SRM/GEOENGINEERING

[trichrider]

http://vimeo.com/30119927



Solar Activity and Climate - Hiroko Miyahara, The University of Tokyo

from Kavli Frontiers of Science Plus 2 years ago / Creative Commons License: by nc nd Not Yet Rated



Solar Activity and Climate
Hiroko Miyahara, The University of Tokyo

Abstract:
1. Introduction
Instrumentally measured or reconstructed past climate changes often show positive correlation with solar activity at the wide range of time scales, such as from monthly (Takahashi et al., 2010) to millennial (Bond et al., 2001). However, the mechanisms of their linkage have not been well understood. The possible solar-related parameters that can drive climate change are; total solar irradiance (TSI), solar ultra violet (UV), solar wind (SW) and the galactic cosmic rays (GCRs). The galactic cosmic rays are attenuated by changing solar magnetic field in the heliosphere; the region where the wind of solar plasma and magnetic filed expend. The observed flux of GCRs shows inverse correlation to solar activity. It is known that the change in the cosmic ray flux results in the change in the ionization rate in the atmosphere. It is suggested that it may cause the change in cloud amount.

2. Variation of Galactic Cosmic Rays during the Maunder Minimum
It is difficult to evaluate the exact role of each of solar-related parameters above, since most of them are more or less synchronized for the instrumental period. However, the variation of solar radiation and GCRs may be different at the Maunder Minimum (AD1645-1715). The Maunder Minimum is a period of sunspot absence lasted about 70 years. The Sun has shown periodic variation with ~11-year period since the beginning of the 18th century. However, the sunspots had almost disappeared and apparent ~11-year cycles had been lost during the Maunder Minimum. It means that solar activity had been extraordinarily weak and that the environment of heliosphere had been different from today. We found that the variation of GCRs was very unique during the time. The variation of GCRs has been revealed by the measurements of cosmic-ray induced radio isotopes such as carbon-14 and beryllium-10 in tree rings or ice cores. The content of radio isotopes have shown that solar cycle had been kept during the long-lasting sunspot absence, but with ~14-year period. It has been also revealed that the 22-year cycle; the cycle of periodic reversal of solar dipole magnetic field, had been also kept but with ~28-year period and had been amplified during the time. The polarity of the Sun reverses at the maxima of solar cycles, and thus holds ~22-year period. The ~22-year cycle is not observed in the changes in solar radiations; however it appears in the variation of GCRs consisting of mainly changed particles. The changes in the environment of heliosphere had probably resulted in the amplification of the 22-year cycle in GCRs.

3. Variation of climate and its relation to Galactic Cosmic Rays
We have found that reconstructed climate data show unique variations similar to that of GCRs during the Maunder Minimum. For example, the northern hemispheric temperatures are significantly dependent on the direction of solar dipole magnetic field. At the phases of negative polarity of dipole magnetic field, when GCRs show anomalous increase, we observe colder climate. The dependence of climate change on solar dipole magnetic field results in the manifestation of 22-year cycle in climate change. The cause of decadal to multi-decadal climate changes had not been well understood, however, our study suggests that GCRs may be the playing important role in climate change at those time scales.

Conclusion
More detailed studies are needed to reveal the mechanisms of solar influence on climate change; however, our study has suggested that not only solar irradiative outputs but also magnetic property is playing important role in climate change possibly through changing the flux of GCRs. The mechanisms how the cosmic rays change the cloud property should be clarified in the future studies.

 

[foomar]

dont be a fucking dummy - I watched that come out the back of a fucking plane

They tend to do that , they are called contrails , documented since the first planes got high enough to cause them to form.

You seem to have mental health issues and a personality disorder , suggest you seek professional help before its too late and you end up being sectioned.

The longer you leave it the harder to treat , some psychotropic drugs and counselling should sort you out and you can probably still become a useful member of society rather than an object of ridicule.

 

[bentom187]

NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As The Hottest Month On Record

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, criticized for manipulating temperature records to create a warming trend, has now been caught warming the past and cooling the present.

July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the U.S. during a summer that was declared “too hot to handle” by NASA scientists. That summer more than half the country was experiencing drought and wildfires had scorched more than 1.3 million acres of land, according to NASA.

According to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in 2012, the “average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the warmest July and all-time warmest month on record for the nation in a period of record that dates back to 1895.”

“The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936, when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F,” NOAA said in 2012.

This statement by NOAA was still available on their website when checked by The Daily Caller News Foundation. But when meteorologist and climate blogger Anthony Watts went to check the NOAA data on Sunday he found that the science agency had quietly reinstated July 1936 as the hottest month on record in the U.S.

“Two years ago during the scorching summer of 2012, July 1936 lost its place on the leaderboard and July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the United States,” Watts wrote. “Now, as if by magic, and according to NOAA’s own data, July 1936 is now the hottest month on record again. The past, present, and future all seems to be ‘adjustable’ in NOAA’s world.”

Watts had data from NOAA’s “Climate at a Glance” plots from 2012, which shows that July 2012 was the hottest month on record at 77.6 degrees Fahrenheit. July 1936 is only at 77.4 degrees Fahrenheit. [Annotations in the graph are from Watts].

(Graph at site)

Watts ran the same data plot again on Sunday and found that NOAA inserted a new number in for July 1936. The average temperature for July 1936 was made slightly higher than July 2012, meaning, once again, July 1936 is the hottest year on record. [Annotations in the graph are from Watts]

(Graph at site)

“You can’t get any clearer proof of NOAA adjusting past temperatures,” Watts wrote. “This isn’t just some issue with gridding, or anomalies, or method, it is about NOAA not being able to present historical climate information of the United States accurately.”

“In one report they give one number, and in another they give a different one with no explanation to the public as to why,” Watts continued. “This is not acceptable. It is not being honest with the public. It is not scientific. It violates the Data Quality Act.”

 

[SativaBreather]

They tend to do that , they are called contrails , documented since the first planes got high enough to cause them to form.

You seem to have mental health issues and a personality disorder , suggest you seek professional help before its too late and you end up being sectioned.

The longer you leave it the harder to treat , some psychotropic drugs and counselling should sort you out and you can probably still become a useful member of society rather than an object of ridicule.

lol cast off them shackles foolmar mate, I expect you think cancer is made up too
on a serious note its very very sad and I pity you, must be awful... even the solution you suggest psychotropic drugs and counselling are indicative of a true lack of understanding and awareness regarding the history of the origins of both of those options. You've really had a job done on you and I fear you will never free yourself from your chains... an imprisoned mind is a terrible thing, you truly have my sympathies and my best wishes that one day you will wake up and be free. I know the truth is scary but you're a big boy now and we'll be here to hold your hand as you face up to the true reality that your masters hate you and want you dead and have been implementing a global depopulation plan for quite some time now and that geoengineering is just one of the ways they are doing it.

 

[harold]

those psychotropic drugs based on the fluoride molecule is what you need and throw in some electric shock treatment too... that questioning mind is such a nuisance to authority.

sprayed like a f@cking bug today and i have a headache, which has caused alot of conflict today.

 

[SativaBreather]

yep the see you en tees have been spraying like fuck today, sorry I mean dispersing water vapor like fuck

 

[harold]

people think its hay fever! they don't have a clue. Accidents on the motorway today, standard on heavy spray days. Lots of agitated, head achy people.

dont tell me its just persistent water vapor!

 

[trichrider]

Apollo Astronaut: Climate Alarmism Is the ‘Biggest Fraud in the Field of Science’



July 2, 2014 - 4:01 PM
97% Climate Consensus ‘Most Nonsensical, Stupid Number in the World’



Climate alarmism is "the biggest fraud in the field of science" and the 97% consensus claim is nonsensical, Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham tells MRCTV in a preview of his presentation at the upcoming Heartland Institute climate conference, July 7-9.

"Since about 2000, I looked farther and farther into it," Col. Cunningham (USMC, Ret.) tells MRCTV in an exclusive interview. "I found that not one of the claims that the alarmists were making out there had any bearings, whatsoever. And, so, it was kind of a no-brainer to come to the conclusion."

Cunningham rejects the notion of man-made climate, not only as fact - but also as even qualifying as an actual "theory":

"In the media, it was being called a theory. Obviously, they didn't know what it means to be a theory."

"If we go back to the warmist hypothesis - not a theory, but, a hypothesis - they've been saying from the very beginning that carbon dioxide levels are abnormally high, that higher levels of carbon dioxide are bad for humans, and they thought warmer temperatures are bad for our world, and they thought we were able to override natural forces to control the earth's temperature. So, as I've looked into those, that's the problem that I've found, because I didn't find any of those to be correct - and, they certainly were not a theory, it was just their guess at what they wanted to see in the data they were looking at."

Cunningham urges Americans to look at the data and decide for themselves, instead of taking anyone else's word for it:

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/craig...-climate-alarmism-biggest-fraud-field-science

so if there is no global warming there must be another reason the spraying continues.
global warming was the only legitimate reason I could see them spraying for...

 

[Nor'Easter]

wow, I've been through only 4 pages of this... and see no need to continue further at the moment.... a few sensible voices of reason urging open thinking vs people that post pages of utter nonsense and keep having more where that comes from, all of which proves nothing besides the fact that either they have an agenda they are fighting very hard to protect, or they are so deluded they belong in an insane asylum!

Foomar and a couple other voices of reason, I salute you for urging critical thinking instead of the lack of all thinking, but it seems an uphill battle against these people that will believe what a handful of conspiracy nuts tell them to believe! I fear it is like trying to breathe life into a rock, if you can do it, you pull off a miracle!
Good luck! and thanks for a valiant effort to reason with the unreasonable!

 

[trichrider]

blow on...read four pages of what you want to hear and decide reason is on foomars side.

srm/geoengineering is fact beyond dispute. google it.

then provide evidence otherwise.

several people posting here have witnessed 'persistent contrails', you just called them liars and lunatics...

tool.

 

[Green81]

i know the de-population theory, there seems evidence that swings both ways….. But…… has anyone looked at the population growth of the last 50 years??? now thats fucking scary, huge huge jump in population growth with the trend continuing, we're all gonna kill ourselves through procreation

p.s governments are there to inslave not serve…. sadly…….
(some are worse than others)
peace

G81

 

[SativaBreather]

just another slave

 

[foomar]

America burns 30,000 tons of fireworks per year. 20,000 of that will be burned today, on the 4th of July.

Thats a substantial amount of alluminium , barium , strontium and assorted metallic nano particles produced at or near ground level in highly populated areas.

A real and provable source of chems , rather than an imaginary one seven miles high.

 

[harold]

the perfect domesticated slave.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjDg3lQGmRs

i love you big brother!

 

[trichrider]

Effects of Rising Atmospheric Concentrations of Carbon Dioxide on Plants

By: Daniel R. Taub (Biology Department, Southwestern University) © 2010 Nature Education

Effects of Rising Atmospheric Concentrations of Carbon Dioxide on Plants

Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have been steadily rising, from approximately 315 ppm (parts per million) in 1959 to a current atmospheric average of approximately 385 ppm (Keeling et al.,2009). Current projections are for concentrations to continue to rise to as much as 500–1000 ppm by the year 2100 (IPCC 2007).

While a great deal of media and public attention has focused on the effects that such higher concentrations of CO2 are likely to have on global climate, rising CO2 concentrations are also likely to have profound direct effects on the growth, physiology, and chemistry of plants, independent of any effects on climate (Ziska 2008). These effects result from the central importance of CO2 to plant metabolism. As photosynthetic organisms, plants take up atmospheric CO2, chemically reducing the carbon. This represents not only an acquisition of stored chemical energy for the plant, but also provides the carbon skeletons for the organic molecules that make up a plants’ structure. Overall, the carbon, hydrogen and oxygen assimilated into organic molecules by photosynthesis make up ~96% of the total dry mass of a typical plant (Marschner 1995). Photosynthesis is therefore at the heart of the nutritional metabolism of plants, and increasing the availability of CO2 for photosynthesis can have profound effects on plant growth and many aspects of plant physiology.

Our knowledge of plant responses to future CO2 concentrations rests on the results of experiments that have experimentally increased CO2 and then compared the performance of the experimental plants with those grown under current ambient CO2 conditions. Such experiments have been performed in a wide variety of settings, including greenhouses and chambers of a variety of sizes and designs. However plants grown in chambers may not experience the effects of increasing CO2 the same way as plants growing in more natural settings. For this reason, techniques of Free-Air Carbon dioxide Enrichment (FACE) have been developed that allow natural or agricultural ecosystems to be fumigated with elevated concentrations of CO2 in the field without use of chambers (Figure 1). As these experiments are the most naturalistic, they should provide the best indication of the responses of plants to increased CO2 under the real-world conditions of the future. This article therefore focuses on data from FACE experiments wherever these are available. Whenever possible, to ensure the generality of conclusions, reference is made to analyses that have incorporated data from multiple experiments independently conducted at various research facilities.

Free-air carbon dioxide enrichment allows experiments with controlled atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to be conducted in the field and avoids potential experimental artifacts from growing plants in enclosed chambers.

One of the most consistent effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on plants is an increase in the rate of photosynthetic carbon fixation by leaves. Across a range of FACE experiments, with a variety of plant species, growth of plants at elevated CO2 concentrations of 475–600 ppm increases leaf photosynthetic rates by an average of 40% (Ainsworth & Rogers 2007). Carbon dioxide concentrations are also important in regulating the openness of stomata, pores through which plants exchange gasses, with the external environment. Open stomata allow CO2 to diffuse into leaves for photosynthesis, but also provide a pathway for water to diffuse out of leaves. Plants therefore regulate the degree of stomatal opening (related to a measure known as stomatal conductance) as a compromise between the goals of maintaining high rates of photosynthesis and low rates of water loss. As CO2 concentrations increase, plants can maintain high photosynthetic rates with relatively low stomatal conductance. Across a variety of FACE experiments, growth under elevated CO2 decreases stomatal conductance of water by an average of 22% (Ainsworth & Rogers 2007). This would be expected to decrease overall plant water use, although the magnitude of the overall effect of CO2 will depend on how it affects other determinants of plant water use, such as plant size, morphology, and leaf temperature. Overall, FACE experiments show decreases in whole plant water use of 5–20% under elevated CO2. This in turn can have consequences for the hydrological cycle of entire ecosystems, with soil moisture levels and runoff both increasing under elevated CO2 (Leakey et al. 2009).

Since photosynthesis and stomatal behavior are central to plant carbon and water metabolism, growth of plants under elevated CO2 leads to a large variety of secondary effects on plant physiology. The availability of additional photosynthate enables most plants to grow faster under elevated CO2, with dry matter production in FACE experiments being increased on average by 17% for the aboveground, and more than 30% for the belowground, portions of plants (Ainsworth & Long 2005; de Graaff et al. 2006). This increased growth is also reflected in the harvestable yield of crops, with wheat, rice and soybean all showing increases in yield of 12–14% under elevated CO2 in FACE experiments (Ainsworth 2008; Long et al. 2006).

Elevated CO2 also leads to changes in the chemical composition of plant tissues. Due to increased photosynthetic activity, leaf nonstructural carbohydrates (sugars and starches) per unit leaf area increase on average by 30–40% under FACE elevated CO2 (Ainsworth 2008; Ainsworth & Long 2005). Leaf nitrogen concentrations in plant tissues typically decrease in FACE under elevated CO2, with nitrogen per unit leaf mass decreasing on average by 13% (Ainsworth & Long 2005). This decrease in tissue nitrogen is likely due to several factors: dilution of nitrogen from increased carbohydrate concentrations; decreased uptake of minerals from the soil, as stomatal conductance decreases and plants take up less water (Taub & Wang 2008); and decreases in the rate of assimilation of nitrate into organic compounds (Bloom et al. 2010).

Protein concentrations in plant tissues are closely tied to plant nitrogen status. Changes in plant tissue nitrogen are therefore likely to have important effects on species at higher trophic levels. Performance is typically diminished for insect herbivores feeding on plants grown in elevated CO2 (Zvereva & Kozlov 2006). This can lead to increased consumption of plant tissues as herbivores compensate for decreased food quality (Stiling and Cornelissen 2007). Effects on human nutrition are likely as well. In FACE experiments, protein concentrations in grains of wheat, rice and barley, and in potato tubers, are decreased by 5–14% under elevated CO2 (Taub et al. 2008). Crop concentrations of nutritionally important minerals including calcium, magnesium and phosphorus may also be decreased under elevated CO2 (Loladze 2002; Taub & Wang 2008).

Effects of Other Environmental Factors on Plant Response to Elevated CO2

The effects of elevated CO2 on plants can vary depending on other environmental factors. While elevated CO2 makes carbon more available, plants also require other resources including minerals obtained from the soil. Elevated CO2 does not directly make these mineral elements more available and, as noted above, may even decrease the uptake of some elements. The ability of plants to respond to elevated CO2 with increased photosynthesis and growth may therefore be limited under conditions of low mineral availability. This effect has been best documented for nitrogen. In FACE experiments, there is less enhancement of photosynthesis by elevated CO2 under low than high soil N conditions (Ainsworth & Long 2005; Ainsworth & Rogers 2007). Crop yield in FACE also appears to be enhanced by elevated CO2 to a lesser extent under low-N than under high-N (Ainsworth & Long 2005; Ainsworth 2008; Long et al. 2006). Across studies using all types of CO2 fumigation technologies, there is a lower enhancement of biomass production by elevated CO2 under low-nutrient conditions (Poorter & Navas 2003). Crops grown with low amounts of N fertilization also show a greater decrease in protein concentrations under elevated CO2 than crops grown with higher N fertilization (Taub et al. 2008).

Another environmental factor that interacts with elevated CO2 is atmospheric ozone (O3), a gaseous toxin. Ground-level O3 concentrations have been increasing worldwide (and are expected to continue to increase) due to increased emissions of pollutants that react to produce O3 (Vingarzan 2004). High atmospheric concentrations of ozone can cause damage to leaves and decreased plant growth and photosynthesis (Feng et al. 2008; Morgan et al. 2003). The primary location of O3 injury to plants is the internal tissues of leaves. Decreased openness of stomata under elevated CO2 can therefore decrease exposure of sensitive tissues to ozone. Elevated CO2 substantially decreases the negative effects of high ozone on photosynthesis, growth, and seed yield in both soybeans and rice (Feng et al. 2008; Morgan et al. 2003). Across experiments with all plant species, the enhancement of growth by elevated CO2 is much greater under conditions of ozone stress than otherwise (Poorter & Navas 2003).

Differences among Plant Functional Types in Response to Rlevated CO2

The preceding discussion has presented the average effects of elevated CO2, but obscures important patterns of difference in response among plant species. One of the most important determinants of species differences in response to elevated CO2 is photosynthetic type. Most plant species (~90%) utilize a photosynthetic process known as C3 photosynthesis. Other species use either of two physiologically distinct processes known as C4 and CAM photosynthesis (Figure 2). C4 plants include most tropical and sub-tropical grasses and several important crops, including maize (corn), sugar cane, sorghum, and the millets. There has therefore been considerably more research on the responses to elevated CO2 in C4 than in CAM plants.

Each plant species utilizes one of several distinct physiological variants of photosynthesis mechanisms, including the variants known as C3 and C4 photosynthesis.

Figure 2: Each plant species utilizes one of several distinct physiological variants of photosynthesis mechanisms, including the variants known as C3 and C4 photosynthesis.

C4 plants use a biochemical pump to concentrate CO2 at the locations within the leaf where the RUBISCO enzyme mediates incorporation of CO2 by the Calvin-Benson photosynthetic cycle. Since CO2 concentrations are already high within the bundle sheath cells, increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations above current levels has little direct effect on photosynthetic rates for C4 species. C4 species do respond to elevated CO2 by decreasing stomatal conductance; this may lead to some indirect enhancement of photosynthesis by helping avoid water stress under drought conditions (Leakey 2009). In FACE experiments, stimulation of photosynthesis by elevated CO2 in C4 plants is only about one-third of that experienced by C3 species. C4 plants also show little or no enhancement of growth (dry matter production) in these studies (Ainsworth & Long 2005). The very limited data available also shows no increase in C4 crop yield in FACE studies (Long et al. 2006). While there is little FACE data available on effects of elevated CO2 on plant nitrogen and protein concentrations, data from chamber experiments shows C4 plants to be much less responsive than C3 plants in this regard (Cotrufo et al. 1998). The picture that emerges is that C4 plants are in general relatively unresponsive to elevation of atmospheric CO2 above current ambient levels.

In contrast to C4 species, another group of plants, legumes (members of the botanical family Fabaceae) may be especially capable of responding to elevated CO2 with increased photosynthesis and growth (Rogers et al. 2009). For most plants, growth under elevated CO2 can alter the internal balance between carbon (obtained in extra quantities through enhanced photosynthesis) and nitrogen (either unaffected or taken up in decreased amounts due to decreased uptake of water). In contrast, most legume species participate in close mutualistic relationships with bacteria that live in nodules formed on the plant’s roots. These bacteria are able to "fix" atmospheric nitrogen, chemically reducing it to a form that can be taken up and used by plants. Under elevated CO2 conditions, legumes may be able to shunt excess carbon to root nodules where it can serve as a carbon and energy source for the bacterial symbionts. In effect, legumes may be able to exchange the excess carbon for nitrogen and thereby maximize the benefits of elevated atmospheric CO2. Many studies in controlled environments have shown that, compared to other plant species, legumes show greater enhancement of photosynthesis and growth by elevated CO2 (Rogers et al. 2009). Decreases in tissue nitrogen concentrations under elevated CO2 are also smaller for legumes than for other C3 species (Cotrufo et al. 1988; Jablonski et al. 2002; Taub et al. 2008). In FACE experiments, soybeans (a legume) show a greater response to elevated CO2 than wheat and rice in photosynthesis and overall growth, although not in harvestable yield (Long et al. 2006).

Plant Community Interactions under Elevated CO2

A number of experiments have found that some plant species that respond positively to elevated CO2 when grown alone experience decreased growth under elevated CO2 when grown in mixed plant communities (Poorter & Navas 2003). This effect likely results because the direct positive effects of elevated CO2 are outweighed by negative effects due to stimulation of the growth of competitors. Rising atmospheric concentrations of CO2 may therefore lead to changes in the composition of plant communities, as some species reap more of an advantage from the increased CO2 than do others. In mixed-species experiments under high fertility conditions, C4 plants decrease as a proportion of the biomass of plant communities under elevated CO2. Similarly, under low fertility conditions, legumes increase as a proportion of the biomass of plant communities under elevated CO2 (Poorter & Navas 2003).

Summary

Current evidence suggests that that the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 predicted for the year 2100 will have major implications for plant physiology and growth. Under elevated CO2 most plant species show higher rates of photosynthesis, increased growth, decreased water use and lowered tissue concentrations of nitrogen and protein. Rising CO2 over the next century is likely to affect both agricultural production and food quality. The effects of elevated CO2 are not uniform; some species, particularly those that utilize the C4 variant of photosynthesis, show less of a response to elevated CO2 than do other types of plants. Rising CO2 is therefore likely to have complex effects on the growth and composition of natural plant communities.

 

[SativaBreather]

i know the de-population theory, there seems evidence that swings both ways….. But…… has anyone looked at the population growth of the last 50 years??? now thats fucking scary, huge huge jump in population growth with the trend continuing, we're all gonna kill ourselves through procreation

p.s governments are there to inslave not serve…. sadly…….
(some are worse than others)
peace

G81

but this trend is in reverse - look at fertility rates in west - falling year on year as we are sterilised covertly

 

[foomar]

falling year on year as we are sterilised covertly

Actually its pretty stable.

[/IMG]

Add in Polish immigrants who are mainly catholic and will have larger families and the birthrate is set to rise.

Do you actually do any research or just make stuff up ?

 

[harold]

immigration has nothing to do with the average fertility of the western man.

why do we have so many infertility clinic's popping up all over the place?

 

[SativaBreather]

Actually its pretty stable.

.

Do you actually do any research or just make stuff up ?

prick
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/completingfertility/RevisedFFPSPOPDIVpaper.PDF
http://www.pop.org/content/fertility-decline-in-western-europe-1727
http://www.forbes.com/global/2012/0...ation-declining-birth-rates-lee-kuan-yew.html
http://www.futurity.org/the-economics-of-declining-birth-rates/
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304773104579265520447488200
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dg...dropping-faster-than-western-fertility-rates/
http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/what-happens-when-half-the-world-stops-making-babies/573/

 

[foomar]

chemtard

Its nothing to do with being covertly sterilised , its become a lifestyle choice to have fewer children at a later age in western countries.
Readily available and effective contraception has enabled it.

infertility clinic's are popping up all over the place because its a hugely profitable unregulated business , like cosmetic surgery.