Sentences with phrase «either human population growth»

Human population growth rates are hardly exponential.

Human population growth is a big problem.

But human population growth and our use of resources are both growing superlinearly, and that is potentially unstable.

That's good news for lemurs in their native home of Madagascar, where lemurs live on the brink of extinction, and where human population growth makes contact with people and inter-species exchange of infectious disease increasingly likely.

That's one of several conclusions reached by University of Nebraska - Lincoln ecologist John DeLong, who has co-authored the first study to quantify the relationship between human population growth and energy use on an international scale.

That problem may spread as the 21st century moves forward, thanks to human population growth.

The findings challenge the commonly held view that the advent of agriculture 10,000 - 12,000 years ago accelerated human population growth.

With the current human population growth, these plants can not sustain such high levels of collection and habitat loss.»

This is due to the unabated upward trends in human population growth (6), atmospheric heat content, and OA (2).

Most of the world's coral reefs are situated in areas with maximum human population growth and therefore impending important expansion of extractive and development - related local pressures.

Human population growth and the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration have growth exponentially with industrialization.

Eventually, however, human population growth and trade networks meant people reconnected, and that, say scholars, led to the genetic admixture in the dog population.

317/5: 00 Inference of super-exponential human population growth via efficient computation of the site frequency spectrum for generalized models.

Malthus forecast that human population growth would increase exponentially, while food supplies would increase only along a straight line.

This year, so far in Utah, 90 percent of the dogs are finding homes or being returned to their owners, and we've now racked up 23 no - kill communities, despite a 30 percent increase in human population growth.

According to Taylor Ellis, wildlife technician for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, the plover's threatened status is linked to development, human population growth, and human activity that has caused a decline in its nesting habitat.

These materials, supplemented by shreds of Australian and British military uniforms supplied by Hall, were employed to create the forms of desert animals that have been eradicated by human population growth and climate change in the women's lifetimes.

This cultural shift must also include the recognition, as the present study makes clear, that the problem of human population growth can be feasibly addressed only if it is recognized that increases in the population of the human species, like increases in the population of all other species, is a function of increases in food availability.»

However, there are certainly forms of «economic activity» that don't require either human population growth, or increased use of physical resources.

Note that any net change in biomass (whether trees, or cows or even humans) does affect atmospheric CO2, but the direct impact of human population growth is tiny even though our indirect effects have been huge.

* The role of the US in global efforts to address pollutants that are broadly dispersed across national borders, such as greenhouse gasses, persistent organic pollutants, ozone, etc...; * How they view a president's ability to influence national science policy in a way that will persist beyond their term (s), as would be necessary for example to address global climate change or enhancement of science education nationwide; * Their perspective on the relative roles that scientific knowledge, ethics, economics, and faith should play in resolving debates over embryonic stem cell research, evolution education, human population growth, etc... * What specific steps they would take to prevent the introduction of political or economic bias in the dissemination and use of scientific knowledge; * (and many more...)

Conventional wisdom in the environmental movement is that global human population growth will plateau somewhere around 9 billion people, sometime around the middle of this century (between 2050 - 2070 or so).

Once again, thanks for more of your always incisive comments, especially the ones above relating to the problem of human population growth.

Worldwatch says this «urbanization» (a vicious euphemism) actually accounts for 90 % of human population growth, and perhaps 90 % of human misery too.

The only amusing thing about this followup statement is how closely it resembles the semi-non-apology Rush Limbaugh offered his listeners last year a week after he proposed that I kill myself if I really think human population growth is bad for the planet.

6:26 p.m. Postscript I have to note a broader point relating the clash of hominids at the heart of this movie to the Medea hypothesis of the paleontologist Peter Ward, which Ward explored in the context of human population growth in an interesting interview with Scott Thill for AlterNet.

I truly admire all the misanthropes who vow not to have children in order to combat the planet - choking momentum of human population growth.

The potential causes of global human population growth have seemed to them so complex, obscure, or numerous that a strategy to address the problems posed by the recent, menacing growth of the human species has been assumed to be unknowable.

But I personally think such a future would diminish us all, so I would like to see more people listen to Steve Salmony, Jack Alpert, and other voices in favor of slowing human population growth now in a humane way.

Continued rapid human population growth makes it harder and more costly to solve all our problems.

No matter what «solutions» technology comes up with, human population growth will overwhelm them.

It's something we've discussed quite a bit here on TreeHugger: the role of human population growth and the decimation of ecosystems.

Robert Kunzig at National Geographic, who's been writing in depth on human population growth for years, has a superb analysis of this paper and other work, led by the Austrian demographer Wolfgang Lutz, pointing to more modest growth.

Let's face it, because no one will: it all comes down to halting human population growth, then slowly shrinking it back to a level where other species have breathing room, and we have a smaller energy footprint on the earth.

Human population growth rate is expected (UN projections, etc.) to decrease sharply to less than Y / 3 % per year.

Human population growth, growing demand for water, and declining biodiversity are other issues wrapped up in the warnings of a coming food crisis.

Global water extractions have increased more than six fold in the last century, which is more than twice the rate of human population growth.

It is anticipated by most sources that human population growth rates will decrease sharply from the very high exponential rates seen in the second half of the 20th century.

Flatly assuming that human CO2 emissions are going to continue at the same exponential rate when human population growth is expected to decline sharply to one - fourth the past rate is stupid.

If «human population growth» slows down to one - fourth the past rate, it is idiotic to blindly assume (as you have done) that human - emitted CO2 will NOT slow down.

It ignores two real physical constraints on human CO2 emissions (plus resulting warming) in the future: — changes in human population growth rates — total carbon contained in remaining fossil fuel reserves

@manacker: «As I pointed out to Mosh, Vaughan's analysis is basically OK for the past, but sucks for the future because it ignores two overriding constraints: human population growth rates and total available fossil fuels.»

To «extrapolate» Hofmann's Law of human - caused CO2 increase to a world where human population growth is expected to slow down sharply to around one - fourth of the previous rate is obviously foolish, unless one also reduces the expected exponential CO2 increase accordingly.

Tying future human CO2 growth projections to human population growth projections and adding in a 30 % estimated increase in per capita CO2 emissions by 2100, gives you a CO2 level of 640 ppmv (or a bit higher than IPCC case B2).

While the above analysis yields good results for by tying past climate change to increases in human CO2 emissions, it should be cautioned that the suggested exponential time relation is not suitable for projecting the future over longer time periods, because of possible changes in human population growth rates and absolute limitations on carbon available in remaining fossil fuels.

I'm sure you will agree that future human CO2 emissions will in some way be linked to future human population growth rates, i.e. if population grows rapidly humans will emit more CO2 in the future than if population grows slowly..

Simply tied future human CO2 emissions to expected future human population growth and added in a per capita increase in fossil fuel consumption similar to the one seen in the past.

I have simply pointed out a) that your «extrapolation» of human - induced CO2 increase does not take into account expected future trends in human population growth, and b) that your 2100 level of 1000 ppm exceeds CO2 increase that would occur from consuming all the optimistically estimated fossil fuel resources remaining on our planet.

I'd question the realism of this «high side» estimate by IPCC, since it assumes that the exponential rate of increase in CO2 concentration will jump from the current rate of 0.5 % per year to 0.74 % per year, despite a projected major slowdown in human population growth rate.

Human population growth over the second half of the 20th century was at a record high at 1.7 % exponential growth rate.