It a tie game at the end of regulation time.

Only off by a factor of 1000... But close enough, I guess...

worl population - Google Search

Great! Now, for the first overtime.

You are welcome. When you went from billions to trillions I thought it might have been that auto-correct was inserting its own number. That happens to me a lot and I have to correct it often.

Anyway, here is a little food for thought for those who don't think 8 billion humans with all their equipment and technology can't possibly have an effect on the climate.
One beaver in a valley of trees with a stream can, over a relatively short time, dam the stream, flood the valley, and completely change the micro-climate of the valley and surrounding area.
No, I am not suggesting beavers are a problem. Just a demonstration that if one small rodent with no tools or tech can do that, then the combined effects of 8 billion humans with machines, explosives, tech, etc, can easily effect climate on a global scale.

And how many beavers does it take to influence the climate? I believe you have mistakenly or misunderstood the definition of climate. Perhaps you meant to suggest that this one beaver's flatulence increases the temperature?
If you are suggesting that mankind is causing global warming, one could surmise that getting rid of mankind would cause an ice age.
Maybe when some suggest that an increase in population causes warming, then that would mean that high population areas should be very warm and low population areas very cold, OR maybe the large population is due to the warm weather drawing those that enjoy warm weather to the area.
Like I have stated before, once you all figure out how to manipulate the climate, please create a warmer yearly average temperature up North so that I can enjoy areas that have mountain ranges. This flat land of Florida is kind of boring. :thumbup:

I personally apologized for my grievous mistake. I gave myself 20 lashes with my favorite whip and did 80 push-ups to TRY to make amends. My crack staff that normally catches all my mistakes also has been punished.

I remember reading something similar. Before wolves were RE-INTRODUCED into a Federal park (Yellowstone, I think). Before that, the wolves had all been killed by poisoned bait and bounties for hunters. During that BEFORE period, deer and elk would graze close to the creeks in the area. Their hoofs would kick up dust and cause silt and mud to form in the creek. The mud would settle on the fish eggs (I believe trout) and kill their eggs. After the WOLVES were re-introduced, the deer and elk would avoid the banks of the rivers and creeks which would make them OPEN targets for the wolves. The creek water became cleaner and the fish population grew.

I believe that beavers create deep holes that fish prefer and their dams act against flooding and serve as a filter for cleaner water. Both examples show how NATURE prefers a balance. And the converse of that is that mankind and especially a lot of mankinds can mess up that balance. Humans create an excess of CO2 that there are NOT enough plants, forests, and oceans to restore to balance out. I have given many examples, but the one that bothers me a lot is the acidification of oceans and the bleaching and killing of reef coral - it's like ripping up a beautiful painting !

Actually, when you think about it, all other things being equal, high-population areas ARE definitely warmer than the corresponding low-population areas. Take Houston during the summer, it is much hotter than the cooler rural areas outside Houston. Concrete high rises surrounded by asphalt streets are a heat trap with very few trees. In the rural areas the grass, brush, and trees are pulling up water from the soil by capillary action and allowing the leaves to provide evaporative cooling.

Tech can produce a lot of heat. I am thinking about the HUGE energy using warehouses that kept track of BitCoin transactions.

I'm sorry, but I can't take this reply seriously.
I never mentioned beaver flatulence. Where did you get that from?
As for your premise that getting rid of mankind would cause an ice age, you are wrong. If humans all disappeared over night the earth would very quickly reclaim all that we had altered and restore the natural balance. The rest of the world doesn't need us, but we need it. So let's quit screwing it up?.
Lastly, if I could control the climate, I would try to maintain balance, not make the North warm just for you? Lots of folks enjoy the mountains, snow and all. And the annual resupply of fresh water is essential to all life, not just human.

It would probably take a while for the earth to find balance again but a small time as far as the age of the earth is concerned.

Correct, a populated area should be warmer than a non-populated area. However, you are not taking into consideration the Southern location of Houston. Moscow, Russia has something like five times the population of Houston and has a very cool average temp. Is it warmer than areas outside of the city. Of course. That only proves that you feel that humans should not be allowed to populate the world. Sorry, but like I have said before we are at the top of the food chain and will continue to live here. Nature will replenish the world as we expend it's resources. You may be able to prove that we influence our immediate environment, but you cannot prove that we have any influence on Climate Change. The climate WILL change whether we wish it or not. Another poster scoffed at my tongue in cheek request that if mankind can change the climate, would they please increase the temps in the Northern states so that I can enjoy the mountains in comfort. That poster took my statement as serious.
Sorry, but no one has proven that mankind has made any changes to climate change rotation, just as we have not changed the rotation of this planet. Spend all your money on this fallacy, since you all have so much to waste but I plan to continue to live without sacrificing. I will be considerate by disposing of my litter properly, but I will also continue to use fossil fuels. After all, what reason is there to leave them in the ground and not use them as GOD intended?

I'm that poster and the very first sentence of the post said that I could NOT take your comments seriously.

No one claims humans have changed the earth's rotation. But, through over population and our destruction of land and sea habitats, we have increased the rate of the warming.

And last, (tongue in cheek) lucky that God told you about what fossil fuels are intended for. The part about gas and oil refineries to operate IC engines, etc, wasn't in my Bible.

You mean you don't have the latest Exxon-Mobil version?????? :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

But seriously, I can't seriously take anyone who thinks 100 years of burning fossil fuels has significantly altered 4 million years of 100,000 yearlong cycles driven by the power of the sun and Earth's orbit, not to mention huge volcanic eruptions. It's the equivalent of thinking a single seasick passenger on a cruise line that vomits acidic stomach contents will lower the pH of the Pacific Ocean.

That being said, is it possible that our current and future activity will accelerate the current global warming cycle that started 20,000 years ago? Entirely possible, but so far there is no conclusive proof, just speculation, conjecture, and extrapolation of short-term data. Probably the best conjecture came from climatologists that are not financially beholden to the current political view, who have stated that human activity will at most delay the next period of glaciation by 5-10,000 years----but this is due to the rise of agriculture in Asia over the past 8,000 years, NOT you SUV. But they too could be wrong. Time will tell. But by time I mean thousands of years, NOT the idiotic time frame of 5 years that has been suggested by some.

It is going to be 29 in the Villages on Christmas. At that will be not that much warmer than the weather in Minneapolis, MN on Christmas. Access Denied

Good point! I also love it when someone attempts to explain how man has caused global warming which in turn causes extreme cold winters. Someone else suggested that Houston's great population has caused warming in Texas, so I was wondering how warm Moscow (which is about five times the population of Houston) has made Russia. I bet there are a few Ruskies that would welcome a few "C's" of warmer temps.
Disclaimer: I never professed to be a scientist or expert on the weather, so I tend to make my opinions based on common sense. I don't believe that mankind can perpetuate climate change, although I used to think that a nuclear explosion could cause a temporary winter weather change. That said, recently I believe that theory was debunked.

Correct. "Nuclear winter" and the "Runaway greenhouse effect" are both myths and will be debunked (especially the Venus "runaway greenhouse" myth) at January's Weather Club ... The Villages Weather Club In the meantime, ya'll enjoy CO2 induced global warming.

Common sense is not really that common and is often wrong. There is much in the world that is counterintuitive. For example, take the so-called magnetic hills, where it appears that gravity make things roll up hill. The lay of the land in these places creates an optical illusion and while things appear to be defying gravity, they, in reality, are not.

No! I don't have the Exxon-Mobile edition. I hope Wal-Mart sells them. 😀

The "100 years of burning fossil fuels" is only a part of the story that started when we first began to grow crops, build settlements. Settlements became cities. A few crops became huge factory farms with poisons and fertilizers that made their way into rivers, ground water and the oceans. Great forests that provided oxygen and neutraized CO2 were destroyed to make room for farms and livestock ranches that created more earth and air toxins, and the forests we needed were gone.
The land was transformed and huge cities built with factories and refineries and manufacturing that dumped their waste into the rivers. The acids and poisons again made their way into the environment, poisoning the air, land and sea and we had damaged the lungs of the earth again. As our population grew, we did ever more damage to the terrarium we call home, planet Earth. The industrial revolution along with our exponential population growth and habitat destruction has not created the warming, but it has sped up the process.
I know many don't believe it, don't want to believe it, refuse to believe it. I also know those same people won't change or alter their behavior in any way. Take it as science fiction if you like, but, think of all the commonplace things in todays world that were unbelievable science fiction only a mere 100 years ago, like your cellphone and other "miracles" of modern every day life.

So, we essentially stated the same thing. You agree that human activity did not create our current global warming, which has been going on for 20,000 years. The only point of debate is whether, and to what extent we have "sped up the process". At the extreme, some say not at all, and others cite 5 years. Both are highly unlikely, in fact, since the polar ice caps did not disappear in 2010 as predicted in 2001, the 5 year hypothesis can be chucked in the trash where it belongs. Probably thousands of years, but that guess is just that----a guess

Some would call that "common sense." :beer3:

This flies in the face of our resident "Chicken Little"...

🌍 NASA: The Earth is greener now than it was 20 years ago

Our difference, indeed, seems to be the time factor to eco-disaster for human kind. You seem to believe it is nothing to be concerned about. I think it is a problem that is already making itself known, and the sooner we begin to address it, the sooner we can correct it. Like a car accelerating downhill, the faster it goes, the more ground it will cover and it will take longer and be harder to stop. We are "oiloholics", and the first step is acknowledging that we have a problem.
If we don't begin soon, then I can imagine coastal cities where, instead of taxi's, people will get around in gondolas, like in Venice, Italy.

I think you’re focusing on the wrong catastrophe, you’re not tuned in to what really is happening. Potential, determined terroists are a far bigger threat now than any global warming threat.

Here's the problem with that reasoning:

Even if there wasn't a single human, or cow fart on Earth, in 20-25,000 years all that "eco-disaster" flooding of coastal cities and global temperatures of 4-6 degrees higher would occur ANYWAY. It has happened dozens of times in the last 4 million years without any help from humanity, and it will happen again. The last time it happened was about 15,000 years ago----and the evidence is cities off the coast of India and Japan, and possibly in the Caribbean and Mediterranean that predate the start of the latest warming cycle and are now under 200 feet of water since they were built on the coastline of the time.

So, even given the chicken little scenarios, all we could do is reduce/eliminate human contribution (by living in the stone age) and everything they fear will HAPPEN ANYWAY. Now, if the great concern is that we accelerate the time frame so it happens in 15,000 years instead of 25,000, have at it. By all means spend 100 trillion dollars to "combat" it. Unfortunately, that would be a fool's errand. To those who think it will happen in 5, or 50, or even 500 years---get off Fantasy Island, that isn't even remotely close to reality.

Rogue states, terrorists, are indeed a problem. And the pressure of over population only makes it worse.
But the focus here is climate change. War could be another thread.

If "we" weren't here, then "we" wouldn't have a problem. But, we are here. 8 billion of us, with numbers growing exponentially. The negatives of our current existence is also growing exponentially, and the 15,000 to 20,000 year time frame you give is quite likely much, much less than you think. Changes happen ever faster. We seniors will be gone before long and we won't be overly affected. But those very close behind us better learn to swim (tongue in cheek). Waterworld is on the way and Fantasy Island will be no more.
Living in the stone age is not required. Lowering birth rates and learning to make the best use of new technologies in all industries, from farming to manufacturing. Serious recycling of resources. Lots can and should be done to begin halting further destruction of the earth.

Maybe. But there is absolutely no scientific data to support a time frame. There is only conjecture, guessing, magical thinking and extrapolation of short term weather records. None of this supports neither a 15,000 nor 50-year time frame. However, I suspect those "closely behind us" will have as much in common with us as we have with cavemen. And they may very well have the technology to deal with the "problems we leave them"

Golfing Eagles is correct. And, regarding destruction, CO2-induce, man-made global warming will destroy plants that aren't protected from global cooling -- Friday morning.