Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on NRC’s artless untruths on climate change and food security by Wagathon

0
0

‘where the nation turns for independent, expert advice’

Good title for a daytime soap opera.


Comment on NRC’s artless untruths on climate change and food security by Anteros

0
0

I’ve just noticed that this article is duplicated at WUWT. In his bio there, Rud Istvan explains his view that although climate change will have little impact on food production during the 21st Century, food scarcity will still be a serious problem.
He says absolute food scarcity will occur when population reaches about 9 billion and that it will be “very ugly”.

So, although he has reached a sane conclusion about the relationship between Co2, temperature and crop yields, he is, in fact, still barking mad.

He should read some of Norman Borlaug’s studies on how food scarcity has been, is, and will be diminishing over time, and that in 50 years time feeding 10 billion people will be easier than feeding 7 billion today.

Comment on Pseudoscience (?) by NW

0
0

I like your talk, PhysicistDave, and haven’t noticed your handle on this blog before. If you are new, welcome!

Comment on NRC’s artless untruths on climate change and food security by Stephen Singer

0
0

The second chart, 2010 NRC, says underneath it the temp are relative to pre-1900 temps. The first chart, 2011 NRC, does not give in reference to its baseline temp and neither does the booklet its in. Otherwise they are practically identical.

Since 1900 we’re already up almost 1dec.

Did you miss that or did they do that on purpose?

Comment on NRC’s artless untruths on climate change and food security by NW

0
0

You’re going to get along great with cwon14.

Comment on NRC’s artless untruths on climate change and food security by NW

0
0

Actually, it sounds a lot like the never-ending self-congratulation on PBS.

Comment on NRC’s artless untruths on climate change and food security by kim

0
0

@100 watts per person, primitive living, the energy reaching the earth from the sun is enough to support approximately a million times the present human population, if all that energy were devoted to the support of human life. We are talking quadrillions of human souls. This is a theoretical maximum, practically impossible.

Not to mention harvesting energy elsewhere from the sun, a topic mentioned in high school debate this year.

The supply of energy is almost unlimited. We have the imagination to use much more of it than we presently use. Even a tiny increase in the efficiency of our use of the available energy will allow many multiples of Earth’s present population to live in a style to which we would all like to become accustomed.

We also have the engineers who can’t help but debunk unsound science. Lots more than lives depend upon that.

So, shall we get on with it?
=================

Comment on NRC’s artless untruths on climate change and food security by kim

0
0

Dang, I meant to say ‘even a tiny increase in the efficiency of our use of the available energy, a la Norman Borlaug, will allow many multiples of Earth’s present population to live in a style to which we would all like to become accusomed.’ But now I get to say it twice.

Don’t make me say it again, again.
=============


Comment on Pseudoscience (?) by Raving

0
0
<blockquote>it has been shown that 95% of people with gunshot injuries that present at Hospital survive, does it therefore follow that if you are shot in a hospital then you chance or survival is 19/20?</blockquote> Yes. Precisely so. It doesn't matter whether one is shot in a hospital or 20 miles away. If you die before making it to <em>Emergency Triage</em>, it's game over. It even works if the person gets shot undergoing treatment in Emergency. The fortunate patient *still* needs to live long enough to re-present at <em>Emergency Triage</em>

Comment on NRC’s artless untruths on climate change and food security by kim

0
0

Do not go gentle into that green light.
=============

Comment on NRC’s artless untruths on climate change and food security by Jim2

0
0

My scheme would eliminate a big chunk of the Federal government, so there would be considerable savings there.

Comment on Nuclear power discussion thread by Jim Owen

Comment on NRC’s artless untruths on climate change and food security by DocMartyn

0
0

I suspect the Blue Whale in the room is the gene-jockeys.
Hate them or dislike them, you can’t ignore them. The stage of biotechnology were are at now is about to see a cascade. 1908 was the first heavier than air flight and 1982 the first commercialized genetically modified organism (Insulin-producing bacteria).
So 2012 for GM is 1938, there are biplanes as front line fighters. Prototypes of heavy bombers. No commercial aviation for any but the richest. No navigation aids. No major airports. No helicopters. No jet engines.
In the coming two decades they molecular biologists are going to become molecular technologists. They are already quite good at dicing and splicing, very soon, actually now, they will know exactly how to intervene in specific areas.
As far a crops g the big thing they have been chasing down is saline resistance, which will have a huge impact on the land that can be cultivated as something like one-third of the world’s irrigated land is too saline for most crops.
Arid resistance is also being done, but last time I checked wine vines were where the money was mostly being spent. Lessons learned will be horizontially transfereable.

Comment on Nuclear power discussion thread by Peter Lang

0
0

Gee, I am impressed. JC replied within one minute!!!

Comment on NRC’s artless untruths on climate change and food security by Herman Alexander Pope

0
0

More CO2 improves plant growth with less water. LESS WATER!!!!!!!
Get rid of ETHANOL and increase CO2!!!!!
Build WATER PIPELINES and/or canals and move water from wherever there is floods to wherever more water is needed.


Comment on Nuclear power discussion thread by DocMartyn

0
0

“David Springer
I question the veracity of this which is basically a permutation of “that which doesn’t kill me only makes me stronger”

So you think vaccinations don’t work then? Injecting a small amounts of a live or a dead virus/bacteria can’t trigger a biological response?

Ever seen the linkage between low antigen exposure during childhood and autoimmune disease like childhood allergies, asthma, and eczema?
Do you know what happens to animals who are raised in sterile environments?

Have you by any chance heard of the BER pathway? HSP’s?
Ever heard of Harman’s free radical theory of ageing?
Did you know that low levels of ionizing radiation up regulates glutathione levels in human being exposed to low levels of ionizing radiation?
Airline pilots and cardiologists have much higher glutathione and hair-trigger apoptic pathways, compared to controls.

Want to know the single biggest risk factor that leads to an early grave?

UNEMPLOYMENT.

Think on that when you want to screw up the economy.

http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/Bernard.Cohen.rankRisks.htm

Comment on NRC’s artless untruths on climate change and food security by Herman Alexander Pope

0
0

Good links, Thanks!

Comment on Nuclear power discussion thread by Phil C

0
0

The simplest explanation of why low level radiation is healthy is that we, and everything on earth, have been living with low level radiation since life began. The background levels vary by a factor of approximately 10 world wide, with a few selected places near the Black Sea around 100 times the world average. I have been unable to find any research that links any general level of health or cancer rates(except lung cancer from radon exposure and thyroid disease from Iodine 131) to varying background radiation. This is not a case of “if it doesn’t kill you it only makes it you stronger”. It is a well-established fact that radiation levels from a couple of microSv up to a couple of hundred are not demonstrably harmful.

Comment on Nuclear power discussion thread by Steve

0
0

I remember the news stories of those 50 workers giving their lives to save others…yea, they were surely all going to die…might not even get to see their loved ones again…

Have the newspapers ever done a follow up to say they were wrong? that the grossly overestimated the impacts? A Health Physics friend of mine did some work for the NRC following the accident…those workers who received high doses have about a 1% higher probability of developing cancer than the normal population…

You won’t know “the Fukushima death toll” because statistically you won’t be able to see it…but there is a guy in Pennsylvania who might be able to get your data to show a sharp increase…like a hockey stick…

Comment on Nuclear power discussion thread by Steve

0
0

TMI was an economic disaster…

There have been some studies done comparing fatalities and recovery costs for accidents in the various technologies used for generating power (primarily electricity)…nuclear has by far the fewest fatalities but nuclear events are far more costly…hydro plants kill many more people but their recovery costs are low…coal and oil are in the middle…

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images