions are causing a massive temperature spike."

She drawls up some graphs, going off her wristwatch and thermometer on the wall.... proving conclusively that your cigarette smoking is causing the temperature spike. You.... Smoking on the couch, note to her that the house was on fire already when we bought it and moved in.... So your not to blame.

She then says that indeed the house us on fire, but the temperature spike is a combination of House on Fire/Cigarette smoking causes, and that by not smoking, we can lower the overall temperature of the house down to natural room temperature. You point our this is a bunch of bullshit, look at that wall, it is clearly on fire. She sees the cat is on fire, from the wall, and it is screeching and screaming, and blames you smoking a dozen feet away for hurting it with your cigarette smoking, and demands you get serious, get real, show some compassion towards the cat, if you would only stop smoking, the fire would stop burning.

That is our current state of argument.

I can agree with One Liner that environmental awareness is "potentially" good, but we have to admit, the Carbon Scare is A Boy Who Cried Wolf scenario. Gaia isn't a entity, doesn't give a fuck about you or your spiritual stewardship, it has it's own damn plans, and doesn't give a rats ass for your weak, illogical reasoning.

We should be focusing on real ecological problems, like localized breathable air. My town was declared by Time Magazine back in the 60s to be the most polluted city in the world.... I made a lot of money in the 90s as a kid sweeping sidewalks, getting up all the pollutants that would fall. Air is breathable now. Had shit to do with carbon or global warming, had someone tried to pull that scam, it never would of been cleaned up.

The Global Warming debacle needs to be immediately abandoned by the left, and we need to properly build up the environmental sciences. It created a rather scary and abhorrent feedback loop of psuedo-science fear mongering amongst the left by former Christians turned atheists still clinging onto a apocalyptic fantasy. Stoics used to believe the universe ended through environmental collapse and then by fire too..... Kin Dza Dza! Played on that theme, one half of the universe was a dry, used up pist-capitalist desert, while the other half (our half) was newer, still green.

Eating Vegan, dancing to the goddesses of earth, smoking pot, watching NBCNews, while talking about Chomsky and Zizek while recycling your biodegradabkes in compost and recyckeables separate from the trash won't ever keep it from not getting hot as fuck, even if we all follow to the last.

It was already getting, hot as fuck. Our civilization peaked coincidently (or perhaps not coincidently) at this point, and it comes as a bewildering shock.

No.... we can't keep the weather frozen in our grandparents era, nor can we morph it back to the 1700s, or the 1200s, or the 500s, 3000BC, 12,000BC, 20,000BC, 100,000BC.

No amount of exhortion or compromise, funny figuring or exasperation or call to liberal social networks or educational status is going to convince me otherwise. I"he looked it over 100 times, I'm convinced it is a bullshit substitute religion for atheists who can't let go of Christian and Stoic assumptions. They cling to it out of absolute necessity.

I'm a Christian, I firmly believe god has a plan for all our deaths, and has been plotting it for centuries, and that no amount of carbon trickery will defer his revenge for crucifying him. He clearly has a grudge, and we are fucked. Sounds laughable to many of you, but hey.... at least I can approach the environmental sciences rationally and skeotically because of it, you can't precisely because you lack it. It is your alternative religion, and you can't see how cultic or controlling the fears are to you.
Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via:

http://www.machinegunpreacher.org

Image

Recently hidden post:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=192227&p=2649513#p2649513
User avatar
The Golden Turd
Fucking Unflushable
 
Posts: 9450
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:37 am
Location: Apparently Well Up Manical Mongoose's Ass

Re: Do You Believe in an Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect?

Postby One Liner » Tue Aug 30, 2016 9:07 pm

I would definitely prefer to live in a world where everyone believes in the human cause rather than a "natural" cause, irrespective how ludicrous the evidence is as this false believe would have other consequences (for better and for worse).
One Liner
Thinker
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: Do You Believe in an Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect?

Postby Arminius » Wed Aug 31, 2016 12:00 am

One Liner wrote:I voted yes but even if it is not due to human activities I believe it is a beneficial belief to hold.

Why do you believe that?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Do You Believe in an Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect?

Postby Arminius » Wed Aug 31, 2016 12:03 am

Amorphos wrote:A measured and sympathetic attitude towards this and other planets, will yield a living philosophy which can endure.

Doing things to planets that don't usually occur, are probably not what they are built to handle. Although the weather seams to reduce carbons over time.

Ethically we cannot really travel to other planets and rape their resources, because if they have life they may one day have intelligent life. Naturally they wont be able to move into an industrial or metal age even, if we eat up their resources. If we consider that for our civilisation to survive, it is going to come close to the limits [of use/resources] before reaching a permanent solution. I mean that we will use most of what the earth has, before we have technology which takes us into 100% re-use.

So that is our only known example, to be what it takes for an intelligent species to survive.

We have to find the 100% re-use solutions, or we will fail. There is nothing else going to happen here?

_

Why do you not consider the aspect of spoof and the reasons for it?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Do You Believe in an Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect?

Postby Arminius » Wed Aug 31, 2016 12:18 am

One Liner wrote:I would definitely prefer to live in a world where everyone believes in the human cause rather than a "natural" cause, irrespective how ludicrous the evidence is as this false believe would have other consequences (for better and for worse).

I think that is in need of an explanation.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Do You Believe in an Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect?

Postby The Golden Turd » Wed Aug 31, 2016 2:35 am

I would rather live in a world where we have competent sciences. We get far more options, choices, in reacting to a accurate portrayal of what us happening, then we do to flights of mass hysteria and jibbergoop.

The effort to get China to put scrubbers on it's factory and mills, for example, has been seriously undermined by the carbon emissions hysteria. Carbon Emissions don't hurt the average Chinese person, what hurts them is the fallback from their mills. This is low athmospheric pollution, bad for the lungs.

But the environmentalists are all over the board, and can't concentrate their fire on what needs to be done. Sometimes the Chinese government decided all they need to do is sign up to a car bone missions program if it looks like it won't happen on a geopolitical scale.... nothing gets cleaned up if this happens, they regularly shut down factories in China, and would just claim those reduced emissions as their target goal.... every other mill would continue to pollute bad.

But we got too many airheads running loose with fears we will all be Kevin Costner in WaterWorld soon, and get agitated saying "Somebody needs to fucking do something, this needs to get fucking real" and the end result is nothing.

We've had far more carbon than this in the past. Carbon isn't scaring me, it is the local pollution fucking over generations of people. I know the scrubbers work, I've seen the change myself. We really do need to just focus on scrubbers and keeping mine water out of the rivers, and human waste out of the farm fields. We do this, and 90% of problems go away. If you want to recycle to eat organics, go on spiritual goddess retreats to learn what wholesome foods to eat dedicated to each goddess, fine, fuck- whatever.... neither good nor bad from a environmental standpoint. We put all our trash in dumps, and in the US we have started tapping into the methane deposited that build from trash. Recycling doesn't matter as much, given we will soon have the capacity to mine our older dumps for cans using small digging drones.... our best resource mines are former dumps. Most will get exploited over time. My main concern is making sure dumps don't contaminate the ground water. Recycle, don't, whatever.... I know our dump has the overturning of trash down to a science. They systematically do it. I have no doubt they will someday mine the living day lights out of it once they can.
Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via:

http://www.machinegunpreacher.org

Image

Recently hidden post:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=192227&p=2649513#p2649513
User avatar
The Golden Turd
Fucking Unflushable
 
Posts: 9450
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:37 am
Location: Apparently Well Up Manical Mongoose's Ass

Re: Do You Believe in an Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect?

Postby One Liner » Wed Aug 31, 2016 9:58 am

Arminius wrote:
One Liner wrote:I would definitely prefer to live in a world where everyone believes in the human cause rather than a "natural" cause, irrespective how ludicrous the evidence is as this false believe would have other consequences (for better and for worse).

I think that is in need of an explanation.

Meaning, if it takes a false belief to bring about change then I am all for it as I think change needs to happen; as doing the same shit over and over just doesn't appear to be working.
One Liner
Thinker
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: Do You Believe in an Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect?

Postby James S Saint » Wed Aug 31, 2016 10:18 am

One Liner wrote:Meaning, if it takes a false belief to bring about change then I am all for it as I think change needs to happen; as doing the same shit over and over just doesn't appear to be working.

What do you think brought all the "same shit over and over" to begin with?

False belief is all there has ever been.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Do You Believe in an Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect?

Postby One Liner » Wed Aug 31, 2016 11:05 am

James S Saint wrote:
One Liner wrote:Meaning, if it takes a false belief to bring about change then I am all for it as I think change needs to happen; as doing the same shit over and over just doesn't appear to be working.

What do you think brought all the "same shit over and over" to begin with?

False belief is all there has ever been.

True, but sticking to one set of false beliefs is foolish and doesn't result in progress whereas trying differing false beliefs over and over again "may" eventually result in change (banging your head against a brick wall eventually feels good when you stop).
One Liner
Thinker
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: Do You Believe in an Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect?

Postby James S Saint » Wed Aug 31, 2016 12:27 pm

One Liner wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
One Liner wrote:Meaning, if it takes a false belief to bring about change then I am all for it as I think change needs to happen; as doing the same shit over and over just doesn't appear to be working.

What do you think brought all the "same shit over and over" to begin with?

False belief is all there has ever been.

True, but sticking to one set of false beliefs is foolish and doesn't result in progress whereas trying differing false beliefs over and over again "may" eventually result in change (banging your head against a brick wall eventually feels good when you stop).

What, pray tell, do you imagine that one set of false beliefs to have been??? :-s
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Do You Believe in an Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect?

Postby One Liner » Wed Aug 31, 2016 12:39 pm

James S Saint wrote:What, pray tell, do you imagine that one set of false beliefs to have been??? :-s

One set of false beliefs is that technology and science can solve our problems.
One Liner
Thinker
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: Do You Believe in an Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect?

Postby James S Saint » Wed Aug 31, 2016 12:53 pm

Oh that's not a belief. That is a government mandate and obsession with power.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Do You Believe in an Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect?

Postby One Liner » Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:56 pm

People then believe this mandate and obsession with power.
One Liner
Thinker
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: Do You Believe in an Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect?

Postby Arminius » Thu Sep 01, 2016 12:19 am

Not all people.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Do You Believe in an Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect?

Postby One Liner » Thu Sep 01, 2016 10:30 am

Arminius wrote:Not all people.

A vocal minority is far more powerful than the silent majority.
One Liner
Thinker
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: Do You Believe in an Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect?

Postby Arminius » Thu Sep 01, 2016 2:39 pm

One Liner wrote:
Arminius wrote:Not all people.

A vocal minority is far more powerful than the silent majority.

Yes. But there is an unadapted minority within the silent majority, and sometimes this unadapted people are even the majority. It depends on how the times are, how the respective situation is.

With regard to the belief in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect, there is a vocal minority and a silent minority behind the vocal minority, and this two want the majority to believe in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect as if it should become a part of their new religion - other parts of tis new religion are: globalism (although it mainly contradicts the anthropogenic greenhouse effect) feminism, system of guilt complex (guilty conscience, thus: guiltism [does that word exist already?]), ... and so on. The question is whether it is already a majority or still a minority that believes in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect. The number of that believers still increases.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Do You Believe in an Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect?

Postby MagsJ » Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:17 pm

Arminius wrote:Do you believe in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect?

-------------------------------------------------------------

Concerning the poll: Re-voting is allowed.

Isn't the jury still out on this? Our records are too new to know whether environment had a bearing on the ozone or not.

What does the op suggest we do in light of that?
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 17369
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: Do You Believe in an Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect?

Postby Arminius » Sat Sep 03, 2016 1:31 am

MagsJ wrote:
Arminius wrote:Do you believe in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect?

-------------------------------------------------------------

Concerning the poll: Re-voting is allowed.

Isn't the jury still out on this? Our records are too new to know whether environment had a bearing on the ozone or not.

What does the op suggest we do in light of that?

The opening post of this thread merely suggests a question and the re-voting option. :wink:
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Do You Believe in an Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect?

Postby One Liner » Sat Sep 03, 2016 1:37 am

Arminius wrote:
One Liner wrote:
Arminius wrote:Not all people.

A vocal minority is far more powerful than the silent majority.

Yes. But there is an unadapted minority within the silent majority, and sometimes this unadapted people are even the majority. It depends on how the times are, how the respective situation is.

With regard to the belief in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect, there is a vocal minority and a silent minority behind the vocal minority, and this two want the majority to believe in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect as if it should become a part of their new religion - other parts of tis new religion are: globalism (although it mainly contradicts the anthropogenic greenhouse effect) feminism, system of guilt complex (guilty conscience, thus: guiltism [does that word exist already?]), ... and so on. The question is whether it is already a majority or still a minority that believes in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect. The number of that believers still increases.

I think the entire topic (for or against) is a non-issue for a majority of the worlds population.
One Liner
Thinker
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: Do You Believe in an Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect?

Postby Arminius » Sat Sep 03, 2016 1:59 am

One Liner wrote:
Arminius wrote:
One Liner wrote:A vocal minority is far more powerful than the silent majority.

Yes. But there is an unadapted minority within the silent majority, and sometimes this unadapted people are even the majority. It depends on how the times are, how the respective situation is.

With regard to the belief in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect, there is a vocal minority and a silent minority behind the vocal minority, and this two want the majority to believe in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect as if it should become a part of their new religion - other parts of tis new religion are: globalism (although it mainly contradicts the anthropogenic greenhouse effect) feminism, system of guilt complex (guilty conscience, thus: guiltism [does that word exist already?]), ... and so on. The question is whether it is already a majority or still a minority that believes in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect. The number of that believers still increases.

I think the entire topic (for or against) is a non-issue for a majority of the worlds population.

That can be true. I do not know, because the public polls and statistics about the topic and the non-issue for a majority are also full of fakes and rhetorics - as usual.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Do You Believe in an Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect?

Postby One Liner » Sat Sep 03, 2016 2:29 am

I would imagine that these sort of public polls may only statisically apply to about 1 billion people (US and Europe) and not the other 6 billion people (rest of the world).
One Liner
Thinker
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: Do You Believe in an Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect?

Postby Arminius » Sat Sep 03, 2016 7:06 pm

One Liner wrote:I would imagine that these sort of public polls may only statisically apply to about 1 billion people (US and Europe) and not the other 6 billion people (rest of the world).

Maybe. That would mean about 20% of 7 biliion people. The currebt number of the world population is 7,447,916,555. So we currently have 1,495,833,110 humans as the 20% of the current world population. I think this is probably a realistic number of those you mean. And 20% are enough for those who are managing "it". :wink:

Population in the world is currently (2016) growing at a rate of around 1.13% per year. The current average population change is estimated at around 80 million per year.

Annual growth rate reached its peak in the late 1960s, when it was at 2% and above. The rate of increase has therefore almost halved since its peak of 2.19 percent, which was reached in 1963.

The annual growth rate is currently declining and is projected to continue to decline in the coming years. Currently, it is estimated that it will become less than 1% by 2020 and less than 0.5% by 2050.

This means that world population will continue to grow in the 21st century, but at a slower rate compared to the recent past. World population has doubled (100% increase) in 40 years from 1959 (3 billion) to 1999 (6 billion). It is now estimated that it will take a further 39 years to increase by another 50%, to become 9 billion by 2038.

....

Population density map of the world ...:

Image

....

World Population by Religion.

According to a recent study (based on the 2010 world population of 6.9 billion) by The Pew Forum, there are:

- 2,173,180,000 Christians (31% of world population), of which 50% are Catholic, 37% Protestant, 12% Orthodox, and 1% other.
- 1,598,510,000 Muslims (23%), of which 87-90% are Sunnis, 10-13% Shia.
- 1,126,500,000 No Religion affiliation (16%): atheists, agnostics and people who do not identify with any particular religion. One-in-five people (20%) in the United States are religiously unaffiliated.
- 1,033,080,000 Hindus (15%), the overwhelming majority (94%) of which live in India.
- 487,540,000 Buddhists (7%), of which half live in China.
- 405,120,000 Folk Religionists (6%): faiths that are closely associated with a particular group of people, ethnicity or tribe.
- 58,110,000 Other Religions (1%): Baha’i faith, Taoism, Jainism, Shintoism, Sikhism, Tenrikyo, Wicca, Zoroastrianism and many others.
- 13,850,000 Jews (0.2%), four-fifths of which live in two countries: United States (41%) and Israel (41%).

Image

....

How many people have ever lived on earth?

It was written during the 1970s that 75% of the people who had ever been born were alive at that moment. This was grossly false.

Assuming that we start counting from about 50,000 B.C., the time when modern Homo sapiens appeared on the earth (and not from 700,000 B.C. when the ancestors of Homo sapiens appeared, or several million years ago when hominids were present), taking into account that all population data are a rough estimate, and assuming a constant growth rate applied to each period up to modern times, it has been estimated that a total of approximately 106 billion people have been born since the dawn of the human species, making the population currently alive roughly 6% of all people who have ever lived on planet Earth.

Others have estimated the number of human beings who have ever lived to be anywhere from 45 billion to 125 billion, with most estimates falling into the range of 90 to 110 billion humans.

World Population clock: sources and methodology.

The world population counter displayed on Worldometers takes into consideration data from two major sources: the United Nations and the U.S. Census Bureau.

The United Nations Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs every two years calculates, updates, and publishes estimates of total population in its World Population Prospects series. These population estimates and projections provide the standard and consistent set of population figures that are used throughout the United Nations system.

The World Population Prospect: the 2015 Revision provides the most recent data available (released on July 29, 2015). Estimates and projected world population and country specific populations are given from 1950 through 2100 and are released every two years. The latest revision has revised upwards the world population projections. Worldometers, as it is common practice, utilizes the medium fertility estimates.

Data underlying the population estimates are national and sub national census data and data on births, deaths, and migrants available from national sources and publications, as well as from questionnaires. For all countries, census and registration data are evaluated and, if necessary, adjusted for incompleteness by the Population Division as part of its preparations of the official United Nations population estimates and projections.

The International Programs Center at the U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division also develops estimates and projections based on analysis of available data (based on census, survey, and administrative information) on population, fertility, mortality, and migration for each country or area of the world. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, world population reached 7 billion on March 12, 2012.

For most countries adjustment of the data is necessary to correct for errors, omissions, and inconsistencies in the data. Finally, since most recent data for a single country is often at least two years old, the current world population figure is necessarily a projection of past data based on assumed trends. As new data become available, assumptions and data are reevaluated and past conclusions and current figures may be modified.

For information about how these estimates and projections are made by the U.S. Census Bureau, see the Population Estimates and Projections Methodology.

Why Worldometers clocks are the most accurate.

The above world population clock is based on the latest estimates released on July 29, 2015 by the United Nations and will show the same number wherever you are in the world and whatever time you set on your PC. Worldometers is the only website to show live counters that are based on U.N. data and that do not follow the user's PC clock.

Visitors around the world visiting a PC clock based counter, see different numbers depending on where they are located, and in the past have seen other world population clocks - such as the one hosted on a United Nations website and on National Geographic - reaching 7 billion whenever their locally set PC clocks reached 4:21:10 AM on October 31, 2011.

Obviously, the UN data is based on estimates and can't be 100% accurate, so in all honesty nobody can possibly say with any degree of certainty on which day world population reached 7 billion (or any other exact number), let alone at what time. But once an estimate is made (based on the best data and analysis available), the world population clock should be showing the same number at any given time anywhere around the world.

Source: http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ .
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Next

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users