"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:4ff4d380$0$51083
:

Somebody wrote:

Nuclear power.
-----------------------------
Not going to happen.

Just ask the Japanese.

Lew

Umm, didn't they just restart one or more because summer is coming, and
they don't have enough generating capacity?

The germans too are possibly backing of their no nukes aims.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Han" wrote:

Umm, didn't they just restart one or more because summer is coming,
and
they don't have enough generating capacity?

The germans too are possibly backing of their no nukes aims.
----------------------------
The Japanese gov't announced, within the last 90 days, they are out of
the nuclear business.

Lew

Han wrote in :

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:4ff4d380$0$51083
:

Somebody wrote:

Nuclear power.
-----------------------------
Not going to happen.

Just ask the Japanese.

Lew

Umm, didn't they just restart one or more because summer is coming, and
they don't have enough generating capacity?

Yes, they did.

Mark Twain once wrote, "We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom
that is in it -- and stop there; lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove-lid. She will
never sit down on a hot stove-lid again -- and that is well; but also she will never sit down on
a cold one anymore."

Lew is the cat in this story, having learned the wrong lesson from Fukushima.

Hopefully, the Japanese are a bit more astute, and learned the correct lessons, to wit:

-- Bad Things Happen when government safety inspectors take bribes from builders to
approve substandard construction

-- It's a really Bad Idea to build a nuclear reactor close to the coast in an earthquake- and
tsunami-prone part of the world

-- It's a really, really Bad Idea to put said reactor's emergency generators below the high-
water line -- despite the substandard construction, the reactors survived the quake. Even
though they lost power, the diesel generators took over, and all was more or less well, until
the generators were swamped by the tsunami. That took out the power for the cooling
pumps, and that's when the problems started.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:4ff4e748$0$1810
:


"Han" wrote:

Umm, didn't they just restart one or more because summer is coming,
and
they don't have enough generating capacity?

The germans too are possibly backing of their no nukes aims.
----------------------------
The Japanese gov't announced, within the last 90 days, they are out of
the nuclear business.

Lew

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2012/...reuters-japan-
nuclear-reactor.html?hp


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Doug Miller" wrote:

Yes, they did.
-----------------------------------
The fight goes on.

The neighbors are trying to keep San Onofre nuclear generating station
shut down.(It's a 40 year old plant)

Appears to be a basic design problem as a result of trying to push
performance beyond design limits.

It supplied about 20% of the power for SoCal.

They are working to restart a N/G fired unit in Huntington Beach to
handle the summer peak load.

Lew

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 16:01:40 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On 04 Jul 2012 18:04:54 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
m:

On 04 Jul 2012 17:33:34 GMT, Han wrote:

My mercury containing lamps go into the fluorescent bulb recycling bin
at the recycling center.

ONLY if you have one within a reasonable distance from you. I'd drive
30 miles to Medford (60 RT) to dump mine, but I can't do 500 to
Portland. I hate to dump them, and that's why I haven't done it yet,
but...

Then you need to ask Oregon how and where to dispose of them. Seems to me
an environment-conscious state should have a solution.

That's what I thought, but the only one I've found is in Portland, 250
miles away.

Around here, the Home Depot takes fluorescents, though they probably send them
to the landfill.

On 7/4/2012 1:58 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/3/2012 11:06 AM, Han wrote:

Just limiting my discussion to fracking.

Poor baby ... bless her little pea picking heart. LOL

http://preview.tinyurl.com/86lbrg5



I busted out laughing when I read that. I wander who got to her and how
much she got.

I laughed again when I learned that she could have changed her vote as
long is it did not affect the outcome. What would be the point??

On 05 Jul 2012 01:51:17 GMT, Han wrote:

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:4ff4e748$0$1810
:


"Han" wrote:

Umm, didn't they just restart one or more because summer is coming,
and
they don't have enough generating capacity?

The germans too are possibly backing of their no nukes aims.
----------------------------
The Japanese gov't announced, within the last 90 days, they are out of
the nuclear business.

Lew

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2012/...reuters-japan-
nuclear-reactor.html?hp

Please, Han. Don't spoil Lew's liberal fantasies.
(They're flighty enough to begin with.)

--
Truth loves to go naked.
--Dr. Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 22:13:15 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 7/4/2012 1:58 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/3/2012 11:06 AM, Han wrote:

Just limiting my discussion to fracking.

Poor baby ... bless her little pea picking heart. LOL

http://preview.tinyurl.com/86lbrg5



I busted out laughing when I read that. I wander who got to her and how
much she got.

I laughed again when I learned that she could have changed her vote as
long is it did not affect the outcome. What would be the point??

I get a "Page not found" from both Firefox and Exploder.

--
Truth loves to go naked.
--Dr. Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732

Somebody wrote:

Nuclear power.
-----------------------------
I wrote:

Not going to happen.

Just ask the Japanese.
-----------------------------------
Han wrote:
Umm, didn't they just restart one or more because summer is coming,
and
they don't have enough generating capacity?
-------------------------------------
"Doug Miller" wrote:

Yes they did.
--------------------------------
Looks like the Japanese are taking a page from Romney's book.

Say and/or do what ever they think is necessary to satisfy the masses.

Lew

In article ,
says...

Han wrote:

I'll add a Phil Jones[*] to the pot.

[*]The head of University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (AKA
the principal perpetrator of climategate).

So you believe out of context, stolen materials more than research ina
well-known institution? Yeah ...

Of course, don't you?

When the stolen materials show that the researchers were fudging their
data, then yes, I'll believe the stolen materials over the published
results.

Don't fall into the fallacy of scientism, the belief that scientists are
uniformly paragons of human virtue whose every word is to be taken as
gospel. A certain percentage of them are as crooked as any politician.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:4ff53144$0$1297
:


Somebody wrote:

Nuclear power.
-----------------------------
I wrote:

Not going to happen.

Just ask the Japanese.
-----------------------------------
Han wrote:
Umm, didn't they just restart one or more because summer is coming,
and
they don't have enough generating capacity?
-------------------------------------
"Doug Miller" wrote:

Yes they did.
--------------------------------
Looks like the Japanese are taking a page from Romney's book.

Say and/or do what ever they think is necessary to satisfy the masses.

Lew

Sorry, Lew, sometimes reality trumps idealism, and believe me, I like
things better than they are now.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 22:13:15 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 7/4/2012 1:58 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/3/2012 11:06 AM, Han wrote:

Just limiting my discussion to fracking.

Poor baby ... bless her little pea picking heart. LOL

http://preview.tinyurl.com/86lbrg5



I busted out laughing when I read that. I wander who got to her and
how much she got.

I laughed again when I learned that she could have changed her vote as
long is it did not affect the outcome. What would be the point??

I get a "Page not found" from both Firefox and Exploder.

I do too now, but here is another link:
http://tinyurl.com/6ozqbgp or
http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/til...eas-to-correct
-her-vote-on-fracking-bill/Content?oid=3096728


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 7/5/2012 6:51 AM, Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 22:13:15 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 7/4/2012 1:58 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/3/2012 11:06 AM, Han wrote:

Just limiting my discussion to fracking.

Poor baby ... bless her little pea picking heart. LOL

http://preview.tinyurl.com/86lbrg5



I busted out laughing when I read that. I wander who got to her and
how much she got.

I laughed again when I learned that she could have changed her vote as
long is it did not affect the outcome. What would be the point??

I get a "Page not found" from both Firefox and Exploder.

I do too now, but here is another link:
http://tinyurl.com/6ozqbgp or
http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/til...eas-to-correct
-her-vote-on-fracking-bill/Content?oid=3096728

Never mind the rules, never mind she made the mistake, slant it as much
as you can and blame it on the other party.

That rag is exactly what's wrong with today's media.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 09:40:07 -0600, Swingman wrote
(in article ) :

On 7/4/2012 10:28 AM, Han wrote:
Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/4/2012 7:34 AM, Han wrote:

Sorry, Leon. I forgot how far Houston is from the drought-stricken
areas of Texas more to the west.

That part of Texas is historically dry ... even the plant types in the
region prove that as a fact (IOW, when you see primarily mesquite and
cactus, don't expect a lot of rain).

It's only "drought-stricken" in the newcomer's mind, who somehow
expect all places to have the same "weather" from whence they came.

That bit of ignorance, in a nutshell, certainly plays its part in the
perception of "climate change".

I'm going by the news reports that complain of drought in areas of Texas
where they commit agriculture. Or was that a fad during an abnormal wet
period?

Han, almost without exception, those areas that "commit agriculture"
have never supported agriculture on any scale without modern irrigation
methods ... guaranteed.



Heh, there would be no "West Texas" if it wasn't for El Paso.

Almost all the agriculture out there consists of a round circle of plants
with a well in the center and a revolving irrigation system to sweep the
field like the hands of a giant clock. I really pity the poor farmer out
there that ever tried to grow a crop based on rainfall or surface water (even
in 'normal' precipitation years).

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 12:07:34 -0600, Leon wrote
(in article ) :

On 7/4/2012 10:43 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 7/4/12 10:28 AM, Han wrote:
Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/4/2012 7:34 AM, Han wrote:

Sorry, Leon. I forgot how far Houston is from the drought-stricken
areas of Texas more to the west.

That part of Texas is historically dry ... even the plant types in the
region prove that as a fact (IOW, when you see primarily mesquite and
cactus, don't expect a lot of rain).

It's only "drought-stricken" in the newcomer's mind, who somehow
expect all places to have the same "weather" from whence they came.

That bit of ignorance, in a nutshell, certainly plays its part in the
perception of "climate change".

I'm going by the news reports that complain of drought in areas of Texas
where they commit agriculture. Or was that a fad during an abnormal wet
period?


Your only error was in listening to news reports. :-)
I'm guessing these are the same type of weather folks who treat every
thunderstorm in TN with 24hr coverage and warnings and the rest of the
standard "crying wolf" fare.




They all come out of the same mold. It just blows me away to see a guy
on the scene in a hurricane, standing in the treacherous winds, his
words, leaning at a 20 degree angle and his wind breaker hardly moving
at all.




I have always loved this gem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8slEPV9LyS0

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 10:46:49 -0600, Swingman wrote
(in article ) :



An example is the TCDD dataset for 1934 in Arizona (an average of the
actual reported temperatures in that state, in that year) shows to be 52.0F.

The "adjusted" GrDD for that same period in Arizona uses 48.9F ... 3.1F
_cooler_.


I understand the need to do some fine adjustments to historically long data
sets, but one would expect that the changes to average out with such large
numbers (i.e some places are adjusted warmer, some cooler). As it stands now
with all these 'adjustments', The overwhelming majority have be adjusted
cooler in the past which makes todays temperatures seem downright abnormally
high.

I guess that those dutiful observers carefully reading thermometers back in
the late 19th, early 20th centuries all read values higher than reality. It
was a conspiracy back then!

It also irks me when they report a record high at a place like DFW, when the
last high was back in the '30s. I'd like to see a photo of the DFW area back
then and compare it with now just to guess the tonnage of concrete added in
the past 80+ years...

On 7/5/2012 8:13 AM, Bruce wrote:

It also irks me when they report a record high at a place like DFW, when the
last high was back in the '30s. I'd like to see a photo of the DFW area back
then and compare it with now just to guess the tonnage of concrete added in
the past 80+ years...

Don't look now, but I believe that your scenario above is exactly what
is being used as justification for "adjustment" of historical data sets,
like the GrDD toward cooler.

And no, I do not necessarily agree with that rationale, even though it
sounds valid, because there are simply too many other factors to
consider, not the least being there is no way to determine precisely the
localized meteorological conditions on the dates those temperatures were
recorded, i.e wind, cloud cover, rain showers, etc.

FACT: When you **** with the numbers in your data set to any extent,
including "adjustments" based on unprovable and unknown conditions, your
result immediately becomes nothing more than the proverbial
Sophisticated Wild Ass GUESS. PERIOD!

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 08:43:10 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 7/5/2012 8:13 AM, Bruce wrote:

It also irks me when they report a record high at a place like DFW, when the
last high was back in the '30s. I'd like to see a photo of the DFW area back
then and compare it with now just to guess the tonnage of concrete added in
the past 80+ years...

Don't look now, but I believe that your scenario above is exactly what
is being used as justification for "adjustment" of historical data sets,
like the GrDD toward cooler.

And no, I do not necessarily agree with that rationale, even though it
sounds valid, because there are simply too many other factors to
consider, not the least being there is no way to determine precisely the
localized meteorological conditions on the dates those temperatures were
recorded, i.e wind, cloud cover, rain showers, etc.

FACT: When you **** with the numbers in your data set to any extent,
including "adjustments" based on unprovable and unknown conditions, your
result immediately becomes nothing more than the proverbial
Sophisticated Wild Ass GUESS. PERIOD!

They additionally become yet another liberal lie with an agenda.

--
Truth loves to go naked.
--Dr. Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732

On 7/5/12 8:43 AM, Swingman wrote:
FACT: When you **** with the numbers in your data set to any extent,
including "adjustments" based on unprovable and unknown conditions, your
result immediately becomes nothing more than the proverbial
Sophisticated Wild Ass GUESS. PERIOD!


+10


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/5/2012 9:20 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 08:43:10 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 7/5/2012 8:13 AM, Bruce wrote:

It also irks me when they report a record high at a place like DFW, when the
last high was back in the '30s. I'd like to see a photo of the DFW area back
then and compare it with now just to guess the tonnage of concrete added in
the past 80+ years...

Don't look now, but I believe that your scenario above is exactly what
is being used as justification for "adjustment" of historical data sets,
like the GrDD toward cooler.

And no, I do not necessarily agree with that rationale, even though it
sounds valid, because there are simply too many other factors to
consider, not the least being there is no way to determine precisely the
localized meteorological conditions on the dates those temperatures were
recorded, i.e wind, cloud cover, rain showers, etc.

FACT: When you **** with the numbers in your data set to any extent,
including "adjustments" based on unprovable and unknown conditions, your
result immediately becomes nothing more than the proverbial
Sophisticated Wild Ass GUESS. PERIOD!

They additionally become yet another liberal lie with an agenda.

It ain't necessarily a "political persuasion" phenomenon, C_Less ...
every political poll proves that on a daily basis.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Bruce wrote in :

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 12:07:34 -0600, Leon wrote
(in article ) :

On 7/4/2012 10:43 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 7/4/12 10:28 AM, Han wrote:
Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/4/2012 7:34 AM, Han wrote:

Sorry, Leon. I forgot how far Houston is from the
drought-stricken areas of Texas more to the west.

That part of Texas is historically dry ... even the plant types in
the region prove that as a fact (IOW, when you see primarily
mesquite and cactus, don't expect a lot of rain).

It's only "drought-stricken" in the newcomer's mind, who somehow
expect all places to have the same "weather" from whence they
came.

That bit of ignorance, in a nutshell, certainly plays its part in
the perception of "climate change".

I'm going by the news reports that complain of drought in areas of
Texas where they commit agriculture. Or was that a fad during an
abnormal wet period?


Your only error was in listening to news reports. :-)
I'm guessing these are the same type of weather folks who treat
every thunderstorm in TN with 24hr coverage and warnings and the
rest of the standard "crying wolf" fare.

They all come out of the same mold. It just blows me away to see a
guy on the scene in a hurricane, standing in the treacherous winds,
his words, leaning at a 20 degree angle and his wind breaker hardly
moving at all.

I have always loved this gem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8slEPV9LyS0

That is next door to me. The flooding was really bad last year, so I
can't find anything funny in the video (I cut it off because of the
stupid reporting rather soon). Not sure that woman was ever in a canoe
before.
Here the problem is that people have built there homes in the flood plain
of the Passaic. The river has also lost "traditional" wetlands that
could sop up some of the excessive rainfall. Thus we have had at least 3
100-year floods in the past 2 years. Now homes are condemned, and the
people lost everything unless they had flood insurance, in which case
they lost much, since they cannot rebuild. Funds to buy up the homes had
been promised (don't know whether it was Feds or NJ), but eventually
those funds disappeared (creative state bookkeeping??).

In Fair Lawn there was more than a $million in damage to a school, which
flooded, much of it covered by insurance, but the kids had to be bused to
3 different schools while they cleaned the flooded one.

I am not personally affected by the flooding problems other than having
to reroute a small portion of my travel when it occurs, and of course
paying for the municipal costs.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/5/2012 6:51 AM, Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 22:13:15 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 7/4/2012 1:58 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/3/2012 11:06 AM, Han wrote:

Just limiting my discussion to fracking.

Poor baby ... bless her little pea picking heart. LOL

http://preview.tinyurl.com/86lbrg5



I busted out laughing when I read that. I wander who got to her
and how much she got.

I laughed again when I learned that she could have changed her vote
as long is it did not affect the outcome. What would be the
point??

I get a "Page not found" from both Firefox and Exploder.

I do too now, but here is another link:
http://tinyurl.com/6ozqbgp or
http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/til...-pleas-to-corr
ect -her-vote-on-fracking-bill/Content?oid=3096728

Never mind the rules, never mind she made the mistake, slant it as
much as you can and blame it on the other party.

That rag is exactly what's wrong with today's media.

The stupidity of both the rules and the woman casting the deciding vote
is what was funny. You know by now my feelings about fracking.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 14:34:54 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:

F#@k your question. I don't have to have all the answers on the tip of
my tongue to know that man caused GW is bull****. There are other
people in the world who know the science and the specifics and I'll
leave it to them to keep informing me.

IOW, you don't have an answer. And you ignore the people "who know the
science" (80%-90% of climatologists) who keep trying to give you an
answer.

You win. I give up responding to your factless frothing.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 15:21:16 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

I'll answer. "Acid rain" is not caused by CO2. Acid rain is caused,
mainly, my sulfur emissions resulting in Sulfuric acid. CO2 DOES react
with water to form carbonic acid, though not very much. Plus, carbonic
acid is a very weak acid and insignificantly responsible for the damage
from so-called "acid rain."

As I said to another poster, you may well be correct. I saw articles
online that blamed both sources.

But there does seem to be relative unanimity that CO2 is causing the
ocean acidification. If the oceans get messed up, we're in a lot of
trouble. Corals dying and oysters failing to breed are an indicator that
bad things are happening.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On 7/5/2012 10:46 AM, Han wrote:
Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/5/2012 6:51 AM, Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 22:13:15 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 7/4/2012 1:58 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/3/2012 11:06 AM, Han wrote:

Just limiting my discussion to fracking.

Poor baby ... bless her little pea picking heart. LOL

http://preview.tinyurl.com/86lbrg5



I busted out laughing when I read that. I wander who got to her
and how much she got.

I laughed again when I learned that she could have changed her vote
as long is it did not affect the outcome. What would be the
point??

I get a "Page not found" from both Firefox and Exploder.

I do too now, but here is another link:
http://tinyurl.com/6ozqbgp or
http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/til...-pleas-to-corr
ect -her-vote-on-fracking-bill/Content?oid=3096728

Never mind the rules, never mind she made the mistake, slant it as
much as you can and blame it on the other party.

That rag is exactly what's wrong with today's media.

The stupidity of both the rules and the woman casting the deciding vote
is what was funny. You know by now my feelings about fracking.

Actually, the point upon which I was commenting had nothing to do with
"fracking". see the disclaimer

But, while you're at it, to the above stupidities, add the absurdity of
allowing the son-in-law of a paid campaign worker to "report" on the
incident.

As always, "The written word is seldom the whole truth." ... no
exceptions for anyone.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 7/5/2012 7:43 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/5/2012 8:13 AM, Bruce wrote:

It also irks me when they report a record high at a place like DFW,
when the
last high was back in the '30s. I'd like to see a photo of the DFW
area back
then and compare it with now just to guess the tonnage of concrete
added in
the past 80+ years...

Don't look now, but I believe that your scenario above is exactly what
is being used as justification for "adjustment" of historical data
sets, like the GrDD toward cooler.

And no, I do not necessarily agree with that rationale, even though it
sounds valid, because there are simply too many other factors to
consider, not the least being there is no way to determine precisely
the localized meteorological conditions on the dates those
temperatures were recorded, i.e wind, cloud cover, rain showers, etc.

FACT: When you **** with the numbers in your data set to any extent,
including "adjustments" based on unprovable and unknown conditions,
your result immediately becomes nothing more than the proverbial
Sophisticated Wild Ass GUESS. PERIOD!


Like you said. There is no actual data from which they can calculate
total global thermal energy levels. Therefore, the prophets of global
warming use computer modeling to support their claims. The system
they're trying to model is so complex that it is impossible for anyone
to model it accurately. The models therefore do not include all
variables, and rely on assumptions that may not be valid. The result is
as you say SWAG, the result of GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).

On 7/5/12 11:15 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 14:34:54 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:

F#@k your question. I don't have to have all the answers on the tip of
my tongue to know that man caused GW is bull****. There are other
people in the world who know the science and the specifics and I'll
leave it to them to keep informing me.

IOW, you don't have an answer. And you ignore the people "who know the
science" (80%-90% of climatologists) who keep trying to give you an
answer.


That's the funny part! They keep claiming a consensus and numbers like
90%, which it total bull****, as well. And why is it now coming down to
80%? 5 years ago it was 99%. Now these smaller numbers keep showing up,
not because they are actually accurate, but because the whole movement
keep trying to save face and are putting spin out there every chance
they get and with every new scandal.


You win. I give up responding to your factless frothing.


Yeah ok, if that makes you feel better. :-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/5/2012 7:57 AM, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 09:40:07 -0600, Swingman wrote
(in article ) :

On 7/4/2012 10:28 AM, Han wrote:
Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/4/2012 7:34 AM, Han wrote:

Sorry, Leon. I forgot how far Houston is from the drought-stricken
areas of Texas more to the west.

That part of Texas is historically dry ... even the plant types in the
region prove that as a fact (IOW, when you see primarily mesquite and
cactus, don't expect a lot of rain).

It's only "drought-stricken" in the newcomer's mind, who somehow
expect all places to have the same "weather" from whence they came.

That bit of ignorance, in a nutshell, certainly plays its part in the
perception of "climate change".

I'm going by the news reports that complain of drought in areas of Texas
where they commit agriculture. Or was that a fad during an abnormal wet
period?

Han, almost without exception, those areas that "commit agriculture"
have never supported agriculture on any scale without modern irrigation
methods ... guaranteed.



Heh, there would be no "West Texas" if it wasn't for El Paso.

If it were not for El Paso East L.A. would be even closer. ;~)


Almost all the agriculture out there consists of a round circle of plants
with a well in the center and a revolving irrigation system to sweep the
field like the hands of a giant clock. I really pity the poor farmer out
there that ever tried to grow a crop based on rainfall or surface water (even
in 'normal' precipitation years).

And you may already know this but a lot of shrimp comes from West Texas.

http://www.autographhotelmagazine.co...h-aquaculture/

On 7/5/12 5:31 PM, Leon wrote:
On 7/5/2012 7:57 AM, Bruce wrote:
Almost all the agriculture out there consists of a round circle of plants
with a well in the center and a revolving irrigation system to sweep the
field like the hands of a giant clock. I really pity the poor farmer out
there that ever tried to grow a crop based on rainfall or surface
water (even
in 'normal' precipitation years).

And you may already know this but a lot of shrimp comes from West Texas.

http://www.autographhotelmagazine.co...h-aquaculture/



But how!?! Surely global warming has wiped out all the shrimp in west
Texas.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/5/2012 8:01 AM, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 12:07:34 -0600, Leon wrote
(in article ) :

On 7/4/2012 10:43 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 7/4/12 10:28 AM, Han wrote:
Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/4/2012 7:34 AM, Han wrote:

Sorry, Leon. I forgot how far Houston is from the drought-stricken
areas of Texas more to the west.

That part of Texas is historically dry ... even the plant types in the
region prove that as a fact (IOW, when you see primarily mesquite and
cactus, don't expect a lot of rain).

It's only "drought-stricken" in the newcomer's mind, who somehow
expect all places to have the same "weather" from whence they came.

That bit of ignorance, in a nutshell, certainly plays its part in the
perception of "climate change".

I'm going by the news reports that complain of drought in areas of Texas
where they commit agriculture. Or was that a fad during an abnormal wet
period?


Your only error was in listening to news reports. :-)
I'm guessing these are the same type of weather folks who treat every
thunderstorm in TN with 24hr coverage and warnings and the rest of the
standard "crying wolf" fare.




They all come out of the same mold. It just blows me away to see a guy
on the scene in a hurricane, standing in the treacherous winds, his
words, leaning at a 20 degree angle and his wind breaker hardly moving
at all.




I have always loved this gem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8slEPV9LyS0


Yeah! I remember seeing that when it originally aired. That one is
classic.

-MIKE- wrote:
On 7/5/12 5:31 PM, Leon wrote:
On 7/5/2012 7:57 AM, Bruce wrote:
Almost all the agriculture out there consists of a round circle of plants
with a well in the center and a revolving irrigation system to sweep the
field like the hands of a giant clock. I really pity the poor farmer out
there that ever tried to grow a crop based on rainfall or surface
water (even
in 'normal' precipitation years).

And you may already know this but a lot of shrimp comes from West Texas.

http://www.autographhotelmagazine.co...h-aquaculture/



But how!?! Surely global warming has wiped out all the shrimp in west Texas.

Flown in fresh, daily ... from Amarillo.

--
www.ewoodshop.com

Scott Lurndal wrote:

Ok. Put up some facts. Name all the plants that the president has
shut down.

Name any plant that the president plans on shutting down.

No vague generalities, back up your nonsense with facts.

For those who've lived in a cave the past couple of years:

"Across the U.S., dozens of coal-fired power plants, many of them decades
old, will be going dark in coming years."
http://www.midwestenergynews.com/201...-happens-next/

"Environmental groups and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced plans today
to shut down two coal-fired power plants sooner than expected: Midwest
Generation's Fisk plant will close by December, and its Crawford plant by
the end of 2014. The plants have been in operation since 1968 and 1958,
respectively.

"Meanwhile, GenOn Energy has announced plans to close eight power plants
(one oil and the rest coal) between June of this year and May 2015, "because
it would be too expensive to install pollution controls now required by the
federal government," the Washington Post reports."
http://www.treehugger.com/fossil-fue...-expected.html

"FirstEnergy Corp. said Thursday that new environmental regulations led to a
decision to shut down six older, coal-fired power plants in Ohio,
Pennsylvania and Maryland, affecting more than 500 employees. The plants,
which are in Cleveland, Ashtabula, Oregon and Eastlake in Ohio, Adrian, Pa.
and Williamsport, Md., will be retired by Sept. 1. They have generated about
10 percent of the electricity produced by FirstEnergy over the last three
years, the company said."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1234611.html

And about five million other references he
https://www.google.com/search?q=coal...iw=983&bih=481

On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 16:20:10 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 15:21:16 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

I'll answer. "Acid rain" is not caused by CO2. Acid rain is caused,
mainly, my sulfur emissions resulting in Sulfuric acid. CO2 DOES react
with water to form carbonic acid, though not very much. Plus, carbonic
acid is a very weak acid and insignificantly responsible for the damage
from so-called "acid rain."

As I said to another poster, you may well be correct. I saw articles
online that blamed both sources.

But there does seem to be relative unanimity that CO2 is causing the

Yabbut, youse guys used the "C" word about AGWK, too, though there
ain't no concensus nowhere, pard.


ocean acidification. If the oceans get messed up, we're in a lot of
trouble. Corals dying and oysters failing to breed are an indicator that
bad things are happening.

Yes, possibly. Or, it's just a sign that Mother Nature moved on. Not
all species live in all temp ranges, LB.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_extinction_rate

--
Truth loves to go naked.
--Dr. Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
eb.com...
Take your choice, wild fires in the west or oppressive heat waves thru
out much of the rest of the country, global warming is upon us.

Shall we continue to ignore the effect of green house gases?

Lew

When I graduated from high school I was fully capable of reading my diploma.
I could also read my degree in later years. Perhaps I am not a genius, but
I learned in elementary school what a percentage point is. So you are
saying that CO2, a trace gas, at a concentration of 0.039% by volume in the
atmosphere is causing global warming? Studies have shown that it has varied
over the centuries and the recent Al Gore stuff is garbage. And what are
"green house gasses"? One real killer is water!! Holy Crap!!!!

Try really reading some links below and incorporate some common sense into
your thoughts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide and
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php

"woodstuff" wrote:


When I graduated from high school I was fully capable of reading my
diploma.
I could also read my degree in later years. Perhaps I am not a
genius, but
I learned in elementary school what a percentage point is. So you
are
saying that CO2, a trace gas, at a concentration of 0.039% by volume
in the
atmosphere is causing global warming? Studies have shown that it
has varied
over the centuries and the recent Al Gore stuff is garbage. And
what are
"green house gasses"? One real killer is water!! Holy Crap!!!!
------------------------------------
During those years you were obtaining your training, did you bother to
learn what the by-products of combustion of carbon based fossil fuels
were?

HINT:

They include but are not limited to CO, CO2, NOX & SOX.
------------------------------

Try really reading some links below and incorporate some common
sense into
your thoughts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide and
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php

----------------------------
Wikipedia is not a vetted source, so is not pertinert.

Lew

On 7/6/2012 2:53 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"woodstuff" wrote:


When I graduated from high school I was fully capable of reading my
diploma.
I could also read my degree in later years. Perhaps I am not a
genius, but
I learned in elementary school what a percentage point is. So you
are
saying that CO2, a trace gas, at a concentration of 0.039% by volume
in the
atmosphere is causing global warming? Studies have shown that it
has varied
over the centuries and the recent Al Gore stuff is garbage. And
what are
"green house gasses"? One real killer is water!! Holy Crap!!!!
------------------------------------
During those years you were obtaining your training, did you bother to
learn what the by-products of combustion of carbon based fossil fuels
were?

HINT:

They include but are not limited to CO, CO2, NOX & SOX.
------------------------------

Try really reading some links below and incorporate some common
sense into
your thoughts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide and
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php

----------------------------
Wikipedia is not a vetted source, so is not pertinert.


Neither are you comments about alternative energy sources and their
improvements to the environment.

Scott Lurndal wrote:


This statement shows astounding ignorance about the carbon cycle
and the reasons that CO2 has risen from 230ppm to 400ppm in the
last century and a half. I'll give you a hint - the CO2 you exhale
is not CO2 that has been sequestered for millions of years in
geologic coal or oil formations. Same applies to cow farts.

So long as the system is in equilibrium, i.e. no carbon is being
added to the system, the CO2 fraction in the atmosphere won't change,
no matter how many people exhale, since the carbon they're exhaling
was recently (within a year or two) in the atmosphere (taken up by
plants, fed to cows, and eaten as hamburgers, then exhaled).

Have you actually worked out how much 400 parts per million represents?

A penny weighs 2.5 grams. One million pennies weighs 2.5 million grams, or
about two and a quarter TONS. Four hundred pennies comes in at about two and
a quarter POUNDS.

This ratio is about equivalent to the weight of a coat of paint on a big
diesel engine.

Asserting that a CO2 concentration of 400ppm affects the atmosphere is
exactly equivalent to claiming the coat of paint on a engine affects the
engine's performance.

In article ,
says...

Scott Lurndal wrote:


This statement shows astounding ignorance about the carbon cycle
and the reasons that CO2 has risen from 230ppm to 400ppm in the
last century and a half. I'll give you a hint - the CO2 you exhale
is not CO2 that has been sequestered for millions of years in
geologic coal or oil formations. Same applies to cow farts.

So long as the system is in equilibrium, i.e. no carbon is being
added to the system, the CO2 fraction in the atmosphere won't change,
no matter how many people exhale, since the carbon they're exhaling
was recently (within a year or two) in the atmosphere (taken up by
plants, fed to cows, and eaten as hamburgers, then exhaled).

Have you actually worked out how much 400 parts per million represents?

A penny weighs 2.5 grams. One million pennies weighs 2.5 million grams, or
about two and a quarter TONS. Four hundred pennies comes in at about two and
a quarter POUNDS.

This ratio is about equivalent to the weight of a coat of paint on a big
diesel engine.

Asserting that a CO2 concentration of 400ppm affects the atmosphere is
exactly equivalent to claiming the coat of paint on a engine affects the
engine's performance.

By that logic a tenth of an ounce of black paint on your windhshield
won't have any effect on your driving. Try it sometime and let us know
how it works out for you.

Sorry, but he's right, you're showing collossal ignorance here. I
personally think that the anthropogenic part of AGW is a crock, but the
effect of CO2 on energy balance is fairly well understood. If you're
going to argue climate, learn something about it first.

Larry Jaques wrote:


They have a pretty balanced stance. Kudos.

Once again, the CONgresscritters have sold us out to the oil industry.
Losing even 10% of our aquifers would be disastrous to the country.

The way they're fracking everywhere now, it's just a matter of time.


Cannot access that link - page not found. So, I'll just ask - what is it
that makes you say that they have a pretty balanced stance?

--

-Mike-