On limiting population growth thru contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pag_Hingowa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sea level is indeed rising. Fox news is the mouthpiece of the religious and political right, so naturally they will discount science, and their news pieces are relatively worthless.

"Most of the world’s coastal cities were established during the last few millennia, a period when global sea level has been near constant. Since the mid-19th century, sea level has been rising, likely primarily as a result of human-induced climate change. During the 20th century, sea level rose about 15-20 centimeters (roughly 1.5 to 2.0 mm/year), with the rate at the end of the century greater than over the early part of the century (8, 9). Satellite measurements taken over the past decade, however, indicate that the rate of increase has jumped to about 3.1 mm/year, which is significantly higher than the average rate for the 20th century (10). Projections suggest that the rate of sea level rise is likely to increase during the 21st century, although there is considerable controversy about the likely size of the increase. As explained in the next section, this controversy arises mainly due to uncertainties about the contributions to expect from the three main processes responsible for sea level rise: thermal expansion, the melting of glaciers and ice caps, and the loss of ice from the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets (11). "

climate.org/topics/sea-level/index.html
Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’

But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, “the sea is not rising,” he says. “It hasn’t risen in 50 years.” If there is any rise this century it will “not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm”. And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on “going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world”.
 
Is this what God commanded…we NEED a growing economy…I missed that part of the Catechism. Fact is, population can’t grow us out of our economic woes if we continue to exponential increases our cost per person, no matter how many children we have. That’s 9th grade math.

Futhermore, there are primitive societies that have ZPG, because natural resources limit their population. One thing in common with these societies is that they haven’t created an unsustainable environment for themselves, unlike most modern societies.
A growing economy may not be in the catechism but God gave us brains so we would know what to do to help our neighbors in need. Killing babies is not what God wants. He wants us to have babies. He wants us to do good and it is good for the young to grow up and help take care of the elderly.
 
Your results do not explain how they were come by. The study I posted was done by measuring sea level rise at 156 different places around the globe for a period of 10 years. I really don’t understand how this can be such a contested point. However from what I have seen of how the study I posted was done it appears to have been a very solid study. If you information as to how this study is flawed please provide it. I question results that don’t explain the methods used to come by them.
Nate, you are being lied to by your Fox News sources. You would do well to become acquainted with the Climate Literacy Group, at cires.colorado.edu/blogs/mccaffrey/2010/03/05/painting-the-deck-chairs-green/

Rob Young is director of the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines at Western Carolina University, and Orrin Pilkey is James B. Duke Professor Emeritus in the Duke University Division of Earth and Ocean Science. They are the authors of The Rising Sea, published by Island Press.

“The message for the world’s leaders and decision makers is that sea level rise is real and is only going to get worse. Indeed, we make the case in our recent book, The Rising Sea, that governments and coastal managers should assume the inevitability of a seven-foot rise in sea level. This number is not a prediction. But we believe that seven feet is the most prudent, conservative long-term planning guideline for coastal cities and communities, especially for the siting of major infrastructure; a number of academic studies examining recent ice sheet dynamics have suggested that an increase of seven feet or more is not only possible, but likely. Certainly, no one should be expecting less than a three-foot rise in sea level this century.”
 
I think its great that the ice is finally melting. We are still just coming out of the last ice-age. We are still warming up. Scotland is still bouncing back up after the pressure of ice kilometers high was taken off it. I don’t know what the globe was like before the ice-age began or what sparked the ice-age. Change is part of nature, nothing stays still.
It may look great if you are not anywhere within seven feet of sea level, as much of the world’s population is.
 
Nate, you are being lied to by your Fox News sources. You would do well to become acquainted with the Climate Literacy Group, at cires.colorado.edu/blogs/mccaffrey/2010/03/05/painting-the-deck-chairs-green/

Rob Young is director of the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines at Western Carolina University, and Orrin Pilkey is James B. Duke Professor Emeritus in the Duke University Division of Earth and Ocean Science. They are the authors of The Rising Sea, published by Island Press.

“The message for the world’s leaders and decision makers is that sea level rise is real and is only going to get worse. Indeed, we make the case in our recent book, The Rising Sea, that governments and coastal managers should assume the inevitability of a seven-foot rise in sea level. This number is not a prediction. But we believe that seven feet is the most prudent, conservative long-term planning guideline for coastal cities and communities, especially for the siting of major infrastructure; a number of academic studies examining recent ice sheet dynamics have suggested that an increase of seven feet or more is not only possible, but likely. Certainly, no one should be expecting less than a three-foot rise in sea level this century.”
haha are your promising me a 9 inch rise in sea level by 12.5 years from now? If so I will await that time eagerly. That would still leave us at least 25 years to establish changes before they became catastrophic assuming we can do anything about them. I will however point out that a 3 foot rise by the end of the century would mean at least 9mm sea level rise every year. 18mm+ per year if you are forecasting 7ft. Are you sure about those stats 😉
 
Contarini #329
And yet the Catholic Church did not build Western civilization on “free enterprise.”
You’ve tried this gambit before, but everything outside of faith and morals is meant to be learned and developed by non-Magisterial Catholics (and others) in the world of living and acting using reason, without exercising "religious authority”.

Free enterprise economic development started in the great Catholic monastic estates of the ninth century, and a solid basis of economic Catholic thought developed from the fourteenth century. In the fifteenth century the Late Scholastics who were Thomists (followers of St Thomas) “writing and teaching at the University of Salamanca in Spain, sought to explain the full range of human action and social; organization.” They “observed the existence of economic law, inexorable forces of cause and effect that operate very much as other natural laws. Over the course of several generations, they discovered and explained the laws of supply and demand, the cause of inflation, the operation of foreign exchange rates, and the subjective nature of economic value…” For these reasons Joseph Schumpeter applauded them as the first real economists. (Thomas E Woods Jr, The Church And The Market, Lexington Books, 2005, p 8).
Prudence, justice, and temperance are entirely opposed (in their traditional meanings) to modern capitalism.
False, as free enterprise based on the principles of cause and effect, where in the market wealth is produced and wealth is exchanged, has the undoubted affirmation of Bl John Paul II, and Benedict XVI where, in a democracy, it functions within a rule of law.

People, as opposed to the principles developed, may practice virtues or replace them with vices.

Now see the affirmation of free enterprise as Bl John Paul II teaches in Centesimus Annus, 1991:
CA 42. ‘Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of , capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?
‘The answer is obviously complex. If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.
‘CA 43. The Church has no models to present;’
You are using euphemistic language to glorify what the Christian tradition has historically regarded as a sinful disposition characterized by avarice and pride.
By contrast Catholic tradition follows Christ’s parable of the Talents which most strikingly acknowledges Christ’s respect for the work of business, as does the parable of the Dishonest Steward – the steward is dishonest, “but the nature of his work is not. In fact by praising his shrewdness, Christ admires his opportunism. While the steward abuses the trust his master extends to him, it must be recognised that the nature of the work that is entrusted to him is fundamentally good. The sin of the steward is his misuse of his master’s business, not the work of business itself.” Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Fr Anthony G Percy, Lexington Books, 2010, p 47].
 
StA claimed they were melting. I countered with - no they ain’t. 🙂
You may have countered with it, but you would be incorrect based on the evidence you supplied. You supplied evidence that some glaciers are melting faster than others, because certain glaciers have natural insulation, not evidence that they aren’t melting.
 
A growing economy may not be in the catechism but God gave us brains so we would know what to do to help our neighbors in need. Killing babies is not what God wants. He wants us to have babies. He wants us to do good and it is good for the young to grow up and help take care of the elderly.
I never said anything about killing babies. People like to bring things like that into the argument, because it allows them to insert the “us versus them” mentality into to the argument and tag “them” as lunatics. It’s certainly easier to act on emotion than facts, because the former doesn’t require any effort, whereas the latter actual requires one to think for themselves.
 
FWIW, I do like Fox News because they help bring some balance into the picture. However, they do have a clear bias on certain issues, such as religion and environment. Extremes positions are very unhelpful, and often destructive, when attempting to make rational decisions.
 
The island of Tikopia in the South Pacific is only 1.2 square miles in extent. They managed to maintain a stable population of 1,200 people for 3,000 years, although by rather draconian means. However, they never faced starvation.
There are lessons to be learned in studying such isolated populations and how they deal with their environment. Unfortunately, a majority of people utterly dismiss them…that is, if they even know about them in the first place.
 
There are lessons to be learned in studying such isolated populations and how they deal with their environment. Unfortunately, a majority of people utterly dismiss them…that is, if they even know about them in the first place.
Communism also worked great in small environments. Its dangerous to draw broad conclusions for larger populations from small experiments.
 
FWIW, I do like Fox News because they help bring some balance into the picture. However, they do have a clear bias on certain issues, such as religion and environment. Extremes positions are very unhelpful, and often destructive, when attempting to make rational decisions.
Haha did you even read the article I posted? They reported the study done by the researcher and did a decent job of explaining the findings and how they were done in summary. They also included responses from the other side in response to it. The fact is the study would not have even been reported by any other major news organization because they assume it is a lie as St. Anastasia has. The study even made sure to hit home the point that what it measured was sea level rise at individual locations which is what really matters. If average sea level rises 7ft in the next 100 years but only rises 6 inches in the Netherlands that is a distinction that should be made. I also have to wonder what the error was quoted as being on those studies. Measuring average sea level rise within a millimeter precisions seems incredibly far-fetched. I for one will hold off final judgement until there is a real measurable quantity of sea level rise that can be shown to be precise. In my studies I worked at handling data for flight control systems for aircraft, and believe me precision of 1mm would be absolutely insane for a study like this. Whoever was analyzing the data would have to have their hands full because I’m sure the raw data was a mess.
 
It may look great if you are not anywhere within seven feet of sea level, as much of the world’s population is.
Its more than seven feet if all the ice on the planet melts. I did some numbers for you;

total icewater volume = 27,576,180km3
ocean area = 360,000,000km2

27,576,180 divided by 360,000,000 = 0.0766005km
0.0766005 kilometers = 251.313976 feet sea level rise

Ah the good 'ol days of global tropical swamps, maybe dinosaurs will evolve again.
 
Buffalo,

I just read your first link. The flaw is that it falls under the same flawed ‘we need additional population to drive demand for goods’. There’s no lack of demand, luckily (I guess) individual demand will expand to consume the available resources.
 
Haha did you even read the article I posted? They reported the study done by the researcher and did a decent job of explaining the findings and how they were done in summary. They also included responses from the other side in response to it. The fact is the study would not have even been reported by any other major news organization because they assume it is a lie as St. Anastasia has. The study even made sure to hit home the point that what it measured was sea level rise at individual locations which is what really matters. If average sea level rises 7ft in the next 100 years but only rises 6 inches in the Netherlands that is a distinction that should be made. I also have to wonder what the error was quoted as being on those studies. Measuring average sea level rise within a millimeter precisions seems incredibly far-fetched. I for one will hold off final judgement until there is a real measurable quantity of sea level rise that can be shown to be precise. In my studies I worked at handling data for flight control systems for aircraft, and believe me precision of 1mm would be absolutely insane for a study like this. Whoever was analyzing the data would have to have their hands full because I’m sure the raw data was a mess.
The article notes, in fact, that sea levels are rising. That would be supportive of the global warming argument. It’s just a matter of by how much and where.
 
Its more than seven feet if all the ice on the planet melts. I did some numbers for you; total icewater volume = 27,576,180km3
ocean area = 360,000,000km2
27,576,180 divided by 360,000,000 = 0.0766005km
0.0766005 kilometers = 251.313976 feet sea level rise
Ah the good 'ol days of global tropical swamps, maybe dinosaurs will evolve again.
That would be interesting, if we were around to see it.
 
The article notes, in fact, that sea levels are rising. That would be supportive of the global warming argument. It’s just a matter of by how much and where.
That’s one of the big questions - that and water for those who rely on the disappearing Himalayan and Andean glaciers.

I’m going to be away from this discussion for much of the day, as my organization has hired an expert on climate change and we are spending the day briefing each other. I work on theological issues related to science-denial, including climate change; the new person is the climate science expert.

StAnastasia
 
A growing economy may not be in the catechism but God gave us brains so we would know what to do to help our neighbors in need. Killing babies is not what God wants. He wants us to have babies. He wants us to do good and it is good for the young to grow up and help take care of the elderly.
Right - we are called to be servants not selfish. Abortion is about power and convenience.
 
That would be interesting, if we were around to see it.
Except to forget the fact that ice originally takes up room even though its less dense than water. You need to subtract the original ice volume from this: total icewater volume = 27,576,180km3 before then figuring out how much it would raise the overall sea level. It also assumes that none of the ice they are taking into account is inland and would raise the level of water at locations inland and not the ocean. Lots of problems with the math here.

I’m also still waiting for you to explain why there is such a huge difference between the two different estimates you gave me. On the onehand you told me the sea level was rising at around 3mm a year. And then on the other you said within the century we can expect at least 3ft if not 7ft in sea rise. The problem is though that the 3ft rise means a 9mm sea rise every year, and a 7ft sea rise means up over 20mm sea rise per year. My question to you is how do you explain the difference between these numbers? Your predicting at least a 9mm rise in sea level average for the century when the highest we have supposedly seen in one year the last 30 years is 3mm. I’d also point out that even the studies that supposedly show we have had sea level rise during the last 30 years show it to be pretty consistently around 3mm per year.

I can only assume your predicting an exponential growth in sea level rise during the next century and I have to ask where such predictions are coming from and what “models” they are based on because they certainly are based on the data we have so far.

What about this graph of sea level rise which shows a supposed 2mm-3mm rise in sea level for the last 100 years, tells us to expect exponential growth in sea level rise of anywhere near the magnitude your predicting?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
bluemarble4us.com/page07.html
 
Right - we are called to be servants not selfish. Abortion is about power and convenience.
Power and convenience works both ways, though typically the people throwing around these terms don’t see it that way. For example, convenience would be assuming that we have supposed to have as many children as humanly possible and assume that resources to support them will pop into existence ad infinitum. Facts be damned, because that means we would have to constrains our behavior and live a simpler lifestyle. Such thoughts also give power, because it assumes the other side consists of the ignorant masses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top