Crazy...

HarveyH55 wrote:
https://www.wftv.com/news/national-news/ap-top-news/climate-has-fonda-picking-up-where-she-left-off-in-the-1970s/999055809

Guess using children isn't having the impact they hoped for, so now they are raiding the nursing homes... Could have sworn she died years ago, maybe it was just her career... Story doesn't say what she was doing, to warrant the arrest of an 81 year old protester. You'd figure that law enforcement would have handle civil disobedience with the same sense of amusement, as with the children a couple weeks ago...

spot wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
https://www.wftv.com/news/national-news/ap-top-news/climate-has-fonda-picking-up-where-she-left-off-in-the-1970s/999055809

Guess using children isn't having the impact they hoped for, so now they are raiding the nursing homes... Could have sworn she died years ago, maybe it was just her career... Story doesn't say what she was doing, to warrant the arrest of an 81 year old protester. You'd figure that law enforcement would have handle civil disobedience with the same sense of amusement, as with the children a couple weeks ago...

Old people can be concerned about the environment too.

spot wrote:
What do you suggest we do.

Whilst I have not joined a protest and feel that disrupting commuters using public transport is counter productive climate change is real and action must be taken or people will suffer. As for the economic impacts many economists have looked into the the effects of climate change its not good look up the Stern report.

I care

HarveyH55 wrote:

spot wrote:
What do you suggest we do.

Whilst I have not joined a protest and feel that disrupting commuters using public transport is counter productive climate change is real and action must be taken or people will suffer. As for the economic impacts many economists have looked into the the effects of climate change its not good look up the Stern report.

I care

I care too, but from the economic/financial threat, not the environmental phantom. The battle plan is very expensive, beyond the means of any country, and is going to have a huge negative economic impact on everyone. Replacing, want took centuries to develop and build, with renewable technology, in just a few decades, is reckless, and greatly increases the cost. You order something online, postage is reasonable, if you can wait 5-7 days. If you want next day delivery, it'll cost a whole lot more. Sometimes, you have no choice, maybe a part for your car, so your job isn't at risk, or you have to spend about the same on a rental, or alternative transportation. The trade wars tariffs/agreements is having a huge economic impact. The House is holding up the North American agreement, which would solve a lot of problems, but not during an election year (bastards). The China agreement would go smoother, but the House's presidential investigations, never-ending, gives China hope of a different, softer president, and no change, or better agreement for them. We change economics more drastically than the environmental conditions.

Climate change alternatives are more expensive, we need at least three different 'renewable' generating schemes, to replace on fossil fuel plant. Solar and wind only produce, when the sun is shining, the wind blowing, have to add one more, to fill in the gaps, or simple shut down section of the power grid, and let people fend for themselves during blackouts.

spot wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

spot wrote:
What do you suggest we do.

Whilst I have not joined a protest and feel that disrupting commuters using public transport is counter productive climate change is real and action must be taken or people will suffer. As for the economic impacts many economists have looked into the the effects of climate change its not good look up the Stern report.

I care

I care too, but from the economic/financial threat, not the environmental phantom. The battle plan is very expensive, beyond the means of any country, and is going to have a huge negative economic impact on everyone. Replacing, want took centuries to develop and build, with renewable technology, in just a few decades, is reckless, and greatly increases the cost. You order something online, postage is reasonable, if you can wait 5-7 days. If you want next day delivery, it'll cost a whole lot more. Sometimes, you have no choice, maybe a part for your car, so your job isn't at risk, or you have to spend about the same on a rental, or alternative transportation. The trade wars tariffs/agreements is having a huge economic impact. The House is holding up the North American agreement, which would solve a lot of problems, but not during an election year (bastards). The China agreement would go smoother, but the House's presidential investigations, never-ending, gives China hope of a different, softer president, and no change, or better agreement for them. We change economics more drastically than the environmental conditions.

Climate change alternatives are more expensive, we need at least three different 'renewable' generating schemes, to replace on fossil fuel plant. Solar and wind only produce, when the sun is shining, the wind blowing, have to add one more, to fill in the gaps, or simple shut down section of the power grid, and let people fend for themselves during blackouts.

Why should I listen to someone who doesn't understand basic physics when it comes to economics?

HarveyH55 wrote:

Physics and economics are two different topics. See, I already understand more than you... But why bother, you would never admit your ignorance.

spot wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Physics and economics are two different topics. See, I already understand more than you... But why bother, you would never admit your ignorance.

They both require competence in math and discrimination between useful and useless information Understanding the basics of global warming theory is relatively simple. If you are unable to understand it it undermines your economic arguments IMHO.

Why should I listen to someone who doesn't understand basic physics when it comes to economics?

spot wrote:
CO2 only makes up a small portion of of the atmosphere. You think I don't know that? John Tyndell knew that as well.

spot wrote:
What do you suggest we do.

Whilst I have not joined a protest and feel that disrupting commuters using public transport is counter productive climate change is real

spot wrote:
and action must be taken or people will suffer.

spot wrote:
As for the economic impacts many economists have looked into the the effects of climate change its not good look up the Stern report.

I care

spot wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

spot wrote:
What do you suggest we do.

Whilst I have not joined a protest and feel that disrupting commuters using public transport is counter productive climate change is real and action must be taken or people will suffer. As for the economic impacts many economists have looked into the the effects of climate change its not good look up the Stern report.

I care

I care too, but from the economic/financial threat, not the environmental phantom. The battle plan is very expensive, beyond the means of any country, and is going to have a huge negative economic impact on everyone. Replacing, want took centuries to develop and build, with renewable technology, in just a few decades, is reckless, and greatly increases the cost. You order something online, postage is reasonable, if you can wait 5-7 days. If you want next day delivery, it'll cost a whole lot more. Sometimes, you have no choice, maybe a part for your car, so your job isn't at risk, or you have to spend about the same on a rental, or alternative transportation. The trade wars tariffs/agreements is having a huge economic impact. The House is holding up the North American agreement, which would solve a lot of problems, but not during an election year (bastards). The China agreement would go smoother, but the House's presidential investigations, never-ending, gives China hope of a different, softer president, and no change, or better agreement for them. We change economics more drastically than the environmental conditions.

Climate change alternatives are more expensive, we need at least three different 'renewable' generating schemes, to replace on fossil fuel plant. Solar and wind only produce, when the sun is shining, the wind blowing, have to add one more, to fill in the gaps, or simple shut down section of the power grid, and let people fend for themselves during blackouts.

Why should I listen to someone who doesn't understand basic physics when it comes to economics?

spot wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Physics and economics are two different topics. See, I already understand more than you... But why bother, you would never admit your ignorance.

They both require competence in math

spot wrote:
and discrimination between useful and useless information

spot wrote:
Understanding the basics of global warming theory is relatively simple.

spot wrote:
If you are unable to understand it it undermines your economic arguments IMHO.

HarveyH55 wrote:

spot wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Physics and economics are two different topics. See, I already understand more than you... But why bother, you would never admit your ignorance.

They both require competence in math and discrimination between useful and useless information Understanding the basics of global warming theory is relatively simple. If you are unable to understand it it undermines your economic arguments IMHO.

Why should I listen to someone who doesn't understand basic physics when it comes to economics?

Nothing wrong with my reading, and you were quite specific. Global Warming only make sense, if you don't think about it, you just accept. I think, and I question everything that doesn't make sense. I look into it further, to try and gain some understanding. The math and physic might work on paper, the lab, the computer, but it doesn't scale up well, and it's huge planet. All those small things, dismissed as unimportant, actually do serve a purpose, on a global scale. CO2 is vitally important to all life on this planet. It's the source of every carbon molecule, that makes every living thing. THAT is the basic truth, you can find anywhere. CO2 makes up only 0.04% of the total volume of the atmosphere, very tiny amount. Fossil Fuels are what made the modern world, and people are heavily dependent. Global warming is about shifting the dependence, and the wealth. None of the IPCC projections are true, since we've never been through global warming before. It's entirely speculation and consensus, mass marketed as factual. It nothing more than belief and acceptance.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Are you sure you didn't receive some sort of service related, sight disability, with the rest of your long list?

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote:
CO2 only makes up a small portion of of the atmosphere. You think I don't know that? John Tyndell knew that as well.

You seem to think that you are the embodiment of a famous chemist. You are not.

You keep pointing to the one aspect of his research that has been discarded by science for not passing the scrutiny of the scientific method.

As I said your argument is unconvincing as you seem emotionally attached to the idea of a substance having magickal superpowers to defy the laws of physics even though civilization is still here after billions of years of CO2's existence.

.

HarveyH55 wrote:we've always had extreme environmental events occasionally, all the way back to biblical times, and likely beyond.

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:we've always had extreme environmental events occasionally, all the way back to biblical times, and likely beyond.

... and there are extreme weather events on other planets.

Maybe tmiddles can explain Venus which has no anthropogenic anything ... or does it?

James___ wrote:
The fires in California are anthropogenic. If water tables weren't so depleted then the grass and brush wouldn't be so dry.

GasGuzzler wrote:

James___ wrote:
The fires in California are anthropogenic. If water tables weren't so depleted then the grass and brush wouldn't be so dry.

I'm not familiar with California grass and brush. Must be one hell of a deep root system. My well at my house goes down 185 feet. I'm pretty sure none of the brush roots get down that far.

spot wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:You keep pointing to the one aspect of his research that has been discarded by science for not passing the scrutiny of the scientific method.

No I'm just pointing out that what I claim is not novel or some arcane secret.

Into the Night wrote:
Even a dewdrop can start a fire.

Into the Night wrote:In the past, California didn't have as many homes built out in brush prone areas. Today, in the SOTC, that's changed. Also in the past, California would go around and thin or reduce these grasses near houses so they wouldn't be such a fire hazard. Each community contributed to this work simply to protect themselves. Today, in the SOTC, environmentalists have prohibited this practice, stating that the grasses offer a unique environment for various critters that live in it. So the grasses stay untouched.

Another brush is also involved, the creosote bush. These normally withstand minor burns from grass but their normal lifecycle involves dying to spread its seeds. These become the so-called 'tumbleweeds' of the West. Blown by the winds, the dead brush scatters its seeds as it rolls around. They can become quite prevalent in some areas, and even produce mountains of tumbleweeds stacked against houses by the winds. You can imagine the fire hazard so many tumbleweeds stacked against stuff can be.

This weed too, has become protected by environmentalists.

Into the Night wrote:Life in the SOTC.

Into the Night wrote:

James wrote:
The fires in California are anthropogenic. If water tables weren't so depleted then the grass and brush wouldn't be so dry.

I'm not familiar with California grass and brush. Must be one hell of a deep root system. My well at my house goes down 185 feet. I'm pretty sure none of the brush roots get down that far.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James wrote:
The fires in California are anthropogenic. If water tables weren't so depleted then the grass and brush wouldn't be so dry.

I'm not familiar with California grass and brush. Must be one hell of a deep root system. My well at my house goes down 185 feet. I'm pretty sure none of the brush roots get down that far.

Why is the area around Seattle considered liquified? In California wells can be over 2,000 feet deep. The problem now they say is that it's like brine. I won't bother going into geological processes. Libraries have books. Reading them helps.

GasGuzzler wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James wrote:
The fires in California are anthropogenic. If water tables weren't so depleted then the grass and brush wouldn't be so dry.

I'm not familiar with California grass and brush. Must be one hell of a deep root system. My well at my house goes down 185 feet. I'm pretty sure none of the brush roots get down that far.

Why is the area around Seattle considered liquified? In California wells can be over 2,000 feet deep. The problem now they say is that it's like brine. I won't bother going into geological processes. Libraries have books. Reading them helps.

Dude, you said the grass and brush turn brown because the water table is low...as if they are nourished by the water in the water table. Overuse of water has NOTHING to do with dead brush.

James___ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James wrote:
The fires in California are anthropogenic. If water tables weren't so depleted then the grass and brush wouldn't be so dry.

I'm not familiar with California grass and brush. Must be one hell of a deep root system. My well at my house goes down 185 feet. I'm pretty sure none of the brush roots get down that far.

Why is the area around Seattle considered liquified? In California wells can be over 2,000 feet deep. The problem now they say is that it's like brine. I won't bother going into geological processes. Libraries have books. Reading them helps.

Dude, you said the grass and brush turn brown because the water table is low...as if they are nourished by the water in the water table. Overuse of water has NOTHING to do with dead brush.

It actually does. It's called the capillary effect. Water in this case is attracted to water. If you take a long bath, your skin will wrinkle. This is because water flows to the greater volume of water.
There's more water in your bath than in you, ergo, the water in your body is flowing literally into your bath tub. This can cause you to become dehydrated as well. Why limiting your time in water matters.
And with California, water through the capillary effect tries to replenish the water tables. This is why the brush and grass are a fire hazard. And it's man made climate change.
The solution is desalination which would increase the price of your fruits and vegetables about tenfold. Why it's not being done. And why draining the Great Lakes is a good thing

This link explains that water is attracted to water. You can call it an electrostatic attraction if you like. What needs to be considered is if what is between the water table and the topsoil is polarized to act as a capillary to move surface water towards the water table.
I'm of the opinion that it does. Water tables do replenish for a reason.
https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/adhesion-and-cohesion-water?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects

GasGuzzler wrote:

James___ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James wrote:
The fires in California are anthropogenic. If water tables weren't so depleted then the grass and brush wouldn't be so dry.

I'm not familiar with California grass and brush. Must be one hell of a deep root system. My well at my house goes down 185 feet. I'm pretty sure none of the brush roots get down that far.

Why is the area around Seattle considered liquified? In California wells can be over 2,000 feet deep. The problem now they say is that it's like brine. I won't bother going into geological processes. Libraries have books. Reading them helps.

Dude, you said the grass and brush turn brown because the water table is low...as if they are nourished by the water in the water table. Overuse of water has NOTHING to do with dead brush.

It actually does. It's called the capillary effect. Water in this case is attracted to water. If you take a long bath, your skin will wrinkle. This is because water flows to the greater volume of water.
There's more water in your bath than in you, ergo, the water in your body is flowing literally into your bath tub. This can cause you to become dehydrated as well. Why limiting your time in water matters.
And with California, water through the capillary effect tries to replenish the water tables. This is why the brush and grass are a fire hazard. And it's man made climate change.
The solution is desalination which would increase the price of your fruits and vegetables about tenfold. Why it's not being done. And why draining the Great Lakes is a good thing

This link explains that water is attracted to water. You can call it an electrostatic attraction if you like. What needs to be considered is if what is between the water table and the topsoil is polarized to act as a capillary to move surface water towards the water table.
I'm of the opinion that it does. Water tables do replenish for a reason.
https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/adhesion-and-cohesion-water?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects

The only thing that waters grass is rain. 2 inches of moist topsoil and it grows fine. What happens 200 feet down is meaningless to the grass.

Are you saying the topsoil would be moist for a longer period of time if no one pumped a drop from the ground? Bullshit.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Even a dewdrop can start a fire.

Interesting. Never thought about a water droplet causing a fire. Acting like a magnifying glass I assume?

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:In the past, California didn't have as many homes built out in brush prone areas. Today, in the SOTC, that's changed. Also in the past, California would go around and thin or reduce these grasses near houses so they wouldn't be such a fire hazard. Each community contributed to this work simply to protect themselves. Today, in the SOTC, environmentalists have prohibited this practice, stating that the grasses offer a unique environment for various critters that live in it. So the grasses stay untouched.

Another brush is also involved, the creosote bush. These normally withstand minor burns from grass but their normal lifecycle involves dying to spread its seeds. These become the so-called 'tumbleweeds' of the West. Blown by the winds, the dead brush scatters its seeds as it rolls around. They can become quite prevalent in some areas, and even produce mountains of tumbleweeds stacked against houses by the winds. You can imagine the fire hazard so many tumbleweeds stacked against stuff can be.

This weed too, has become protected by environmentalists.

Just disgusting how liberals will literally put weeds in front of human life.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Life in the SOTC.

OK, dumb question...still can't figure out SOTC! What is it?

Sad Over Taxed California?

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James wrote:
The fires in California are anthropogenic. If water tables weren't so depleted then the grass and brush wouldn't be so dry.

I'm not familiar with California grass and brush. Must be one hell of a deep root system. My well at my house goes down 185 feet. I'm pretty sure none of the brush roots get down that far.

Why is the area around Seattle considered liquified?

James___ wrote:
In California wells can be over 2,000 feet deep.

James___ wrote:
The problem now they say is that it's like brine.

James___ wrote:
I won't bother going into geological processes. Libraries have books. Reading them helps.

James___ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James wrote:
The fires in California are anthropogenic. If water tables weren't so depleted then the grass and brush wouldn't be so dry.

I'm not familiar with California grass and brush. Must be one hell of a deep root system. My well at my house goes down 185 feet. I'm pretty sure none of the brush roots get down that far.

Why is the area around Seattle considered liquified? In California wells can be over 2,000 feet deep. The problem now they say is that it's like brine. I won't bother going into geological processes. Libraries have books. Reading them helps.

Dude, you said the grass and brush turn brown because the water table is low...as if they are nourished by the water in the water table. Overuse of water has NOTHING to do with dead brush.

It actually does. It's called the capillary effect. Water in this case is attracted to water. If you take a long bath, your skin will wrinkle. This is because water flows to the greater volume of water.
There's more water in your bath than in you, ergo, the water in your body is flowing literally into your bath tub. This can cause you to become dehydrated as well. Why limiting your time in water matters.
And with California, water through the capillary effect tries to replenish the water tables. This is why the brush and grass are a fire hazard. And it's man made climate change.
The solution is desalination which would increase the price of your fruits and vegetables about tenfold. Why it's not being done. And why draining the Great Lakes is a good thing

This link explains that water is attracted to water. You can call it an electrostatic attraction if you like. What needs to be considered is if what is between the water table and the topsoil is polarized to act as a capillary to move surface water towards the water table.
I'm of the opinion that it does. Water tables do replenish for a reason.
https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/adhesion-and-cohesion-water?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects

James___ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

James___ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James wrote:
The fires in California are anthropogenic. If water tables weren't so depleted then the grass and brush wouldn't be so dry.

I'm not familiar with California grass and brush. Must be one hell of a deep root system. My well at my house goes down 185 feet. I'm pretty sure none of the brush roots get down that far.

Why is the area around Seattle considered liquified? In California wells can be over 2,000 feet deep. The problem now they say is that it's like brine. I won't bother going into geological processes. Libraries have books. Reading them helps.

Dude, you said the grass and brush turn brown because the water table is low...as if they are nourished by the water in the water table. Overuse of water has NOTHING to do with dead brush.

It actually does. It's called the capillary effect. Water in this case is attracted to water. If you take a long bath, your skin will wrinkle. This is because water flows to the greater volume of water.
There's more water in your bath than in you, ergo, the water in your body is flowing literally into your bath tub. This can cause you to become dehydrated as well. Why limiting your time in water matters.
And with California, water through the capillary effect tries to replenish the water tables. This is why the brush and grass are a fire hazard. And it's man made climate change.
The solution is desalination which would increase the price of your fruits and vegetables about tenfold. Why it's not being done. And why draining the Great Lakes is a good thing

This link explains that water is attracted to water. You can call it an electrostatic attraction if you like. What needs to be considered is if what is between the water table and the topsoil is polarized to act as a capillary to move surface water towards the water table.
I'm of the opinion that it does. Water tables do replenish for a reason.
https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/adhesion-and-cohesion-water?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects

The only thing that waters grass is rain. 2 inches of moist topsoil and it grows fine. What happens 200 feet down is meaningless to the grass.

Are you saying the topsoil would be moist for a longer period of time if no one pumped a drop from the ground? Bullshit.

GasGuzzler, it actually works that way. If you look at the data, the more the water table drops, the more fires there are. In Arizona, the valley that Phoenix sits in has sunk 20 feet since the 1950's. The link is about California.
https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-groundwater-20150318-story.html

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

James___ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James wrote:
The fires in California are anthropogenic. If water tables weren't so depleted then the grass and brush wouldn't be so dry.

I'm not familiar with California grass and brush. Must be one hell of a deep root system. My well at my house goes down 185 feet. I'm pretty sure none of the brush roots get down that far.

Why is the area around Seattle considered liquified? In California wells can be over 2,000 feet deep. The problem now they say is that it's like brine. I won't bother going into geological processes. Libraries have books. Reading them helps.

Dude, you said the grass and brush turn brown because the water table is low...as if they are nourished by the water in the water table. Overuse of water has NOTHING to do with dead brush.

It actually does. It's called the capillary effect. Water in this case is attracted to water. If you take a long bath, your skin will wrinkle. This is because water flows to the greater volume of water.
There's more water in your bath than in you, ergo, the water in your body is flowing literally into your bath tub. This can cause you to become dehydrated as well. Why limiting your time in water matters.
And with California, water through the capillary effect tries to replenish the water tables. This is why the brush and grass are a fire hazard. And it's man made climate change.
The solution is desalination which would increase the price of your fruits and vegetables about tenfold. Why it's not being done. And why draining the Great Lakes is a good thing

This link explains that water is attracted to water. You can call it an electrostatic attraction if you like. What needs to be considered is if what is between the water table and the topsoil is polarized to act as a capillary to move surface water towards the water table.
I'm of the opinion that it does. Water tables do replenish for a reason.
https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/adhesion-and-cohesion-water?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects

The only thing that waters grass is rain. 2 inches of moist topsoil and it grows fine. What happens 200 feet down is meaningless to the grass.

Are you saying the topsoil would be moist for a longer period of time if no one pumped a drop from the ground? Bullshit.

GasGuzzler, it actually works that way. If you look at the data, the more the water table drops, the more fires there are. In Arizona, the valley that Phoenix sits in has sunk 20 feet since the 1950's. The link is about California.
https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-groundwater-20150318-story.html

Nope. Neither grass nor tumbleweeds have roots 150 feet deep.

GasGuzzler wrote:
James,
The water tables drop due to lack of rain, which is also creating wildfire conditions at the surface. Nothing to do with overuse of water. Right, boring stuff.