It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientists Warn Sun Will "Go to Sleep" in 2030, Could Cause Temperatures to Plummet

page: 7
62
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: fixer1967
Solar activity is not the same thing as solar irradiance.

edit on 7/12/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: _BoneZ_
a reply to: sylvie

Post away! Would love to read it.





Alrighty then.


As I said, if the demographic trend continues, there will be only 1 billion people left on Earth by 2300.

That demographic trend is already very visible in places like Germany and Japan, whose populations are literally going extinct. A birth rate of about 2.1 to 2.3 children per woman of a given population is considered what's needed for the upkeep of population numbers. In many countries, the birth rate is now 1.5 to 1.8.

The trend is the same but not quite as drastic (yet) in the US and other first-world and emerging countries. A greater and greater proportion of those populations are old people, and birth rates have been plummeting all over the world. In the US, within the next 10 years, all 76 million baby boomers - that's a whopping 25% of the population! - will have reached retirement age, and there are not enough young workers to pay into SS and Medicare today.

The myth of worldwide overpopulation is just that, a myth. The truth is that the current trend was already visible in the 1930s, but then the baby boomers came along in the 1950s and warped the big picture... that's when those fearmongering "Help, there are too many people in the world!" science books were written and became the bible for American academia. Until just a few years ago, it was pretty much global consensus that at some point we'd run out of resources due to overpopulation... but now researchers are starting to wake up to the truth.

Social Security and Medicare (and their equivalents in other countries) won't work much longer anymore. Social Security was invented in the 1930s or '40s, when most people lived to 65 or 70 max - so the SS money was there to make their last years a bit more comfortable. Now that people live to 90 or a 100 in many cases, the system doesn't work anymore.

You probably know that Social Security and Medicare are "pay as you go" systems, not some kind of savings account that you pay into while you work and then withdraw from in your old age. This is not how SS works. When the system was established, there were something like 46 workers per retiree... today we're approaching 2 workers per retiree. The system is broken, and we're basically looking at a demographic catastrophe of unprecedented levels.

You also have to see that old people usually incur much higher healthcare costs than young people, so at some point our healthcare budget will be totally overwhelmed - and our politicians are still happily kicking the can down the road.

How do I know all this? I'm a copy editor and have recently edited an ebook written by a science journalist. It's not out yet, but I was absolutely fascinated by what I read.

edit on 12-7-2015 by sylvie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Why have they not don deep thermal energy?
russia can drill 5 miles deep.

in coal mines 1 mile deep it is Very hot.
you could have a full ice age and stay hot down thire.
use a nuclear generator too.
both would give you power to grow plants.
but only the rich and slaves would get in.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: sylvie

Wonderfully written post. Thank you for the clarity. I would like to ask this question: With our current food production (supposedly) being based upon hydrocarbon fertilizers, what happens when the hydrocarbons run out? Is there something that I and many others are missing? So as not to derail this thread, feel free to PM me. Or please, start another thread. I'd love to learn about alternatives or the actual state of our fertilization means.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: buddha
Why have they not don deep thermal energy?
russia can drill 5 miles deep.

in coal mines 1 mile deep it is Very hot.
you could have a full ice age and stay hot down thire.
use a nuclear generator too.
both would give you power to grow plants.
but only the rich and slaves would get in.


So ZION you mean? lol



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: sylvie

Well written post and from what i can tell most likely right on the money.....




When the system was established, there were something like 46 workers per retiree... today we're approaching 2 workers per retiree. The system is broken, and we're basically looking at a demographic catastrophe of unprecedented levels.


Quite disturbing if these numbers are correct ...



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: sylvie

You also have to see that old people usually incur much higher healthcare costs than young people, so at some point our healthcare budget will be totally overwhelmed - and our politicians are still happily kicking the can down the road..


True, but they won't have to kick it very far. Though MORE people live to be 100, very few actually do. The average lifespan has surely grown past 65, the age "retirement" was originally set at, and pensions funds provided for, just in case you beat the odds. But right now it's about 78, or for people who have lived to 65 already, 83 (childhood killers having been avoided). But still, AFAIK, all the Boomers are going to die. And the RATE at which they are going to die is already going up because the very first boomers are now 70.

So they (Cough. I should say "we") won't be around much longer. And though you can complain about the drain on social security and medicare, you're forgetting about all that money we've got, because we, you know, own the world. And that money still greases the wheels and powers the Boomer Economy. And if we will it to you guys, you'll just blow it in a frenzy, then wonder what happened. Because y'all still think the fridge fills itself.

And what's really funny is that the real issue is this boomer economy will result in nobody available to do the jobs. They'll go wanting because nobody will be qualified to fill them. Not enough people.

So good luck with the robots, because you're gonna need them. And they'll be able to do the copy editing, too.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: OrdoAdChao
a reply to: sylvie

Wonderfully written post. Thank you for the clarity. I would like to ask this question: With our current food production (supposedly) being based upon hydrocarbon fertilizers, what happens when the hydrocarbons run out? Is there something that I and many others are missing? So as not to derail this thread, feel free to PM me. Or please, start another thread. I'd love to learn about alternatives or the actual state of our fertilization means.


I don't know. I'm certainly not an expert on hydrocarbons or fertilizers. However, there are ways to grow food without those fertilizers (research: permaculture), and I'd say with a lot fewer people on the planet, that shouldn't be too hard.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: sylvie

Well written post and from what i can tell most likely right on the money.....




When the system was established, there were something like 46 workers per retiree... today we're approaching 2 workers per retiree. The system is broken, and we're basically looking at a demographic catastrophe of unprecedented levels.


Quite disturbing if these numbers are correct ...


They are (approximately):


Most of the major shifts in worker-to-beneficiary ratios before the 1960s are attributable to the dynamics of the program's maturity. In the early stages of the program, many paid in and few received benefits, and the revenue collected greatly exceeded the benefits being paid out. What appeared to be the program's advantage, however, turned out to be misleading. Between 1945 and 1965, the decline in worker-to-beneficiary ratios went from 41 to 4 workers per beneficiary.

The Social Security program matured in the 1960s, when Americans were consistently having fewer children, living longer, and earning wages at a slower rate than the rate of growth in the number of retirees. As these trends have continued, today there are just 2.9 workers per retiree—and this amount is expected to drop to two workers per retiree by 2030.

The program was stable when there were more than 3 workers per beneficiary. However, future projections indicate that the ratio will continue to fall from two workers to one, at which point the program in its current structure becomes financially unsustainable.


Link: mercatus.org...



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlexJowls
The oil-swilling climate change deniers must be agog with such news. It will give them an excuse to keep driving their 1-mile-per-gallon F750's 500m down the road to pick up triple patty, sextuple cheese, greaseball burgers and super duper sized soft drinks, and then to return home to watch infomercials about how to lose weight without exercise or healthy eating!

YAY FOR HELL FREEZING OVER!!



Why you're an angry elf arn't you,



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Nice to see after 6 pages of personal opinions and political rhetoric on a scientific theory ATS, has not changed a bit...





The thread has went to a scientific theory to people calling their opinionated posts facts, and are ready to argue over it on a forum..

I love it..




posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Decreased solar activity doesn't always cause a radical decrease TSI though. Decreased TSI wasn't the only factor in the Maunder Minimum. Changes in solar output have minimal effect on earth's global temperature, it may seem a ridiculous notion but it's none the less true. Our proximity to the sun and how much of our planet receives light (the Milankovitch cycle) plays a much bigger role in how the sun affects earth's temperature... discussion of our atmosphere aside.
edit on 7/12/2015 by Kali74 because: Clarifications



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 02:19 AM
link   
a reply to: _BoneZ_

It's very timely, perhaps it is the window we are looking for to safely get to Mars.



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 02:21 AM
link   
a reply to: scubagravy
Not really.

It is not solar radiation that's the problem on a manned Mars mission. It's cosmic radiation that's really problematic. And, since lower solar activity coincides with increased penetration of cosmic radiation into the Solar System...not particularly encouraging on that front.



edit on 7/13/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 06:27 AM
link   

I knew it

edit on 13-7-2015 by alienDNA because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
There was a torrential downpour last weekend on a day four stations' meteorological report reported a 0-10% chance of rain. If professional forecasters and meteorologists (not to mention high tech computer programs) can't get the weather right that's a mere six or seven hours away, I struggle with what to think when I'm being given a forecast for the 2030's...



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: _BoneZ_

Strangely enough, I had a gut feeling scientists would discover something like this.

Thanks for the info!


S&F


edit on 13-7-2015 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Our cold cycle here in Indiana started two years ago. Maybe we'll become the new north pole whenever the polar shift occurs.



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 05:05 AM
link   
a reply to: _BoneZ_

Good thing will have all the Global warming going on



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: _BoneZ_
Past records and a model that actually has worked




top topics



 
62
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join