9

This reminds me of using Bjørn Lomborg's book in statistics, as examples how not to do statistics, his calculations never make any sense or just make unfounded leaps to conclusions. Erik seems to have the same problem he just throws numbers together with no rhyme or reason. Let's just break down his calculation. 1 °C × 0.30 × 0.04 × 1/4 = 0.003 °C. Why are ...


5

From this he concludes that the temperature raise from carbon dioxide is only 1 °C × 0.30 × 0.04 × 1/4 = 0.003° C. His number for the amount of CO2 is high. A better value is 0.027 rather than 0.04. That does not mean that the correct answer is 0.002° C. This argument is completely fallacious. The author of this calculation is playing numerological games. ...


4

The FAO estimate that we use 11% of the Earth's surface area for agriculture, and that that represents approximately a third of the land that 'could' be used (http://www.fao.org/3/y4252e/y4252e06.htm). If we accept that current agricultural production is at a level that allows the current population to live healthy lives that implies that we could triple ...


3

tl;dr– This sounds like silliness through-and-through. Addressing it as though it were a real scientific calculation would seem to be missing the forest for the trees. Temperature has raised by 1 °C since 1850. Carbon dioxide has raised by 30%. Carbon dioxide only constitute 4% of the greenhouse gases (the main part consists of water vapor). Carbon dioxide ...


3

The assumption is that these contaminants will leach into the ground and reach a source of drinking water. Or they will enter the food chain, by accumulating in plants, eaten by herbivores, eaten by carnivores and/or humans. So the risk is ingestion of material X, with material X being able to affect humans health if its concentration is larger than Y. There ...


2

Before the 1960s, the size of the Aral Sea was relatively consistent. However, the Aral Sea went through some "dry spells" during the 1st and 3rd centuries BCE. Going even further back, the Aral Sea dried up during the Early Pleistocene and was "refilled" during the Early Holocene. In other words, the Aral Sea probably looked the same in ...


2

Where am I wrong in my assumption about natural water distillation (i.e. is rain water not as clean as it should be in theory)? Generally, rain water is pretty clean. That is not an issue. Plus, we treat ground water and reservoir/lake/river water, so we could easily treat rain water. What you really fail to miss is that ground water and reservoir/lake/...


2

The same thing that typically cause them,.... Lightning. a very small percentage started by spontaneous combustion of dry fuel such as sawdust and leaves.


1

Would it be enough to simply vent ozone at point of manufacture, or would it be better released at the 10 km height? Neither. The right answer is not to do it at all. Surface level ozone is deemed to be a pollutant. It is highly irritating to people. Ten kilometers is still in the troposphere. Ozone in the troposphere rarely makes its way to the ...


1

The "calculation" - 1 °C × 0.30 × 0.04 × 1/4 = 0.003 °C is meaningless. Rather than attempt to show that directly my response would be to ask "if the contribution of CO2 to 1 °C of warming really were only 0.003 °C then what caused the other 0.997 °C of warming?" Seems clear that water vapour, even if having 4 times the greenhouse ...


1

Agricultural water is largely Fossil Water, which took tens of thousands of years to accumulate and industrial activities have used it in a century. Saudi Arabia is abandoning programs to grow wheat that achieved self-sufficiency but depleted the desert kingdom's scarce water supplies. Going from the 6th largest exporter to NO more. Humanity derives water ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible