This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Meanwhile, In The Non "Polar Vortex" World...

Tyler Durden's picture


While America is preparing to usher in the coldest days of the 21st century, some other places around the globe are hardly as worried. Below is a photo from Rio's Ipanema beach over the weekend, where temperatures hit 51 degrees. Celsius.

Maybe the global warming experts (and their rescuers) currently stuck in the Antarctic ice, should plan accordingly: plus the sights in Rio are certainly more enjoyable than in a barren ice wasteland...

Source: @pdacosta


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 01/06/2014 - 13:54 | 4304779 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

There are too many people on this planet.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 13:56 | 4304790 prains
prains's picture

SHARK !!!!!

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 13:58 | 4304803 Cult_of_Reason
Cult_of_Reason's picture

Antarctic ice shelf melt ‘lowest EVER recorded, global warming is NOT eroding it’

Scientists at the British Antarctic Survey say that the melting of the Pine Island Glacier ice shelf in Antarctica has suddenly slowed right down in the last few years, confirming earlier research which suggested that the shelf’s melt does not result from human-driven global warming...

The Autosub survey revealed that a previously unknown marine ridge lay below the shelf, over which the icepack had for millennia been forced to grind its way en route to the ocean. However in relatively recent times the ice had finally so ground down the ridge that the sea could flow in between shelf and ridge, freeing the ice to move much faster and warming it too.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:00 | 4304831 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

If you want to keep up with this subject you could do better. The total quantity of ice in Antarctica has been increasing for more than ten years; the only link for the silly thesis of the trace gas in the atmosphere causing any warming is warming in the atmosphere; the air temperatures in Antartica are normal and not the reason any ice melted. If ice extends out a long ways from the shore of continent, floating on the sea, and the sea moves, and the ice breaks off, and floats away, where it melts somewhere else, which is precisely what has happened; why would anyone be surprised by this? Ice is not very flexible. The only reason you've ever heard about the Antartic Ice Shelf is the propaganda barrage; it's completely meaningless.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:12 | 4304896 onelight
onelight's picture

and perhaps, Earth to Gilligans: the Antarctic is not a 3 Hour Tour..

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:18 | 4304912 Cult_of_Reason
Cult_of_Reason's picture

Many scientists have observed correlations between the solar magnetic activity, which is reflected in the sunspot frequency, and climate parameters at the Earth.

70-90 years oscillations in global mean temperature are correlated with corresponding oscillations in solar activity.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:24 | 4304924 gmrpeabody
gmrpeabody's picture

Sunny beach..., I'll bet they are clean, too.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:34 | 4304981 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

yeah exactly. "No thanks." funny how when its summer down there its warmer than when it winter up here.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:40 | 4305002 walküre
walküre's picture


That's all there's too it.

Hedge accordingly.

Do I need to spell out where HELL is?

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:39 | 4305010 superflex
superflex's picture

51°C my ass, Tyler  Try 31°.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:49 | 4305024 J S Bach
J S Bach's picture

It's like a swarm of ants.  Can you imagine the ecoli that's flourishing in that water?  I'll take the snow and wind in the midwest... At least here I can breathe.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:51 | 4305041 fuu
fuu's picture

Tall and tan and young and lovely, the girl from Ipanema goes walking
And when she passes, each one she passes goes - ah

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 15:19 | 4305125 aerojet
aerojet's picture

Which girl from Ipanema?  There's like 50,000 of them!

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 15:25 | 4305140 killallthefiat
killallthefiat's picture

Boy that looks like fun

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 16:18 | 4305322 jbvtme
jbvtme's picture

long tsunamis

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 16:34 | 4305374 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

There's enough e. coli bacteria in that stretch of beach to easily outdo the Jersey Shore.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 16:51 | 4305439 Headbanger
Headbanger's picture

Man if you can't get laid there...    Stay in Chicagooooooo!!

But me be happy in me ice fishin hut with some JD and Patsy Kline playing.

Life is good!

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 17:32 | 4305568 remain calm
remain calm's picture

Ahh, excuse me, but their is a little exothermic reaction going on at Fukishima.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 15:30 | 4305154 ajax
ajax's picture



"Tall and tan and young and lovely, the girl from Ipanema goes walking
And when she passes, each one she passes goes - ah
Oh please.

When she squeezes through each one she steps on goes  - FUCK YOU!

"plus the sights in Rio are certainly more enjoyable than in a barren ice wasteland..."

I'll take David Attenborough's penguin films any day over spending five minutes in filthy Copacabana having my pocket picked ...

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 15:55 | 4305230 Hippocratic Oaf
Hippocratic Oaf's picture

You speak  from experience, ajax?

I've been there in my bachelor days.

No way I'd be a part of the debauchery that is the world cup. I seriously see a major accident happening to thousands of people.

Same with the winter olympics.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 17:14 | 4305507 G.O.O.D
G.O.O.D's picture

That sucked so bad i am speachless. I hope this poor nastard doesnt have to make a living off this.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 17:18 | 4305525 fuu
fuu's picture

Lol, he has 4 albums under that name, 2 more under another, and writes 2 succesful web comics after being a research chemist with a few patents under his belt. Kompressor rocks.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 15:43 | 4305180 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture


51°C my ass, Tyler  Try 31°.

The tweeter source indicates that the 51C figure is the heat index, not the actual temperature.

As 51C would be about 124F, if that were the actual temperature I'd expect to be seeing stories about lots of people dying from the heat.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 15:48 | 4305205 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Like this in 2003 in France? 15,000 excess deaths from the heat...

Check out the first figure....

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 16:02 | 4305271 john39
john39's picture

never had heat waves until "global warming"? give it a rest, the real science coming out now shows that climate fluctuation is natural:

and therefore provides no excuse more taxation and centralized tyranny over individual dignity and rights.  FU NWO.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 16:41 | 4305387 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Sorry, science doesn't always jive with you preferred ideology....

Why don't you ask your german "friends" why they don't go back before 1750 and only consider european temperatures?....Do you have any clue why?

PS: your reading comprehension is shit as the article I posted was only about excess mortality from heat waves...


Mon, 01/06/2014 - 16:44 | 4305396 john39
john39's picture

what, can't come up with a factual argument to counter the post?  what a shock.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 16:44 | 4305410 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I did, it flew over your head...

Picking 3% of the globe and limiting the range of data studied is all you need to know that your "study" is an exercise in curve fitting with no predictive power...

Sorry. but you are way out of your league...

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 16:47 | 4305422 john39
john39's picture

thankfully, you don't have to be climate scientist to call bullshit on "global warming". 

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 16:55 | 4305441 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

And calling bullshit doesn;t make it so..

Still don't understand what I am talkng about?

A real study would take 1/2 the data to demonstrate and verify the prediction on the other half... It would also consider more than 3% of the globe if it was really global...

Your cited study is on par with that from a con artist....

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 17:02 | 4305466 john39
john39's picture

plenty of studies out there demonstrating that 'global warming is a fraud:

and that does make 'global warming' bullshit...   and thanks to the 'climategate' scandal, we all know that global warming fraudsters were intentially lying to support their pet theory. 


Mon, 01/06/2014 - 17:06 | 4305480 gmrpeabody
gmrpeabody's picture

Why, WHY..., are we constantly having to separate you two?

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 17:29 | 4305561 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Sorry that doesn't pass the sniff test of real peer reviewed research (because it is an Op-Ed piece that has not been reviewed) and the Emeritus title is usually a give away...

BTW, Easterbrook is responsible for these failed "predictions" tabulated here

The problem is DE keeps trying to pass off 1850 as "Present Day"...  And in case you did not notice, your article is a reprint of a discredited 2008 article...

Nice try...


Mon, 01/06/2014 - 17:55 | 4305622 john39
john39's picture

someone is lying, i'll give you that.  given the leaked emails detailing fraud from the global warming camp, and the billions of dollars poured into prop up the 'global warming' scam...  i'll stick with my instincts on which side is doing the lying.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 19:22 | 4305872 trader1
trader1's picture

your instincts are most likely going to get you and your loved ones caught between a rock and a hard place.

search my post history from 6 - 7 january, and you'll find all the relevant sources from which to reconfigure your worldview.  


Mon, 01/06/2014 - 16:47 | 4305411 john39
john39's picture

self appointed climate messiah Al Gore forced to lay off 90% of his global warming minions...

what a total farce.


Mon, 01/06/2014 - 16:47 | 4305420 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

It would seem that Al is *your* chosen appointed messiah...

Real climate scientists pay zero attention to Al Gore...

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 16:56 | 4305446 john39
john39's picture

yes, indeed, old Al is a PR nightmare now that 'global warming' has failed to produce any significant temperature change over the past decade...   

as for real scientists...  the ones that are not bought off with global warming money, know that climate fluctation is perfectly natural, and not caused my human released carbon dioxide:


Mon, 01/06/2014 - 17:33 | 4305573 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Good god, are you going to repeat every thing discredited arguement used by deniers? 

Nice strawman, only a clown like you would argue that C02 is the only controller of climate... Umm. what was the solar output during the Carboniferous? Are you claiming it was the same?

BTW, 2001-2010 was hottest decade in the instrumental record...

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 17:59 | 4305642 john39
john39's picture

discredited? in the opinion of global warming fraudsters?  sorry, but you will have to excuse the lack of faith in the bogus lies of government funded climate change religion.  

I just came in from outside...  10+ inches of snow...  0 degrees F.   global warming fail.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 18:01 | 4305650 john39
john39's picture

"Using their own data, climate scientists have noted, albeit quietly, that there has been "no discernible rise in aggregate temperatures." Professor Judith Curry, head of the climate science department at Georgia Tech, told The Mail Online that computer models that were used to predict future global warming were "deeply flawed." When the theory of global warming was first posited, scientists had used a 16-year period from 1980 to 1996 upon which to base their findings. This period was marked by slight increases in global temperatures. But the subsequent 16-year period from 1997 to 2013 shows a stabilization of temperatures and a distinct drop in global temps in 2011 and 2012. But even the data itself from the two 16-year periods is suspect."

yeah, yeah... i know.  global warming did that.

Tue, 01/07/2014 - 01:36 | 4307031 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Psst... Global warming was first posited long before 1980...

Quit making shit up, you fool no one...

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 19:32 | 4305903 trader1
trader1's picture

what about the government funded projects that gave you the internet?

i guess you have no fucking faith in the science behind your message and how it is transmitted by your pea-brain via your fingers to the keyboard and out to the internet and cached on a webserver in switzerland and how it can be read by me and others in other parts of the world.  

pun intended.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 18:18 | 4305669 overmedicatedun...
overmedicatedundersexed's picture

sad old flak and jack burton, winter mittens woolen hat northface ski jacket on while posting on zh, about how warm it rreally is ..accuse us all of cherry picking data while basing his delusions on outright lies and self admitted fudged data,,.all the predictions on global warming done in the last 40 years and NONE NOT ONE HAS come true, but Flak he keeps carrying water could be he is al gore. remember that beach in brazil has been underwater for the last 10 years flak- so stay away.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 23:43 | 4306476 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Here is an overview (and a link to the original) of a prediction for the expected temperature rise by 2010 from *1975*:

Name one other prediction from 35 years ago that even comes close to how correct he was...

You guys have no idea at what you don't know....


Mon, 01/06/2014 - 16:44 | 4305409 OldPhart
OldPhart's picture

It can get to 124*F in the Mojave Desert, even higher,  sometimes for days.  A bit of shade and a bit of a breeze makes it bearable.  You don't necessarily have a bunch of deaths unless there is unrelenting exposure.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 15:53 | 4305226 Agent P
Agent P's picture

I don't give a shit what the temperature is on that funny C only gripe to Tyler is if you're going to show photos of a Brazilian beach, close-ups are a lot better than the 200 ft panoramic view...let's see some bitches, bitchez!!!

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 17:19 | 4305527 25or6to4
25or6to4's picture

Hmm...51 C is about 125 F? Death Valley Days.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 16:35 | 4305376 Baldrick
Baldrick's picture

it's in michigan.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 15:11 | 4305098 Ruffcut
Ruffcut's picture

Keep those chemtrails blasting, they are working great!

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:24 | 4304927 onelight
onelight's picture

Good point among several in this thread. If better science and reasoned perspective were brought to bear, versus diverting polemics, we could all understand the Earth better, and there are many reasons to take much better care of it, as a matter of principle, and without being hornswoggled by hidden sociopolitical agendas.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:27 | 4304943 MeMadMax
MeMadMax's picture

Correction: There are too many people concentrated on this planet...


We only occupy 3% of the worlds' surface btw.....


Google dat shit!

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:47 | 4305021 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Absolutely correct. Cities and "civilization" is the intended problem. 

Cities make for herds...


Mon, 01/06/2014 - 17:26 | 4305037 malikai
malikai's picture

The world's surface is mostly uninhabitable ocean, desert, mountain region, or tundra.

(correction) 1.5% growth on 3% (inhabitable or not) puts you at 96% in 340 years.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 16:55 | 4305453 sleigher
sleigher's picture

Everyone in the world could fit in a space about the size of Connecticut.

There are a lot of people using finite resources, however the world is not overpopulated.  Not yet anyways.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 17:15 | 4305508 akak
akak's picture

Sorry, but you are wrong.  And not just wrong, but most likely GROSSLY wrong.

"Overpopulation" is not a matter of space, but of sustainability.  The world continues to experience the degradation and loss of fertile topsoil, and we are in effect currently "mining" the fertilty of our croplands.  And as with any mining, once that resource is lost, it is effectively lost for good. 

Even with current technology (and often in spite of it), the long-term carrying capacity of the earth, in terms of cropland for human cultivation and sustenance, has been estimated by many scientists at only around 2 billion people.  But when does anyone nowadays care about the long-term, when short-term PROFITS are to be made!

"Eat hearty, men, for tomorrow we dine in Hell!"

Tue, 01/07/2014 - 04:59 | 4307305 OldPhart
OldPhart's picture

"And as with any mining, once that resource is lost, it is effectively lost for good."

I call Bull Shit on your statement.  You are not a farmer, apparently.  Soils CAN be recovered, they do NOT become permanently depleted.

Look up Crop Rotation for a premise on managing land.  Letting land lie fallow for a year or two allows biomass to grow and die and enrich tired soil. 

In extreme cases, letting them lie fallow for a longer length of time, with adequate water and life, will substantially increase their yield.  Practically any organic material left to rot will build the top soil back up.

Hmm, maybe that's why the elite plan to have 90% of us die.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 17:34 | 4305565 Gert_B_Frobe
Gert_B_Frobe's picture

I blame the Biafrans and their pigish ways.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 17:39 | 4305576 akak
akak's picture

Especially when they bogart the jello.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:31 | 4304979 john39
john39's picture

but you can't tax the sun...  which is why the scammers picked carbon.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 15:07 | 4305079 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

Can't tax the sun uh? In Spain they do tax it. If you have solar panel, you must pay a tax.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 15:45 | 4305203 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

and Steve Martin predicted it: "I see you're using the sun"

solar tax is predictable as tax. It's a resource we will use more and more of and the government will get their piece.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 16:08 | 4305288 john39
john39's picture

point taken. however, trying to tax sunlight would surely finally turn the world against these criminals. With the carbon lie, they thought they had a scheme they could use totally control the energy supply, jack up prices, tax the middle class into oblivion etc.   they have failed, and watching them try and salvage the scam is, i must say, pretty damn funny.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 17:01 | 4305465 sleigher
sleigher's picture

We put up a solar farm in the desert and the locals got mad because it was dark all the time.  I guess we took too much of the sun...

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:43 | 4305019 ShrNfr
ShrNfr's picture

Actually not. The AMO is about 72 years and the De Vries is about 210 years. The first is oceanic, the second is solar.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 17:22 | 4305534 Rusty Shorts
Rusty Shorts's picture
The Cause. The 12,500 Year Glaciation Cycle (Final Cut)

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 17:14 | 4305506 SnobGobbler
SnobGobbler's picture

ding! ding! ding!


maunder minimum (ice-age dead ahead!)


Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:34 | 4304982 max2205
max2205's picture

Bet there is a lot of pee and baby ruths in that water......dooooody!

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 16:15 | 4305304 Cruel Aid
Cruel Aid's picture

I remember trying not to puke in the wave pool at Sea World, when I had no choice but to crowd in.

That shit crosses your mind.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 16:43 | 4305408 akak
akak's picture


Bet there is a lot of pee and baby ruths in that water

Damn, just imagine if that beach were in China!  You could add a few million aborted female fetuses to the mix in that case.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:58 | 4305062 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

SAT800, you are making shit up...

The amount of Antarctic sea ice has slightly increased while the amount of land ice is steadily decreasing..

See for example:

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 16:20 | 4305331 NaN
NaN's picture

No worries. Only 99% of all glaciers are receding year over year. The 1% that are growing give us so much hope that most climate scientists are wrong. /sarc

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 16:32 | 4305360 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

99% of glaciers have been studied then?  Your a liar or a dupe your pick..

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 16:48 | 4305399 Flakmeister
Mon, 01/06/2014 - 17:00 | 4305425 akak
akak's picture

Most of the glaciers in the world which are currently advancing are actually observed to be "feeding" off of parent icefields and thereby drawing-down the ice in their sources, so in actuality there is still a net decrease in overall ice.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:06 | 4304806 hedgeless_horseman
hedgeless_horseman's picture



That photo is in the daytime.  At night, the locals are Hot for Teacher in Brazil...

Teachers have been demanding a pay increase for two months. About 50,000 people were estimated to have marched to support them before the violence broke out, but police would only confirm the 10,000 estimate.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:20 | 4304923 Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

evening fires are the best... a few bottles of wine, a few friends and all the woman who are out for parentsnight... love it...

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 15:51 | 4305217 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

I thought the second picture was the Federal Reserve two years from now

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:15 | 4304907 freedogger
freedogger's picture


Mon, 01/06/2014 - 17:39 | 4305586 Chandos
Chandos's picture

SHARK !!!!!


It doesn't stand a chance!

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 13:54 | 4304793 The man with po...
The man with pointy horns's picture

Correction; too many people on certain parts of the planet.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 13:58 | 4304800 Magnix
Magnix's picture

Is that in India unless its photoshopped?

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:02 | 4304811 Indian_Goldsmith
Indian_Goldsmith's picture

You know, its a mystery why indians like creating babies so much. One probable reason is that every indian couple will continue reproducing till they have a boy. So numerous families where we have cessation of baby making after 4-5 girls and 1 boy. Twisted, huh?

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:24 | 4304932 Mercury
Mercury's picture

Your math is even more mysterious.


If every Indian couple stopped making babies after they had a son, the average number of kids per couple wouldn't be much higher than two..

Maybe, unlike rich American Lefties, they just like kids


Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:26 | 4304953 Indian_Goldsmith
Indian_Goldsmith's picture

But you see indians think - the more sons the better. LOL. Its not logical maths bro, Its indian tradition ;)

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:48 | 4304999 Mercury
Mercury's picture

I'm familiar with the phenomenon but having babies UNTIL you have a son is a different calculation from eliminating daughters and/or producing as many sons as possible.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:31 | 4304966 U4 eee aaa
U4 eee aaa's picture

Maybe because in many parts of the world, kids are still your pension and medicare plan

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 16:26 | 4305349 Seb
Seb's picture

Every pension plan relies on kids. Just that most of the time it is somebody else's kid.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 17:47 | 4305605 25or6to4
25or6to4's picture

It's the same here also except there is no need to have kids of your own. The government will force the offspring of others to pay for elders healthcare and pensions not to mention all other outstanding debts owed to previous generations misallocations.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 13:59 | 4304804 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

There certainly are. The weather thing seems to be a Northern Southern hemisphere split for the time being; I would regard this as merely a random fluctuation in a random, or chaotic process. It's cold in Hawaii, too; for this time of year. but all these fluctuations are just climate change. That's what it does; it changes. But it's not a subject for scientific study, and there's no plausible mechanism for a link to human activity; which is tiny.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 15:49 | 4305113 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Check out the world wind map and compare the antarctic and with arctic...,82.21,330

The fucked up northern jetstream is related to the weakening temperature gradient caused by the loss of Arctic sea ice: 


Edit: the fucked up Jet stream is even clearer at 250hPa (edit the link)

Oh, and this from 2010

Gavin Schmidt: One interesting question is how the Barents-Kara sea-ice affects the winter temperatures over the northern continents. By removing the sea-ice, the atmosphere above feels a stronger heating from the ocean, resulting in anomalous warm conditions over the Barent-Kara seas. The local warming gives rise to altered temperature profiles (temperature gradients) along the vertical and horizontal dimensions.

Changes in the temperature profiles, in turn, affect the circulation, triggering a development of a local blocking structure when the sea-ice extent is reduced from 80% to 40%. But Petoukhov and Semenov also found that it brings a different response when the sea-ice is reduced from 100% to 80% or from 40% to1%, and hence a non-linear response. The most intriguing side to this study was the changing character of the atmospheric response to the sea-ice reduction: from a local cyclonic to anti-cyclonic, and back to cyclonic pattern again. These cyclonic and anti-cyclonic patterns bear some resemblance to the positive and negative NAO phases.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:01 | 4304816 Van Halen
Van Halen's picture

No, there are NOT too many people on this planet. And anyone who insists that there are should put his money where his mouth is and kill himself.

There are some overconcentration problems. But there are not too many people. The Malthusians and the Left would love you to believe that population is a problem because it's their way of getting themselves more power over you.

Most of the planet is uninhabited. Drive across any country and see how fast it is before you are in uninhabited territory.



Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:06 | 4304855 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

There are too many people and too few resources. Do you really believe that the earth can support 7 billion people who are all trying to raise their standard of living? Whether you like it or not we live on a finite planet and nature has a way of correcting imbalances.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:12 | 4304894 darteaus
darteaus's picture

I agree with you both.  Dated, and relevant:

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:16 | 4304899 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

I've attempted to sit on that throne and found it lonely and miserable. You have my pity.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:19 | 4304911 Indian_Goldsmith
Indian_Goldsmith's picture

Do You realize, that only americans, and westernised idiots like me in all countries of the world are trying to "raise their standards of living". One faulty assumption of yours here is that Over Consumption of resources is same as raising standards of living. Its not. The Amish live from the earth, and i bet they're happier than you "rich" stuff-obsessed modern americans

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 15:46 | 4305207 Matt
Matt's picture

The Amish, Mennonites, etc are all expanding, spreading out as their populations grow, clearing jungle to make more farms to live on. Also, there are more and more fracturing away from the luddite doctrine and using electric tools, internal combustion engine machinery and trucks, etc.


Mon, 01/06/2014 - 15:56 | 4305232 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

well said

Since we are living things in a living system, it's not shocking that living healthy and naturally within that system might actually satisfy us.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:25 | 4304934 alangreedspank
alangreedspank's picture

Nature has a way of correcting imbalances

Nature, you said it. When there will be too many humans, their size will shrink and they'll start to die off by themselves just like it happens for other animal populations.

As for resources, most of the places where a human would like to live have a state; which is a pretty big waste of scarce resources.


Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:32 | 4304977 resurger
resurger's picture


Maybe you should talk about the distribution of resources rather than the earth has few resources, the natural resources of earth are determined by god, and he will take it all away whenever he wishes too.

Of course the Empires want all their resources for themselves.

and can you explain why mericans are lard balls and scurvies are as thin as fuck in Somalia (which is one of the richest in animal resources),? You may say drought, but the reason is that no body fucking cares in this cold world.



Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:41 | 4305012 U4 eee aaa
U4 eee aaa's picture

Overpopulation is a myth. We have a management problem, not a population problem

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 15:25 | 4305141 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Exactly correct. There is plenty of room for many more humans on this planet, assuming we could behave ourselves properly. One aspect of that behavior is how we currently dispose of psychopaths and sociopaths. Right now we make them politicians and corporate CEOs. That's a problem. 

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 17:52 | 4305616 ForTheWorld
ForTheWorld's picture

We can't behave properly - that's the thing. Besides, there's only plenty of room for more humans in the northern hemisphere because once frosted areas are thawing (North Arctic oil drilling etc. means more resources to use). However, as desertfication increases in other parts of the planet, there's once habitable areas being lost. Yes, there's X million square kilometers of total land available on the planet, but how much of that is a) habitable; b) arable; c) support rapacious destruction; d) can regenerate natural resources lost in time to continually support the exponentially increasing population?

Tue, 01/07/2014 - 01:11 | 4306983 Spumoni
Spumoni's picture

Please make sure that knee-jerk reactionaries, poltroonian politicians and banksters all move to the tundra as it thaws. What the gnats don't eat will die from methane poisoning - Oh Shit! Yet another greenhouse gas release! Yeah. deny that, motherfuckers!

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 15:25 | 4305132 Drachma
Drachma's picture

"There are too many people and too few resources."

It can be argued that those parts of the developing world that may seem overpopulated are so precisely because a higher standard of living has been denied them. If you look at the actually fecundity and fertility rates in the affluent developed and industrialized nations, they are below replacement and have been for decades. Without immigration their populations are doomed to extinction. What we can see from actual population data is that increasing the standard of living, lowers fecundity rates. Your Malthusian 'belief' that the earth can not sustain 7 billion people is specious and unfounded. I would argue that there is enough food on this planet for 50+ billion people. Of course there is a difference between food/energy production and food/energy distribution and availability, which is complicated by so many other human social and political factors, having nothing to do with the planet's actual abundance. It's all about power and control, and those in control want you to 'believe' that you are superfluous and expendable for 'the good of the planet'. Cheers.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 15:58 | 4305182 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

"If you look at the actually fecundity and fertility rates in the affluent developed and industrialized nations, they are below replacement and have been for decades. Without immigration their populations are doomed to extinction. What we can see from actual population data is that increasing the standard of living, lowers fecundity rates."


Maybe if you had read my continued post, you would see that I said the very same thing.



Perhaps you think this is sustainable:


Mon, 01/06/2014 - 15:26 | 4305144 Dinero D. Profit
Dinero D. Profit's picture

We are at an age where the mass of world population has become its own juggernaut.  Selective depopulation of 4 billion, let’s say, over 4 years, let’s say, is acceptable losses.  Human existence itself is at risk.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:11 | 4304888 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

It seems half of ZHers are blood thirsty cannibals. Why do they then worry about bankers? Bankers are working to reduce the "excess" population as Scrooge would say. Perhaps, it isn't so much that the blood thirsty ZHers don't like injustice but they simply are envious.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:25 | 4304937 Indian_Goldsmith
Indian_Goldsmith's picture

LoL, you figured it all out!! Bravo. Now get ready for those "down-votes". These envious girly ZHers punish fact sayers like you by """down voting""" you!!!!

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:39 | 4305006 Spumoni
Spumoni's picture

A day without stupidhead down-votes is a day without sunshine!

Tue, 01/07/2014 - 01:08 | 4306974 Spumoni
Spumoni's picture

OTankyew, tankyew, O wisenheimer ones! I shall remember you all fondly when I view your faces in frozen denial!

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 15:08 | 4305078 Tall Tom
Tall Tom's picture

Tarsubil has 4 Up and one Down at this point...


As for your status you have 2 Up and 4 Down.


I wonder what reason there is behind that?


As for me I really don't give a damn about whether or not someone upvotes or downvotes me.


You are so NARCISSISTIC to think that ZH is about a Beauty Contest???


LMAO. Go stare in the mirror and see your own ugliness.


Status Seekers believe themselves to be so important. Yeah they are important in their own eyes.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 15:37 | 4305168 pods
pods's picture

I don't normally stare into mirrors, but when I do, it doubles the awesomeness.

Stay thirsty my friends!


Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:31 | 4304978 escargot
escargot's picture

I have no clue what you just said.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:42 | 4305008 alangreedspank
alangreedspank's picture

Let me rephrase it from what I understood: WTF do people care about bankers and their cronies if the same people who pretend to be outraged by them simply want to kill off half the planet, for the planet's own good of course.


Mon, 01/06/2014 - 18:27 | 4305701 U4 eee aaa
U4 eee aaa's picture

I think it is because they are afraid that the bankers want to kill THEM. Solve that problem and they are probably all for the bankers objectives....just give them their cut

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:34 | 4304983 dasein211
dasein211's picture

You are a dumbass who doesn't understand math. If there are 8billion people and they're growing at 1.3% a year how many years does it take to double.... About 60-70 yrs. if they double that makes 16billion. Assuming the same rate that makes 30-40 billion in less than 150 years. I promise there won't be much of anything less way before that time. If exponents work for the national debt why wouldn't they work for population growth curves. You are why people are blind. Inability. To. Do. Math.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 15:05 | 4305088 Big Brother
Big Brother's picture

I posted the equation yesterday, but I want as many people to see it as possible:

Td = Log(2) / (Log(1 + r / 100)

So as your number propose, the following at the present time is true:

Log(2) / Log(1 + 1.3 / 100)

.693 / .0129 = 53.72 years.  At 1.3% per year, we will have 15 Billion people on earth. 

Your numbers check out...  Good job.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 15:47 | 4305194 FrankDrakman
FrankDrakman's picture

Doesn't anyone remember the "Rule of 70"? 70/1.3 = 53.8, or close to what you got without having to use logs.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 17:12 | 4305509 Big Brother
Big Brother's picture

My calculator has an "Ln" button on it.  I payed for it.  Might as well us it.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 18:30 | 4305709 U4 eee aaa
U4 eee aaa's picture

I have long thought there are two types of traders in the market. Those that realize stocks can go up, down or sideways and thus you need to set up a plan to benefit from those contingencies. Then there are those that will spend tens of thousands of dollars and spend many years in university getting a learn the exact same thing

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 23:07 | 4306655 Pseudonymous
Pseudonymous's picture

Sure, it's a good approximation for low rates.

<offtopic>Wouldn't help you much if you tried to apply it to bitcoin exchange rate though.</offtopic>

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 17:58 | 4305640 Tall Tom
Tall Tom's picture

The equation you write is correct for 'r' being a constant.


What if 'r' is a variable rate? What happens when 'r' is a Exponential Function?


I like the simple Econ 101 model. But it is a simple model which does not consider the dynamic complex World. In fact to attempt to apply a simple ROI model (which is based on a Constant Interest Rate on a Note) to a complex Physical World is the epitome of Noin Sequiturs.


Of course I can validate the arithmetic.


I can even derive your equation from p = 2 = (1 + r/100)Td. What is so difficult about taking the log of both sides of an equation and solving for 'Td' ?


What I cannot do is to apply that which refers to a Return on Investment on a Note with a constant Interest Rate and apply it to World Population and expect valid results.


In a post below I have demonstrated that the Rate of Change of the Rate of Change (the Second Derivative) also is dynamic, not a constant. This holds true for every Log Function, every Exponential Function.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 18:17 | 4305679 Big Brother
Big Brother's picture

Impressive analysis.  I see the 0.1%'ers in math are on the board today.  Looking into the past, the exponential regression best fit approximation fits pretty good. 

What I cannot do is to apply that which refers to a Return on Investment on a Note with a constant Interest Rate and apply it to World Population and expect valid results.

As long as resource extraction keeps up with the CURRENT growth rate, a simple exponential formula is a sufficient approximation.  That's why I only went out 50 more years.

In a post below I have demonstrated that the Rate of Change of the Rate of Change (the Second Derivative) also is dynamic, not a constant. This holds true for every Log Function, every Exponential Function.

Care to posit the current global population decelleration rate?  Enquiring minds what to know. 

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 21:15 | 4306232 Tall Tom
Tall Tom's picture

When I can determine a Function for Global Population decelleration I will be most happy to inform you....if I survive it to do so. I have insufficient data at this point.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 16:20 | 4305314 Blankenstein
Blankenstein's picture

People need to learn math so they can make informed opinions instead of those based on emotion.  I just posted this the other day.


"At current population rates, in 700 years there will be enough people to occupy every square meter of the earth.  This of course won't happen though, and some undesireable, natural population control will occur."  It is better to recognize this early and make educated decisions going into the future, such as not having litters of children.  Why we insist on promoting increasing populations when there are starving people in the world is beyond me.  If it's hard to take care of everyone now, why do we want the population to increase and make it even more difficult for everyone to have enough food, shelter, etc. to live a decent life.  Also, there are not enough resources on the Earth to support the modern lifestyles of a huge population (oil, clean water, etc.)  


Tutorial on the exponential function:

Tue, 01/07/2014 - 16:47 | 4305716 U4 eee aaa
U4 eee aaa's picture

Necessity is the mother of invention. It has been for a long time. Had that factor not been in play we would have run out of food and growing space a long time ago. Where there is potential for profit, the inventors will proliferate

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 20:56 | 4306176 Tall Tom
Tall Tom's picture

The problem that I see is NOT that people refuse to learn Math.


Most are incapable. I used the same example while changing the exponents a bit, in different sessions, and he still does not get it. I have spent well over an hour attempting to describe the "Bacteria in a Jar" Model.


He wants to get it. I know that he does. He tolerates listening to me...for an Hour. (Poor man has to be subjected to that...) He is incapable. Now that is anecdotal evidence. But it is not restricted to this man. I happen to be a very good teacher. I will change the language. I will repeat the concepts.


One time all of my students...ALL OF THEM that conspiring bunch..."complained" that I "repeat myself too much" on my teacher review. (Now I did not say the same thing in exactly the same words, the same way, twice, But, yes, the message got through...) Damn I loved those College Kiddos. But I have found that most are incapable of understanding the Exponential Function.


The next problem are those who may learn the mechanics, see the patterns, are able to answer questions related to it...AND THEN are NOT ABLE to properly apply it elsewhere. These people  with limited skills, are even more difficult as they think that they know something when they do not.


This even happens with people of extremely advanced knowledge.


For instance in debate with KirkNGC1701 I applied the rules of Light to God as the Bible declares, "God is Light. In Him there is no darkness."


He was very upset as an atheist that I dared apply Science to "Religion". Instead of using his vast knowledge of Light to disprove my assertion he believes that I misapplied the Science and the Math. But the Laws of Light are applicable to God if He is Light.


(Looking forward to friendly debate KirkNGC1701)


Outright arrogance often gets in the way of discovery when we claim to know that which we do not.


At times I am not certain that we know to apply that which we know appropriately. So I am not sure that a blanket knowledge of Math will help.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:32 | 4304991 dasein211
dasein211's picture

You are a dumbass who doesn't understand math. If there are 8billion people and they're growing at 1.3% a year how many years does it take to double.... About 60-70 yrs. if they double that makes 16billion. Assuming the same rate that makes 30-40 billion in less than 150 years. I promise there won't be much of anything less way before that time. If exponents work for the national debt why wouldn't they work for population growth curves. You are why people are blind. Inability. To. Do. Math.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 15:25 | 4305136 Tall Tom
Tall Tom's picture

Exponential Growth leads to Exponential Collapse.


What cannot be sustained will not be sustained.


Thus your extrapolation of Growth Rate in your major assumption is INVALID.


If f(x) = Aekx + C


df(x)/dx = Akekx  which is the rate of change in growth, and,

d2f(x) /dx2 = Ak2ekx  which is the change in the rate of change in growth


In other words there is also an exponential change in the rate of change of growth.


It is YOU that needs to stop thinking linearly with your invalid linear growth rate extrapolations.


Take a good look in the mirror before you call others dumbasses.


You do not understand the implications learned in your Freshman year of Calculus?

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 15:38 | 4305179 FrankDrakman
FrankDrakman's picture

And, anyone who takes a growth curve, and extrapolates it infinitely is an idiot.

The S-curve will win. Improved child mortality stats and increased female education ALWAYS lead to declining birth rates. (That's why the Islamists keep their women covered up, at home, and out of school.) A brilliant TED talk last year (sorry, no link) showed that population should stablize at about 8 billion, give or take, until we find some way to significantly extend useful human lifespan. (While I don't think anyone over 100 should be executed, it's pretty clear that they don't contribute much to the common weal) We're pretty inefficient in just about everything we do right now, so I believe we could support 8 billion above subsistence levels, although white picket fences and a backyard will clearly be the exception, not the norm.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 16:33 | 4305364 Tall Tom
Tall Tom's picture

Although the S Curve Model is the Optimal outcome I do not see the population stabilizing as we approach a horizontal asymptote, parallel to the time axis.


My modeling suggests something quite more catastrophic as Natural Resources have been depleted. The correction will be dramatic as many will die off due to starvation. Also my modeling did not include events as Fukushima Daiichi which forbodes a more devastating eventuality.


Respectfully I disagree as your model is too optimistic.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 15:52 | 4305223 ajax
ajax's picture



"Most of the planet is uninhabited. Drive across any country and see how fast it is before you are in uninhabited territory."

 What you consider "uninhabited territory" is in point of fact inhabited by many many species of animals, plants, insects which enjoy their homes. Once you and your asshole friends move in and build your fucking bungalows and McMansions for flipping and other bullshit reasons all these marvellous creatures will be wiped out. Think. Just take a minute and think of all the creatures which have made their homes long long ago where you want to invade "cause it's uninhabited" ...take your 4X4 and go masturbate in New Jersey or somewhere similar.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:03 | 4304828 tony wilson
tony wilson's picture

donte sweat it dr himmler.

bill gates,prince phillip,david attenborough,the bbc,murdoch,rokerfella skank,rothschild,bono and bob geldoff,kissinger,cheney and the bush clan yo blair and change obarmy workin night and day to barium alloy you to death.

al yer have to do is take the vaccine breath eat and drink big pharma do der rest.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:19 | 4304892 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Stating a problem does not put a person in the same camp as those assholes. I believe in letting nature take it's course like we are seeing with the population decline in Japan. In other words eventually people will stop producing more people and the population will decline on its own.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:02 | 4304834 madbraz
madbraz's picture

That's not Ipanema beach, sorry.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 15:56 | 4305229 ajax
ajax's picture



So what beach is it? Copacabana?

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:10 | 4304879 darteaus
darteaus's picture

That problem tends to solve itself periodically.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 15:56 | 4305235 ajax
ajax's picture



Not in Brazil it won't.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:14 | 4304886 Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

Dr. Engali says: "There are too many people on this planet"

I say: "Execute your prime directive."


Mon, 01/06/2014 - 15:17 | 4305110 Hulk
Hulk's picture

Its primarily a non interference directive, except for the hot chicks, of course !!!

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 15:13 | 4305108 pomlad5
pomlad5's picture

People are wrong distributed on the planet same as wealth!

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 16:25 | 4305339 eimcmullin
eimcmullin's picture

Other than yourself, of course :)

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 16:22 | 4305340 StillSilence
StillSilence's picture

No, we are just far too concentrated, in general,  and conditioned to believe that the heaviest concentrations are "where it's at."

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 16:43 | 4305406 TheGardener
TheGardener's picture

"There are too many people on this planet."

Dare you say so . The none-adapted have shades.

Rio beaches boost 600 K people on a normal weekend
and out of the population of greater Rio this is less then
one 20`s of them all, just Copacabana has more residents
living right next to the beach they might squat.

Been there at the millenium with 3 million estimated revelers and I enjoyed the forest of humans and I felt as
home as among trees. Nature is marvelous.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 17:03 | 4305481 G.O.O.D
G.O.O.D's picture

There are too many people on this planet.


Only by about 6.5 billion.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 13:54 | 4304780 Dollar Bill Hiccup
Dollar Bill Hiccup's picture

That picture looks like hell.

You'd be surprised at how many really inappropriate things that you see crammed into tiny thongs on Brazilian beaches.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 14:03 | 4304821 Van Halen
Van Halen's picture

Yes, that picture is of a BUSY beach. But Zerohedgers are smarter than the average welfare recipient. They are all asking themselves why the picture was taken at such a LOW ANGLE. Pan upwards about 40 degrees and it will look a lot less busy than we're being shown.

It's the same trick photographers use to show a really great crowd for speaker X, or a really bad crowd for speaker X.

Mon, 01/06/2014 - 15:33 | 4305165 Antifaschistische
Antifaschistische's picture

....but, the point of this picture IS that this is a hyper-densely congested part of a beach.   I think zerohedgers also realize that this picture is not intended to represent all beaches in Brazil, or even that this congestion goes on for miles.   It is, just what it looks like a miserable event for most Americans who appreciate space and suburbia.  The lesson, is that the rest of the world is much more tolerant of hyper-congestion than we are.

And when we have to pay $15 per/gallon for gasoline, we better aclimate ourselves to more congestion also.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!