Killing people is good for the environment: Study

Bleipriester

Freedom!
Nov 14, 2012
31,950
4,124
1,140
Doucheland
But you mustn´t take half-measures. Only when an appropriate number of humans cede their lives, the world can be saved. We are talking about a quite big bunch.

"Human impacts prior to the Industrial Revolution are not well constrained. We investigate whether the decline in global atmospheric CO2 concentration by 7–10 ppm in the late 1500s and early 1600s which globally lowered surface air temperatures by 0.15∘C, were generated by natural forcing or were a result of the large-scale depopulation of the Americas after European arrival, subsequent land use change and secondary succession. We quantitatively review the evidence for (i) the pre-Columbian population size, (ii) their per capita land use, (iii) the post-1492 population loss, (iv) the resulting carbon uptake of the abandoned anthropogenic landscapes, and then compare these to potential natural drivers of global carbon declines of 7–10 ppm. From 119 published regional population estimates we calculate a pre-1492 CE population of 60.5 million (interquartile range, IQR 44.8–78.2 million), utilizing 1.04 ha land per capita (IQR 0.98–1.11). European epidemics removed 90% (IQR 87–92%) of the indigenous population over the next century. This resulted in secondary succession of 55.8 Mha (IQR 39.0–78.4 Mha) of abandoned land, sequestering 7.4 Pg C (IQR 4.9–10.8 Pg C), equivalent to a decline in atmospheric CO2 of 3.5 ppm (IQR 2.3–5.1 ppm CO2). Accounting for carbon cycle feedbacks plus LUC outside the Americas gives a total 5 ppm CO2 additional uptake into the land surface in the 1500s compared to the 1400s, 47–67% of the atmospheric CO2 decline. Furthermore, we show that the global carbon budget of the 1500s cannot be balanced until large-scale vegetation regeneration in the Americas is included. The Great Dying of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas resulted in a human-driven global impact on the Earth System in the two centuries prior to the Industrial Revolution."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379118307261
 
But you mustn´t take half-measures. Only when an appropriate number of humans cede their lives, the world can be saved. We are talking about a quite big bunch.

"Human impacts prior to the Industrial Revolution are not well constrained. We investigate whether the decline in global atmospheric CO2 concentration by 7–10 ppm in the late 1500s and early 1600s which globally lowered surface air temperatures by 0.15∘C, were generated by natural forcing or were a result of the large-scale depopulation of the Americas after European arrival, subsequent land use change and secondary succession. We quantitatively review the evidence for (i) the pre-Columbian population size, (ii) their per capita land use, (iii) the post-1492 population loss, (iv) the resulting carbon uptake of the abandoned anthropogenic landscapes, and then compare these to potential natural drivers of global carbon declines of 7–10 ppm. From 119 published regional population estimates we calculate a pre-1492 CE population of 60.5 million (interquartile range, IQR 44.8–78.2 million), utilizing 1.04 ha land per capita (IQR 0.98–1.11). European epidemics removed 90% (IQR 87–92%) of the indigenous population over the next century. This resulted in secondary succession of 55.8 Mha (IQR 39.0–78.4 Mha) of abandoned land, sequestering 7.4 Pg C (IQR 4.9–10.8 Pg C), equivalent to a decline in atmospheric CO2 of 3.5 ppm (IQR 2.3–5.1 ppm CO2). Accounting for carbon cycle feedbacks plus LUC outside the Americas gives a total 5 ppm CO2 additional uptake into the land surface in the 1500s compared to the 1400s, 47–67% of the atmospheric CO2 decline. Furthermore, we show that the global carbon budget of the 1500s cannot be balanced until large-scale vegetation regeneration in the Americas is included. The Great Dying of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas resulted in a human-driven global impact on the Earth System in the two centuries prior to the Industrial Revolution."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379118307261

Ah, an article published by UN globalist types. Pure bullshit.
 
But you mustn´t take half-measures. Only when an appropriate number of humans cede their lives, the world can be saved. We are talking about a quite big bunch.

"Human impacts prior to the Industrial Revolution are not well constrained. We investigate whether the decline in global atmospheric CO2 concentration by 7–10 ppm in the late 1500s and early 1600s which globally lowered surface air temperatures by 0.15∘C, were generated by natural forcing or were a result of the large-scale depopulation of the Americas after European arrival, subsequent land use change and secondary succession. We quantitatively review the evidence for (i) the pre-Columbian population size, (ii) their per capita land use, (iii) the post-1492 population loss, (iv) the resulting carbon uptake of the abandoned anthropogenic landscapes, and then compare these to potential natural drivers of global carbon declines of 7–10 ppm. From 119 published regional population estimates we calculate a pre-1492 CE population of 60.5 million (interquartile range, IQR 44.8–78.2 million), utilizing 1.04 ha land per capita (IQR 0.98–1.11). European epidemics removed 90% (IQR 87–92%) of the indigenous population over the next century. This resulted in secondary succession of 55.8 Mha (IQR 39.0–78.4 Mha) of abandoned land, sequestering 7.4 Pg C (IQR 4.9–10.8 Pg C), equivalent to a decline in atmospheric CO2 of 3.5 ppm (IQR 2.3–5.1 ppm CO2). Accounting for carbon cycle feedbacks plus LUC outside the Americas gives a total 5 ppm CO2 additional uptake into the land surface in the 1500s compared to the 1400s, 47–67% of the atmospheric CO2 decline. Furthermore, we show that the global carbon budget of the 1500s cannot be balanced until large-scale vegetation regeneration in the Americas is included. The Great Dying of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas resulted in a human-driven global impact on the Earth System in the two centuries prior to the Industrial Revolution."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379118307261

Ah, an article published by UN globalist types. Pure bullshit.
This is the plan. This is why Globalists want Democraps running America.
 
Really? They had to do a study to figure out trees are better for the environment than parking lots? :lol:
 
Really? They had to do a study to figure out trees are better for the environment than parking lots? :lol:
These were religious scientific research foundations doing the study to find out if they committed a sin by saying only white folks are allowed in Heaven...
 
Whoah. The deniers went full metal retard on this thread.

A simple article on how reforestation due to depopulation caused slight cooling was presented.

The weeping cultists then all started screaming about how it shows liberals want mass genocide. Why? For the same reasons that the Nazis said the Jews were drinking the blood of Christian babies. The deniers are making up insane stories to justify their own violence against their political opponents.

Check out their statements. Miketx came right out and said he wants liberals dead. Toro said so too. None of the deniers disagreed. All of them are very violent and unstable people.

The two sides here are totally different in that respect. You never see liberals calling for conservatives to be killed, but many conservatives here often call for the deaths of liberals. Those conservatives who don't openly wish death on liberals wink at those who do.
 
Thast's where 6' came in. no carbon release. Carbon neutral ! My 686 will go down 12 feet. Twice the security !
 
Really? They had to do a study to figure out trees are better for the environment than parking lots? :lol:
It kind of makes you wonder why the first thing the USFS does when they take over a place is lay down a shit ton of asphalt on all the so-called "delicate" places they *manage*.
 

Forum List

Back
Top