If Asteroid Apophis were to strike Earth, it would release an immense amount of energy, equivalent to over 1,000 megatons of TNT, or hundreds of nuclear weapons, causing widespread destruction across a radius of hundreds of kilometers.
...
Important Note: While a hypothetical strike by Apophis would be catastrophic on a regional and potentially global scale, the scientific community has determined that it is no longer on a collision course with Earth for the foreseeable future.
These oils—which include canola, grapeseed, sunflower, and soy—are extracted from the seeds of plants. Critics say that their high levels of omega-6 fats raise inflammation in the body and that consuming them can lead to cancer, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and other illnesses.
But the scientific evidence doesn't support that. "In dozens of studies looking at omega-6s and inflammation, I haven't seen one that shows an inflammatory effect, and roughly half of studies are showing anti-inflammatory effects," Willett says. For example, a 2019 review of 30 studies, published in the journal Circulation, found that people with the highest blood levels of a type of omega-6 fat called linoleic acid had a 7 percent lower risk of cardiovascular disease, possibly because linoleic acid reduces inflammation. Plus, Willett says, we've known for decades that these oils also cut LDL ("bad") cholesterol levels, and a higher intake of them has contributed significantly to the large decline in deaths from heart disease in the U.S."
@john2001plus 0 seconds ago The problem is that many devices, like remote controls, use AAA batteries that have a third of the power and cost as much. Some of these devices could have easily used the more powerful AA batteries.
I've been saying for decades that we live on top of a massive ball of molten iron. About 84% of the Earth's volume is molten. I've argued that there is no shortage of energy, only that some forms of energy are more difficult to access.
Basically I agree, but I don't understand your comment on switching from coal to natural gas. Natural gas is very clean, but it still produces CO2, just not all the particulates. I think electricity production in Utah is almost entirely from coal fired plants, and coal reserves are projected to last about 1,000 years.
According to Google AI:
Natural gas produces less CO2 than other fossil fuels because it has a higher proportion of hydrogen relative to carbon. When burned, the hydrogen in natural gas combines with oxygen to form water (H2O), while the carbon combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2). Since natural gas has more hydrogen and less carbon, it produces less CO2 per unit of energy compared to fuels like coal or oil.
The temperature data, which shows a very slow warming partly caused by human activity, has led me to believe that we are not in a climate crisis. It has taken 140 years for the average global atmospheric temperature to rise by 1 degree Celsius, and this follows the end of the Little Ice Age and the 1880s—one of the coldest periods in United States history that killed hundreds of Americans. Many more people die from cold than they do from heat.
My view is reinforced by what I see as questionable behavior from Climate Alarmists and the IPCC. Politicians and alarmists have created a moral hazard in which scientists risk losing funding if they do not support the official narrative. The IPCC reportedly refuses to hire anyone who does not already believe in catastrophic man-made warming, and the infamous email leak suggested they were trying to "hide the decline"—concealing that tree ring proxies used for reconstructing past temperatures were unreliable compared with recent data. People have quit the IPCC claiming that it is corrupt. One person claimed that the real goal of the IPCC was to do away with free market capitalism.
By the mid-2010s, it was evident that climate computer model predictions were running far too hot. This led to shifting target temperatures. Around 2010, I watched videos warning that by the year 2100, we were on track for a 3°C increase—considered dangerous—but that limiting the rise to 2°C would be manageable. Only a few years later, the claim shifted: we were supposedly on track for a 2°C rise—now deemed dangerous—and that limiting it to 1.5°C would be manageable. I remain unconvinced that half a degree would make a significant difference.
To me, climate alarmism appears to be driven more by politics than by reliable science. There has been a political shift where fewer people are taking it seriously. Reportedly, climate policy has cost trillions of dollars, so I think that this is the greatest scam in human history.
However, there are simply too many unknown variables. Most of the debate centers on the amount of positive feedback to warming. But since feedbacks can be both positive and negative, and since these processes are not fully understood, it is difficult to make reliable long-term predictions. The current major point of contention is cloud cover. Skeptics argue that increasing cloud cover would produce a net negative feedback—seemingly common sense—while the IPCC claims the opposite.
Although the United States has reduced its CO₂ emissions, largely by switching from coal to natural gas, China has tripled its emissions through massive coal plant construction. While China has paid lip service to fighting climate change, its actions suggest that they don't care.
It is also worth noting that we may run out of most fossil fuels by the year 2100. Current estimates suggest 40–50 years of oil reserves remain. Reportedly, the United States has a very large shale oil reserve that could last the United States 300 years, but most of it is so difficult to mine that it would cost $10 per gallon at the pump.
Coal will last the longest, so we may eventually be forced to burn more of it.
@john2001plus 2 years ago I disagree. Evolution seems to occur in spurts, often due to changes in the environment. There would have been a transition, but one that was relatively sudden.
I have heard that cancer cells are weaker than normal cells because of their constant replication. This makes them easier to kill, yet we still have not cured cancer. I believe it is likely that a cure could be found in my lifetime.
I have always been skeptical of quantum computing. Some of the claims made about it don't seem to make sense, such as suggestions that quantum computers access physical dimensions we cannot see. Others even claim they do not fully understand how their quantum computers work.
I am sure quantum computing works to some degree, but there are practical limitations. The number of qubits that can be packed into a small space will likely always be restricted. Furthermore, many systems require cooling their circuits to near absolute zero, making them impractical for widespread use.
Annual global climate finance flows reached almost $1.3 trillion in 2021/2022, doubling from 2019/2020 levels. However, this represents only about 1% of global GDP, and experts estimate that much larger investments are needed to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
"Jordan Peterson continues to follow a carnivore diet, specifically a restricted version focusing on beef, salt, and water.He and his daughter, Mikhaila, have both spoken publicly about their experiences with this diet, citing improvements in various health issues like autoimmune conditions, depression, and sleep problems.
More Details:
Lion Diet:
Peterson and his daughter follow a strict carnivore diet called the "lion diet," which limits their food intake to only beef, salt, and water.
Rationale:
They believe this diet, which eliminates all other foods, can help with autoimmune conditions, mental health issues, and other health problems.
Impact on Peterson:
Peterson has reported experiencing positive impacts, such as reduced inflammation, improved gum health, and increased strength, since adopting the diet.
Controversy and Concerns:
The diet has faced criticism and concern from some experts, who point to potential health risks like nutrient deficiencies and the difficulty of maintaining such a restrictive diet long-term.
No Recommendation for Others:
While Peterson and his daughter have shared their experiences, they have also emphasized that they don't recommend this diet for everyone."
My problem with the video is that it doesn't present any evidence that carbohydrates are harmful. He refers to it as a "glucose diet," but our bodies, especially our brains, run on glucose as a source of energy.
It's important to distinguish between glucose (which comes from starches) and sucrose (table sugar). There is overwhelming evidence that sugar is harmful to our health, but this doesn't apply in the same way to all carbohydrates.
When it comes to poor health, we could blame diet, excess weight, or a combination of the two. People gain weight because they consume more calories than they burn. Eating too many carbohydrates can contribute to this, but that doesn't mean we should eliminate them entirely.
I've also seen a number of videos claiming that humans are carnivores. That's simply not accurate. Only a few species are obligate carnivores that can survive on meat alone. Humans are omnivores; we have teeth and digestive systems adapted to a varied diet.
"Earth normally takes 24 hours, or exactly 86,400 seconds, to complete one full rotation, which is called a solar day."
A solar day is different from one complete rotation. A solar day is the time that elapses from high noon to high noon. But in a day, the Earth moves about 1 degree around the sun. That means that high noon is about 1 degree different from one day to the next.
If we measure by the stars, a full rotation, called a sidereal day, takes 23 hours and 56 minutes.
