whose grumpy?

well...


your silly-assed logans run reference was ridiculous. grow up.


another wankerism... you think yourself quite clever, don't you?


make your point or stfu.

apparently, you are. you're cussing. calling me names. getting angry. telling me to shut the f*ck up if i don't say what you want me to say. calm down, buddy! you don't have to play internet tough guy around me... we're just having a civilized, rational discussion about math!

but i have to give credit where credit is due. you attempted to answer my question. thank you.

ok... doubling time. that was from the video. good job.

now take a deep breath, hvac... don't get upset. i'm gonna ask another question. i have to ask these 'cause i don't want to make assumptions about your position here.

since you mentioned doubling time... do you know what equation the doubling time estimate is based on?

-M

apparently, you are the one who is grumpy. you're cussing. calling me names. getting angry. telling me to shut the f*ck up if i don't say what you want me to say. calm down, buddy! you don't have to play internet tough guy around me... we're just having a civilized, rational discussion about math!

It is a simple concept: Put up or shut up. You want to play a game...fine. I'm quite amused at this point of the game.

So..what color is your mood ring now?

Lets see if we can cut to the chase and see if you actually have a point or just trying to see if I can add, subtract, divide and multiply:


Doubling Time

When a population grows exponentially (by a percentage of the original number), the time it takes for the population to double, called doubling time (symbol "t"), can be approximately calculated using the following formula:


t = (70/k)

where t = doubling time (usually in years) and k = the growth rate expressed as the fractional increase or decrease (for example, you would enter 0.07 for a 7 per cent increase).


Derivation of Doubling Time

To derive the doubling time formula, it is necessary to first introduce the compound growth equation (which is more completely presented a little later in this analysis). The compound growth equation can be used to project the population size of any quantity that is growing exponentially. This equation is:


future value = present value x (e)kt,

where e equals the constant 2.71828..., kequals the rate of increase (expressed as a decimal, i.e. 5% would be 0.05), and t is the number of years (or hours, days, etc. – whatever units you are using in k.) over which the growth is to be measured.

Replacing words with symbols, this equation becomes:


N = N0x (e)kt

The variable N0 represents the value of the quantity at time zero, that is, the starting point.

If a population doubles in size (that is, increases by a factor of 2), the ratio N/N0 would be exactly 2. The equation is thus rearranged as follows:


N/ N0 = ekt


2 = ekt

Taking the natural log of each side of the equation:


ln 2 = ln (ekt)

We get:


ln 2 = kt

ln 2 = 0.693, so:


0.693 = kt

Dividing by k:


0.693/k = t

For convenience sake we round 0.693 to 0.70 and we also multiply the left side of the equation by 100/100, which allows you to enter the rate as a percentage (i.e., 5% would now be entered as 5 instead of 0.05). Thus the final doubling time formula:

T = 70/k

For example, calculate the doubling time for a population growing at a rate of 7% per year.


t = 70/7 = 10 years

This means that a population growing at a 7% annual rate will double in ten years, and will double again in another ten years. Thus, at the end of 14 years, the population will be four times as large as originally.

awesome! almost there. at least you copy and pasted something relevant to the question... you're getting better!

since you copypasted the whole thing... could you pick out the one part that i was asking for? you know... just so that we can all be assured that you understand what you're copypasting.

-M

awesome! almost there. at least you copy and pasted something relevant to the question... you're getting better!

since you copypasted the whole thing... could you pick out the one part that i was asking for? you know... just so that we can all be assured that you understand what you're copypasting.

-M

Nope. Your question has been answered. Make your point if you have one. I barely graduated high school but I can look up any formula I need, to find what I need to know, about whatever it is I'm interested in.

Are you trying to impress people? Sorry. I'm not impressed. Want to impress me? Go to your home or work HVAC unit and calculate the enthalpy difference across your heat echanger in both the heating and cooling mode, then calculate the total latent and sensible heat capacity of the syatem, and post your calculations in long-hand here. This has about as much to do with global population growth as does your continued bloviation. Game over.

Point: Your continued questioning is pointless. Put up or shut up.

now you're getting mad again. there's no point to being ashamed at barely graduating high school. i've known many sharp high school grads and many dense phd's... that piece of paper is no guaranty of intelligence... don't sell yourself short!

you copypasted an entire article... that's not answering the question. it's a decoy. it's intellectually lazy. it'd be like me posting a thermodynamics textbook in response to your hypothetical question. show us you know what you're talking about!

this is your thread. you're making the claim. after several posts, you still haven't mustered the ability to completely answer my first question. as such, we're still defining your position here. it's still your turn to "put up"...

-M

now you're getting mad again. there's no point to being ashamed at barely graduating high school. i've known many sharp high school grads and many dense phd's... that piece of paper is no guaranty of intelligence... don't sell yourself short!

you copypasted an entire article... that's not answering the question. it's a decoy. it'd be like me posting a thermodynamics textbook in response to your hypothetical question. show us you know what you're talking about!

this is your thread. you're making the claim. after several posts, you still haven't mustered the ability to answer my first question. as such, we're still defining your position here. it's still your turn to "put up"...

-M

What you are attempting to do is belittle me, and to imply I don't understand how the professor arrived at his conclusion that we are headed for critical mass with population and resources. I saw that from your first post. This is why I know you have no argument. You'll take one question and then lead to another down a rabbit trail to nowhere.

If you actually had a point to make, you would have made it by now.

Quid pro quo. I've answered enough of your questions, now you answer mine for a while. Here's the first two:

1. Are you attempting to say that there is no reason for concern about global population increase?

2. Are you attempting to state that there are unlimited resources on the planet to sustain unending population growth?

Justify your answers in whatever way you choose.

While we are waiting on mmm's next non-sensical reply, here's a story about what's happening to water resources in one of our already overpopulated states:

http://www.nationalpost.com/story-printer.html?id=2340390

California using water faster than nature can replenish it: study

Steve Gorman, Reuters
http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.nationalpost.com/2340393.bin?size=194x131
David McNew/Getty Images

LOS ANGELES -- California's two main river basins and the aquifers beneath its agricultural heartland have lost nearly enough water since 2003 to fill Lake Mead (http://www.nps.gov/lame/index.htm), America's largest reservoir, new satellite data showed on Monday.

Depleted aquifers account for two-thirds of the loss measured, most of it attributed to increased groundwater pumping for irrigation of drought-parched farmland in California's fertile but arid Central Valley, scientists said.

The findings have major implications for the economy as the Central Valley is home to one-sixth of all irrigated U.S. cropland, said Jay Famiglietti, a hydrologist at the University of California, Irvine, and member of the research team.

The Central Valley, stretching 805 km from Bakersfield to Redding, has traditionally produced over half the U.S. harvest of fruits and vegetables. California as a whole ranks as the nation's No. 1 farm state in terms of crop value -- more than US$36-billion a year.

Central Valley farms have increasingly tapped into aquifers during the past few years to help offset drastic cuts in their regular allocations of irrigation water pumped in by the state and federal government from farther north.

How much water remains in California's aquifers is unknown, but satellite studies show that groundwater is being used up faster than nature can restore it.

"I don't think people realize how quickly groundwater is being depleted," Mr. Famiglietti said. "It does point to the fact that the pumping is occurring at an unsustainable rate."

Results of the satellite-imaging study, conducted by NASA and the German space agency, were presented by researchers at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.

The data are based on subtle month-to-month fluctuations in the Earth's gravitational field used to gauge changes in the presence of groundwater, surface water, ice and precipitation.

The amount of water available in the state's two biggest river basins, the Sacramento and the San Joaquin -- both of which drain California's Sierra Nevada mountain range -- has diminished by more than 30 cubic kilometers since late 2003, the study found.

That's nearly enough to fill Lake Mead on the Colorado River in Nevada, a major water source for Nevada and southern California. Two-thirds of that loss, the rough equivalent of 8 million Olympic-sized pools, was groundwater.

The San Joaquin basin accounts for the bulk of the overall loss, about 3.5 cubic kilometers of water a year, with more than 75% of that total the result of groundwater pumping in the southern end of the Central Valley, researchers said.

The California findings come months after another team of U.S. hydrologists found groundwater levels in northwest India have declined by nearly 18 cubic kilometers a year over the past decade, a loss due almost entirely to pumping and the consumption of groundwater by humans.

while we are waiting on mmm's next non-sensical reply

it's sad that the best you can do is be hateful. is this really what you consider an intelligent, rational discussion? you lack self-confidence. let your intellect make your case, not your anger.


what you are attempting to do is belittle me...

belittle you? for making you answer a question that is primary to something you're claiming is so plainly obvious and irrefuteable. right. so i'm the bad guy for actually expecting you to understand the position you hold to be true. gotcha.


quid pro quo. i've answered enough of your questions, now you answer mine for a while. you are a couple of questions up on me, so it's my turn now:

quid pro quo? are kidding me? you copypaste an article and call that an answer and then expect something in return? nihil pro quo is more like it.

but who said i wasn't generous... 1. no. 2. no. (i didn't even have to copypaste!)

while i'm still in a generous mood...

the population growth equation employed in bartlett's video is: P(t) = P0ekt
certainly you could have picked that out of your copypasta... but whatever.

even though you couldn't pick this out of a lineup... i'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt. grit your teeth... question two... do you agree that this is the growth equation bartlett employed?

-M

it's sad that the best you can do is be hateful. is this really what you consider an intelligent, rational discussion?

belittle you? for making you answer a question that is primary to something you're claiming is so plainly obvious and irrefuteable. right. so i'm the bad guy for actually expecting you to understand the position you hold to be true. gotcha.

quid pro quo? are kidding me? you copypaste an article and call that an answer and then expect something in return? nihil pro quo is more like it.

but who said i wasn't generous... 1. no. 2. no. (i didn't even have to copypaste!)

while i'm still in a generous mood...

the population growth equation employed in bartlett's video is: P(t) = P0ekt
certainly you could have picked that out of your copypasta... but whatever.

even though you couldn't pick this out of a lineup... i'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt. grit your teeth... question two... do you agree that this is the growth equation bartlett employed?

-M

I posted an answer to everything you asked.

One more time, mmm: What is your point? Do you have a problem with Bartlett's math? Did Bartlett make a mistake?

If Bartlett made a mistake, what is it?

Clearly, you are smarter than me - that's what you are implying. I love knowledge and love to learn. Teach me professor.

flattery will get you nowhere.

i'll accept that you agree with the model bartlett employs to estimate long-term human population growth. last chance to renege on this.

we're about to get to your two questions. but first, one of mine... quid pro quo, remember?

the video basically uses the exponential growth model to show that world population growth will continue unchecked until resources are depleted and thus resulting in global catastrophe. does that sum it up? just want to make sure i'm not assuming anything incorrectly.

-M

As my good Aussie mate would say, I think you are being a wanker here. Are you referring to the inability of Americans to understand the exponential function? Are you asking about the doubling time? I dunno WTF you are getting at.

Wanna stop playing the esoteric intellectual and discuss the issue?

How dare you quote me! You Bloody Wanker!:poke::poke:

flattery will get you nowhere.

Flattery? A back-handed bitch-slap perhaps, but flattery, no. Sorry you missed it. :poke:


i'll accept that you agree with the model bartlett employs to estimate long-term human population growth. last chance to renege on this.

I do. That's why I posted it. Made sense to my simple mind.


the video basically uses the exponential growth model to show that world population growth will continue unchecked until resources are depleted and thus resulting in global catastrophe. does that sum it up? just want to make sure i'm not assuming anything incorrectly.
-M

I don't recall Bartlett stating that "world population growth will continue unchecked". Bartlett was using current data plugged into the EGM to show that if growth continued at current rates, approximately when we will reach critical mass of population and resources.

Bartlett notes that technology advances have resulted in lower than initially predicted energy consumption, and that it can be expected that there will be technological advances in the future. Bartlett, at no point in my recollection, makes the statement that the formula he employed predicts anything in and of itself.

Your turn.

Goodness now kids lets be helpful to each other.

flattery? a back-handed bitch-slap perhaps, but flattery, no. sorry you missed it.

wow. so you're still angry and looking for ways to lash out... and you were the one bemoaning the lack of a rational discussion? maybe you can try to keep your emotions in check.


i don't recall bartlett stating that...

ok. i don't think you understand what i wrote. at all. that's ok. this is why i'm asking so many questions... i'm not going to assume what you think bartlett is saying. so... in your own words, what is bartlett's main point regarding population growth? does bartlett think that population growth can lead to catastrophe when we reach what you term 'critical mass'?

given that we haven't resolved this, apparently it's still your turn.

-M

I think not to EXPECT the human population to continued to a point of "overgrazing".
it could cause a catastrophic die off, in which they either moved on, or died is too a rosey picture of the future.
Its been suggested the Native Americans in the area of Pueblo dwellings did that very same thing.
The Mayans and (off hand I cant remember the name of a East Indian society) also met the same end.

fair enough, gmwise. hvac... do you agree that this accurately portrays the video's conclusion? just trying to understand you since you are so easily offended by answering questions.

-M

wow. so you're still angry and looking for ways to lash out... and you were the one bemoaning the lack of a rational discussion? maybe you can try to keep your emotions in check.You left out my humorous pokey stick. :poke: Please, avoid attempts at misrepresentation in the future.


ok. i don't think you understand what i wrote. at all. that's ok. this is why i'm asking so many questions... i'm not going to assume what you think bartlett is saying. so... in your own words, what is bartlett's main point regarding population growth? does bartlett think that population growth can lead to catastrophe when we reach what you term 'critical mass'?

given that we haven't resolved this, apparently it's still your turn.

-M

Oh...I understand you loud and clear. I don't know what Bartlett "thinks" per se, but Bartlett implies that if we, as the human race, do not control human population growth, dire consequences will likely result.

Do you disagree with that assumption?

fair enough, gmwise. hvac... do you agree that this accurately portrays the video's conclusion? just trying to understand you since you avoid answering questions.

-M

For me I think there's no problem to ask people to think about child planning, having kids left and right with little regards on how to either support them, or their ability to contribute to society.
To asked the planet in general to have just one child for example for one generation.
I think a nation, a family should consider the presence of fresh water, and education, food production and other factors.
I do know quite a few doctors say things to the worst case, to get some of their patients to listen to them.
I made those examples of my last post to show its possible( the worlds' population) for it to happen.

you left out my humorous pokey stick.

"humerous pokey stick" doesn't give you license to say anything and then later claim misrepresentation.

anyway...


bartlett implies that if we, as the human race, do not control human population growth, dire consequences will likely result.

'"dire consequences"... catastrophic events such as the aids epidemic in africa?

-M

For me I think there's no problem to ask people to think about child planning, having kids left and right with little regards on how to either support them, or their ability to contribute to society.
To asked the planet in general to have just one child for example for one generation.
I think a nation, a family should consider the presence of fresh water, and education, food production and other factors.
I do know quite a few doctors say things to the worst case, to get some of their patients to listen to them.
I made those examples of my last post to show its possible( the worlds' population) for it to happen.

agreed. certainly we have to be good stewards of our resources but how closely should we guard them? is ok to give incentives to those who voluntarily sterilize? is ok to sterilize those with genetic traits likely to create people who are a burden on tight resources?

-M

For the sake of humanity's survival..yes

in the situation regarding those with less-than-desired genetic traits... is non-voluntary sterilization warranted?

-M

So the question I put forward to HVAC before mmm cornered him is exactly "how" you go about trying to get billions of third worlders to stop having sex or start using contraception when their cultures reward them for having more children, who'se machismo gives them higher standing when they have more children, and who would resist anything the US would try to suggest they do? How do you convince billions to use contraception when their religion forbids it or when they do so out of a patriotic duty to fight an enemy (ie. Palestinians vs. Israelis)? We can't stop teenage pregnancies here. We can't stop the poor, the drug addicted and ignorant from getting pregnant and having multiple abortions here. We have up to 20 million people in this country illegally who have anchor babies so we can't deport them - not to mention the higher birthrate overall. Even the Chinese can't stop their population issue completely and they are a totalitarian country.

"humerous pokey stick" doesn't give you license to say anything and then later claim misrepresentation.

Don't flatter yourself and expect to walk away unschathed.


'"dire consequences"... catastrophic events such as the aids epidemic in africa?

-M

You gotta be shiittin me, LOL! AIDS in Africa?

Still ain't got a clue where you are headed bro. Seems you are still trying to climb Esoteric Mountain. Doesn't exist. Give it up.

don't flatter yourself and expect to walk away unschathed.

so now you say you meant it. no wonder i have to get you to have to spell out your position... you don't commit to anything.


you gotta be shiittin me, lol! aids in africa?

so you think that's silly?

-M

in the situation regarding those with less-than-desired genetic traits... is non-voluntary sterilization warranted?

-M

Absolutey not...
unless mom gave birth to a children whose a ginger...lol

absolutey not...

not even for the sake of humanity's survival?


unless mom gave birth to a children whose a ginger

of course that goes without saying... nobody likes gingers. :P

-M

not even for the sake of humanity's survival?



-M

ok if it means fewer Republicans sure...


LOL

so now you say you meant it. no wonder i have to get you to have to spell out your position... you don't commit to anything.
so you think that's silly?
-M

Do you have a point or not?

Do you have a question or not?

Me smells bovine squeeze emanating from your posts.

well... i figured it was relevant since you posted a video that explicitly makes that claim... but by all means go ahead and get angry and hurl insults.

-M

well... i figured it was relevant since you posted a video that explicitly makes that claim... but by all means go ahead and get angry and hurl insults.

-M

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????

:headscrat :Smiley236

So the question I put forward to HVAC before mmm cornered him is exactly "how" you go about trying to get billions of third worlders to stop having sex or start using contraception when their cultures reward them for having more children, who'se machismo gives them higher standing when they have more children, and who would resist anything the US would try to suggest they do? How do you convince billions to use contraception when their religion forbids it or when they do so out of a patriotic duty to fight an enemy (ie. Palestinians vs. Israelis)? We can't stop teenage pregnancies here. We can't stop the poor, the drug addicted and ignorant from getting pregnant and having multiple abortions here. We have up to 20 million people in this country illegally who have anchor babies so we can't deport them - not to mention the higher birthrate overall. Even the Chinese can't stop their population issue completely and they are a totalitarian country.

Religion is THE major issue in our global population problem. Religion is the tap root of most world problems like this. Take religion out of the equation, and we would be probably 90% of the way to a solution. It is largely due to the ridiculous religious beliefs and doctrine concerning birth control that is causing the overpopulation problem.

See, mugsy, when you look at this situation, you see an insurmountable problem. Many people do, and just throw their hands up and say silly things like "god will show us the way". Really? How's god doing so far? Or they say things like, well, maybe the disease process will work out the population problem. Really? Is that what you want? Imagine your children succumbing to a deadly disease because you failed to act. Rather than thinking logically and acting, even in small ways toward a solution, people just quit and resign themselves to fate.

Just one small step at a time, over time, can begin the process of solving the problem. Education is step one.

'"dire consequences"... catastrophic events such as the aids epidemic in africa?

-M

Bartlett addressed the disease process as one way that population is reduced. This is obviously not a desireable solution, and we have spent trillions on medical research to keep diseases in check. There's that technology issue again, but in this case, the technology works to prevent and cure disease, and allow humans to live even longer.

The most likely catostrophic event is likely to be war over food and energy resources as we continue to deplete natural resources like petroleum and steel. Petrol and steel are relied upon heavily by agri-business to get food to our tables. We run out of petroleum to drive the steel planters and harvesters, just imagine the chaos of the billions of city dwellers who depend on big ag for their food.

I think we are 5 minutes to midnight. I hope I'm wrong. I hope humanity will begin to see where we are headed and take action, because to do nothing will lead to suffering on a scale none of us want to imagine.

There are 7 Billion people on the planet now. Even at a 1% growth rate, that will double the population to 14 Billion in 70 years...one average human lifetime. One human lifetime. It's 5 minutes till midnight folks.

Religion is THE major issue in our global population problem. Religion is the tap root of most world problems like this. Take religion out of the equation, and we would be probably 90% of the way to a solution. It is largely due to the ridiculous religious beliefs and doctrine concerning birth control that is causing the overpopulation problem.
WOW...what a shock, you blame religion for all the world's ills....:rolleyes:

We all know about your rabid faithfulness in the religion of hating of religion, you have the zeal of a traveling Pentecostal tent revival preacher in your one man crusade to "eradicate religion" from the face of the earth is not going to work. Just as always, we see the REAL reasons behind your inane postings of the same thing over and over. It's nothing but the same tired old thing over and over.

So the question I put forward to HVAC before mmm cornered him is exactly "how" you go about trying to get billions of third worlders to stop having sex or start using contraception when their cultures reward them for having more children, who'se machismo gives them higher standing when they have more children, and who would resist anything the US would try to suggest they do? How do you convince billions to use contraception when their religion forbids it or when they do so out of a patriotic duty to fight an enemy (ie. Palestinians vs. Israelis)? We can't stop teenage pregnancies here. We can't stop the poor, the drug addicted and ignorant from getting pregnant and having multiple abortions here. We have up to 20 million people in this country illegally who have anchor babies so we can't deport them - not to mention the higher birthrate overall. Even the Chinese can't stop their population issue completely and they are a totalitarian country.

Mugsy,
I take exemption to Israel being a 3rd World Country.
They have a modern nation state.
Compare their info with other nations, or even against the US.
They have a stable food supply,the literacy rate if not on par ,above the US, a modern military, a functional democracy.
I had an instructor who would add a requirement the nations policies wasnt based on religious leaders.

WOW...what a shock, you blame religion for all the world's ills....:rolleyes:

We all know about your rabid faithfulness in the religion of hating of religion, you have the zeal of a traveling Pentecostal tent revival preacher in your one man crusade to "eradicate religion" from the face of the earth is not going to work. Just as always, we see the REAL reasons behind your inane postings of the same thing over and over. It's nothing but the same tired old thing over and over.


I dont think for me thats my goal.
I just want the folks to use common sense and decency.
If they would, its most likely to convert "unbelievers".

WOW...what a shock, you blame religion for all the world's ills....:rolleyes:

We all know about your rabid faithfulness in the religion of hating of religion, you have the zeal of a traveling Pentecostal tent revival preacher in your one man crusade to "eradicate religion" from the face of the earth is not going to work. Just as always, we see the REAL reasons behind your inane postings of the same thing over and over. It's nothing but the same tired old thing over and over.

That's real astute there doggy. Answer this for our forum members::

"Can you think of any problem, on any scale, from microscopic to global, whose long term solution is in any way aided, assisted or advanced by having larger populations at the local level, the state level, the national level or globally?"

Then, snoop doggy dog, answer this:

"Tell us all what good religion has done for the planet as far as global population is concerned?"

All religions, as far as I know, pushes it's members to breed, so as to increase the population of all those good Christians and Muslims so as to outnumber all the heathen infidels . So you see dog, religion is the problem, not the solution to global overpopulation.

That is a stone cold fact.

Got evidence to the contrary? Let's hear it.

WOW...what a shock, you blame religion for all the world's ills....:rolleyes:

We all know about your rabid faithfulness in the religion of hating of religion, you have the zeal of a traveling Pentecostal tent revival preacher in your one man crusade to "eradicate religion" from the face of the earth is not going to work. Just as always, we see the REAL reasons behind your inane postings of the same thing over and over. It's nothing but the same tired old thing over and over.

Yes why he persists is beyond me, we all know you can't reason with blind faith!

Mugsy,
I take exemption to Israel being a 3rd World Country.
They have a modern nation state.
Compare their info with other nations, or even against the US.
They have a stable food supply,the literacy rate if not on par ,above the US, a modern military, a functional democracy.
I had an instructor who would add a requirement the nations policies wasnt based on religious leaders.

Sorry, been busy today. I may have worded it badly but I didn't mean to infer
Israel as 3rd world. What I was meaning to point out is that Palestinians are having children by the bucketload intentionally to simply overrun Israel if nothing else works. This is an example of certain societies that encourage having children for political reasons.

hmmm ok. i will let you get by with that..lol