BajaNomad

Megadrought Predictions

 Pages:  1  ..  3    5

wessongroup - 3-17-2015 at 12:35 PM

And it would appear ... there will be more water in the near future .. so don't worry ... Surf's Up

The melting of Antarctica was already really bad. It just got worse.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/201...



And what impact will the loss of these "reflective" surfaces have, along with the increased evapotranspiration .. should be fun

Evolution that is ... :biggrin::biggrin:

[Edited on 3-17-2015 by wessongroup]

motoged - 3-17-2015 at 12:50 PM

Maybe things might get better....:

brief article....

"Some critics, especially those who have convinced themselves that climate change is a myth or overstated, have said the economic costs of fighting climate change would be worse than the costs of global warming itself.

A related argument says no action we can take will be effective.

The IEA study shows both those arguments are wrong. The new data shows that not only is the battle against climate change working, the result is not economic devastation. "

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/how-market-forces-are-winning-the-climate-change-battle-1.2996818

wessongroup - 3-17-2015 at 04:01 PM

The IMF and World Bank are moving fast on this one (solar).... which can only help ... which is good :):)

Sweetwater - 3-17-2015 at 04:29 PM

Quote: Originally posted by wessongroup  
The IMF and World Bank are moving fast on this one (solar).... which can only help ... which is good :):)


Just had a fascinating discussion with my neighbor who's a 45 year old living in his mom's house....she retired to Kali.....anyway......

He's installing a full solar system this coming month. There's a 30% rebate from our local power company and anything he doesn't use gets sold back into the grid. The system is financed over 5 years at basically the same payment as his current power bill so after it's payed for, it's basically a freebie to keep running.....well.....when they show up to start on his place, I'm getting an evaluation to find out how my house placement compares and what kind of deal I can get......seems to be at a pretty good break even point.....the more people who do that, the less coal will be burned and that's the main source of our local air quality issues as well as our local electrical generation....

SFandH - 3-17-2015 at 04:39 PM

My sister has a system like that. She says it's great, significantly lowers her monthly e-bill. 100 year old house outside of NYC.

oxxo - 3-18-2015 at 07:14 AM

I had solar panels installed on my NOB house in January. I used Solar City (the Tesla car people). They have several different payment plans. I elected to take a 20 year equipment lease with payment up-front (you can also pay monthly if you like). The plan includes free maintenance for life.

The system works great! I now pay nothing for electricity (other than the amortized cost of my lease). In fact most days, my electric meter runs backwards so the local power company is paying me for the extra power my system generates. I figure it will take about 5 to 10 years (depending on what happens to electrical rates which will be going up) to pay for the amortized cost of my system.

This system will reduce my "carbon footprint" significantly and thereby I will be doing some small part in lessening my impact on climate change and drought. Although this does not do anything significant to reduce the immediate impact of our drought, if enough people go solar (and Solar City is swamped with work right now) we can all reduce our carbon footprint and this will impact the long term effects of the drought and climate change.

Give solar some serious consideration. If you would like some specific information about my personal system, send me a PM.

SFandH - 3-18-2015 at 07:22 AM

Good news oxxo! Good for you.

soulpatch - 3-18-2015 at 07:46 AM

Where do you live Oxxo? Most places still only have net metering where any excess you produce is a credit that is reset annually.
I believe New Mexico is an exception... good for you!

As an aside, the Solar City folks are down here consulting out of Queretero and trying to get into the financing game in Mexico... big changes coming down the pike with RE, Mexico, America Latina.....

CFE is going to look much different in the next few years. It looks as if the plan is to shift them from being a producer to a vendor of electricity. That way they don't have to worry about grid improvements that are so far behind.

It appears that 3rd party vendors will be able to install 500MW's or less without an environmental review which will open up the market significantly.

Say what you want about weather changes..... the Ameca at the border of Jalisco and Nayarit is flooding right now and it is very unusual this time of year.

To me it appears like an incremental speeding up of changes each and every year.

However, that is just my opinion.


bezzell - 3-19-2015 at 02:54 PM

Liberal nonsense !! http://www.vox.com/2015/3/19/8258799/arctic-sea-ice-record

(and re OP, don't be suprised if BCS actually starts recving extra yearly rainfall. Maybe not distributed ideally, but extra nonetheless)


bezzell - 3-19-2015 at 03:43 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  

Not a mystery at all... it is called Nature's balance.

:light:

nnnhhhh, wrong. It's called migrating winds.
I'd elaborate but, with you, ni modo.

SFandH - 3-19-2015 at 03:47 PM



That's a good video at the end of the article. Thanks for the link.

[Edited on 3-20-2015 by SFandH]

bezzell - 3-19-2015 at 09:34 PM

Humor :lol: http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/ArcticEscalator500....

wessongroup - 3-19-2015 at 10:10 PM

And Action ....

Quote: Originally posted by wessongroup  
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-announces-order...

Good idea, as the private sector (the "majors") aren't going that direction ... nor is the stock market

This might be a excellent "test" to see in real time, if something like this is possible by humans .. :biggrin::biggrin:

Perhaps demonstration where fire is used might be looked into too ... as it relates to Green House Gas Emissions ... :biggrin::biggrin:

[Edited on 3-20-2015 by wessongroup]

motoged - 4-10-2015 at 12:48 PM

Hopefully this post won't resurrect the "left-right" BS and " does climate change exist" rants....but will encourage folks to think about how water restrictions could be best managed....especially if and how it affects folks in Baja....NOT just California....as it affects folks and industry on SO many levels....

Just some thoughts:

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/World/ID/2663355870/

[Edited on 4-10-2015 by motoged]

[Edited on 4-10-2015 by motoged]

David K - 4-10-2015 at 05:43 PM

Climate does change, nobody disputes that... and it always has and always will... but man wasn't around when it changed before, and no amount of taxing Americans will make a difference. It is just a scam that modern man changes climates, or that sea levels are rising dangerously because of man... scam, scam, scam. Why give away your freedom to any government who scares us with lies or 'projections'?

Big difference .. internal combustion engine

wessongroup - 4-10-2015 at 06:38 PM

Which first became commercially produced in 1864 ....

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

The Great Game was about the oil fields ...

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

As were WWI and WWII ... along with the rest of the meat grinders which still continue today ... for OIL and/or Natural Gas (check the EU and China) and Russia

Not to mention the very large oil field which has been discovered right off the coast of Vietnam ... China will have their hands full with these folks ... if the French, American's ... et al are any indication ... on changing the people in that country, to a form of government which they do not like :biggrin::biggrin:

Oil consumption vs Green House Effect … respectively





As to a consensus on human impact on the environment … think the scientific community is around 90% in support of this fact, at this time and Nations too

And 650,000 years ago humans were on the planet ... It's just that they didn't have cars, boats, planes and trains .. et al ... until around the turn of the Century ... 1900 or a little bit after, when mass production was perfected and took on a new life changing everything in America, and the world ... Transportation was a big deal for most and it still is :biggrin::biggrin:

Hey DK ... imagine doing the Pole Line Road ... on a horse :):)



[Edited on 4-11-2015 by wessongroup]

bajacamper - 4-10-2015 at 08:32 PM

Science is not projections, consensus or computer models 100 years out that will of course be wrong. I do believe in climate change though, it's called weather. Will I have any effect on some of your opinions? Hell no. DK is correct however but you can flame away at me for a while and give him a break.

bajadogs - 4-10-2015 at 10:17 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  
Climate does change, nobody disputes that... and it always has and always will... but man wasn't around when it changed before, and no amount of taxing Americans will make a difference. It is just a scam that modern man changes climates, or that sea levels are rising dangerously because of man... scam, scam, scam. Why give away your freedom to any government who scares us with lies or 'projections'?


David,
Have you ever changed your mind about anything?

redhilltown - 4-11-2015 at 12:22 AM

Let's face it. When DK and others complain about science and scientists they are railing against government workers. Unions. People sucking on the government teat to get all they can for their greedy families. And I guarantee you every single one of these complaining folks has family members somewhere doing it...or they themselves are on the teat and fighting against it with their head held high and their hands out... These so called "scientists" just see a big nest egg...a golden ring to latch onto to stay employed. Since they have no Christian morals, they simply spread fear and false information to keep their jobs.

Weather has always been weather. Gosh, what a brilliant concept.


wessongroup - 4-11-2015 at 07:49 AM

NO doubt in my mind there will be "change" in 100 years ... its called evolution and happens all the time ... as do the levels of CO2 which can be seen in the graph which covers 650,000 years, based on ice core sampling :):)

think not ... take a look at 1915, which happen's to be the year my father was born ..RIP

[Edited on 4-11-2015 by wessongroup]

David K - 4-11-2015 at 08:16 AM

Quote: Originally posted by bajacamper  
Science is not projections, consensus or computer models 100 years out that will of course be wrong. I do believe in climate change though, it's called weather. Will I have any effect on some of your opinions? Hell no. DK is correct however but you can flame away at me for a while and give him a break.


Thank you... However, it doesn't matter who is right or wrong... it does matter that people use their eyes and brains.

How THIS current 'change' can be blamed on Americans (or all modern living people) when the HUNDREDS of previous changes HAPPENED without man being here, just boggles the mind.

Obviously, "they" can extract money and power through fear of something we cannot change, and I just think that is sad if you all let them.

rts551 - 4-11-2015 at 08:22 AM

For a good article about "deniers" take a look at the National Geographic for March 2015.

bajacamper - 4-11-2015 at 08:44 AM

Aw it's a nice day, I'm going out and enjoy it.

Cliffy - 4-11-2015 at 08:51 AM

Still no one has addressed my question as to why man's development on the earth is somehow considered "abnormal" to the natural evolutionary process of the planet?

Projections of doom and gloom by using short term monitoring of the atmospheric process only leads to massive mistakes in the projections (as has been demonstrated). And, considering the time of evolution on the earth (mas o menos 5 BILLION years) we have been monitoring for only a blink of an eye).
I'm all for living as clean as is reasonable, not unjustifiably polluting but none the less, mankind does have to move on.
If it's so important to impose high tariffs on the "advanced" countries of the world to carry the lion's share of "cleaning up the environment" then the rest of the world can sign on at the same time. To allow large polluters a free pass is just wrong.
No matter what we do now, mankind will always have to adapt and, man kind will die out on this planet sometime in the future whether by its own hand or the sun exploding. One way or another it will happen but that is a long long way off.
But to scream that "the sky is falling" in the short term is just hysteria brought about by grants and subsidies from the governments. When the system of grants ( ie making a living) is self perpetuating one has to look at the process and results carefully to "follow the money" and no one has done that yet.


Terry28 - 4-11-2015 at 09:21 AM

Well kids, The really cool thing about science is that it's true even if you don't believe it!!!!!!!~:

vgabndo - 4-11-2015 at 10:15 AM

Quote: Originally posted by redhilltown  
Let's face it. When DK and others complain about science and scientists they are railing against government workers. Unions. People sucking on the government teat to get all they can for their greedy families. And I guarantee you every single one of these complaining folks has family members somewhere doing it...or they themselves are on the teat and fighting against it with their head held high and their hands out... These so called "scientists" just see a big nest egg...a golden ring to latch onto to stay employed. Since they have no Christian morals, they simply spread fear and false information to keep their jobs.

Weather has always been weather. Gosh, what a brilliant concept.



Your comments are intended as some kind of joke right? The mindless myths of Iron Age guys with no last names are now more important than the most carefully vetted facts assembled by hundreds of years of the most intelligent people ever to evolve? Just keep in mind Redhilltown that in a failing nation "under God" where so many more people are moral Christians than is normally the case in other developed nations, it is necessary for CIVIL law to lock behind bars a greater percentage of the "god fearing" than in any nation on earth. If the difference between moral behavior and barbarianism is your Christian myth, it is clearly not working. And remember, just prior to WWII 95% of the German population self-identified as Christian and both their pledges of allegiance invoked the Christian god. You aren't allowed to make a positive connection between "morality" and Christianity. The history of Christian behavior does not support you. Oh, and by the way, only among the slow and halt is the question of human caused climate change even raised. Have I guessed correctly that you also believe that the cosmos is less than 10,000 years old??? There is a common connection in "thinking".

Cliffy - 4-11-2015 at 10:39 AM

Why do all the flag bearers avoid my questions?

Why is mankind not considered a natural evolutionary process of the planet Earth?

If it's so important to have strict emissions rules for mankind's sake, why are so many countries (some are the largest contributors to world wide pollution, far greater than the USA in some respects), given a free pass to not join in the effort?

Mexitron - 4-11-2015 at 10:55 AM

Mankind is of course part of the natural system though I'd say we have a little more awareness and responsibility to not trash everything. Our impact has been quite large in certain areas---look at the amount of plant species which have been brought into the United States. Arundo donax, Tamarix, Pampas Grass to name a few have taken over some ecosystems in a big way. California's grasslands used to be covered in perennial bunchgrasses, but now most of those original grasslands have been invaded by European annual grasses adapted to cattle foraging (the bunchgrasses had evolved with deer, elk and bison---yes there were bison in CA long ago--- who nibble rather than eat a grass to the ground). Its nothing that nature can't re-evolve out of over eons but I don't think that gives us the green flag to not care.

motoged - 4-11-2015 at 11:19 AM

Quote: Originally posted by vgabndo  
Quote: Originally posted by redhilltown  
Let's face it. When DK and others complain about science and scientists they are railing against government workers. Unions. People sucking on the government teat to get all they can for their greedy families. And I guarantee you every single one of these complaining folks has family members somewhere doing it...or they themselves are on the teat and fighting against it with their head held high and their hands out... These so called "scientists" just see a big nest egg...a golden ring to latch onto to stay employed. Since they have no Christian morals, they simply spread fear and false information to keep their jobs.

Weather has always been weather. Gosh, what a brilliant concept.



Your comments are intended as some kind of joke right?



I was assuming Red's comments were sarcastic.....if not, there is not much to say in response. :o

I was hoping the thread might generate some useful discussion on how folks are managing changes to the issue of drought rather than spin wheels in some sandy rut of opinions that really goes nowhere except in fruitless circles....even with lower air pressure.

Cancer could be considered a "natural process"....as is any hi-tech space exploration, as technology has been developed more intricately by those of us with opposing thumbs than by other species (although other species use tools to accomplish some tasks as well).

Yes folks will remain on the planet for a while....but the conditions of that existence are the issue here.....not whether "it's happening" or not.

I maintain that our species is a virus of sorts (a natural phenomenon) that is not contributing too many benefits to its host....the planet.

Not many comments are being offered regarding adaptive responses.....just the same ol' caca....really a shame, folks:no:

wessongroup - 4-11-2015 at 11:35 AM

Science is not about "right" and "wrong" ... :biggrin::biggrin:

"Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[2]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[nb 1]"

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

Right and wrong ... comes later and is introduce by the human species ... Not science


And good luck on "adaptive responses" from the human species ... we haven't a good track record on making sound decisions on how to "fit" into the "environment" without impacting same, in a negative manner ... there are examples

Anyone recall "Zero Population Growth" ... :lol::lol:

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

That one has been around since 1693 ... how's that one working out



[Edited on 4-11-2015 by wessongroup]

carlosg - 4-11-2015 at 02:49 PM

...could it be... just thinking out loud... that in some way the drought is "man made' due to the use and abuse of the natural resources? before ALL of us were here in this part of the world (or in the world at all) there was water running where we now drive? It seems like with the growth of the population and the absurd usage of water, water resources have dwindled over the years, here in SD the poor folks in Rancho Santa Fe are going to have to trade their lush landscapes emulating the tropics to have more endemic scenery in their front and backyards... these people "just" use a little less than 600 gallons of water per day per person...

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/apr/11/rancho-santa-fe-d...

...and if the golf courts here in SD are added

http://www.golfsandiegocounty.com/Map.tpl

..now we start to see part of the problem, the other is just how all of us add into the equation, how we use or abuse the available water from start of day thru the end of it in our daily lives; how the city cares for the lush environment that it tries to portray -stage- inside our city: just walk away from it and we're remembered that we live in semi-desertic environment... for some reason just across the border (Baja) the problem doesn't seem to be so alarming, but also you don't see the lush and greenery all over the place... and just like a dog shakes off dust from its back it seems mother nature is telling us something as well, also just like in life: earth has it own cycles and we just happen to be in the middle of one of them... así que vive la vida intensamente..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d02Oqvl0P6o

...Dios está en ella...

Cliffy - 4-11-2015 at 03:40 PM

carlosg brings up a very good point!
The earth does not have a fresh water shortage, only a use and distribution problem. I gave up lush green valleys in my yard 18 years ago. I haven't owned a lawnmower in almost 20 years. Why- as a famous comedian once said in a rather loud voice- "BECAUSE YOU LIVE IN THE DESERT!

Skipjack Joe - 4-12-2015 at 12:17 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  
Why do all the flag bearers avoid my questions?

Why is mankind not considered a natural evolutionary process of the planet Earth?

If it's so important to have strict emissions rules for mankind's sake, why are so many countries (some are the largest contributors to world wide pollution, far greater than the USA in some respects), given a free pass to not join in the effort?


Because will power has never been the method of evolution. Death has.

Ever wonder why death even exists. Why does one animal live for 12 years and we live for 80? Death is why mankind exists. Death is what lets us mix the gene pool and come up with descendants that can cope with problems that we are not equipped with. Death is an important part of life. We've been created not to live the longest life individually but the longest life of mankind.

You can take this further. An older person is set in his ways and less capable with dealing with a changing world than a young man. Less value comes from aged people.

motoged - 4-12-2015 at 01:01 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Skipjack Joe  
.....

Because will power has never been the method of evolution. Death has.

Ever wonder why death even exists. Why does one animal live for 12 years and we live for 80? Death is why mankind exists. Death is what lets us mix the gene pool and come up with descendants that can cope with problems that we are not equipped with. Death is an important part of life. We've been created not to live the longest life individually but the longest life of mankind.

You can take this further. An older person is set in his ways and less capable with dealing with a changing world than a young man. Less value comes from aged people.


I don't see it that way.....

1) Adaptation is the method of evolution....death is the relative end of a life cycle....fertilization of a seed/egg, etc. is the joining of two genetic memory banks...that "evolve" into the progeny....this mixture of genetic soup creates an adaptive organism....if it doesn't adapt so well , it will likely not reproduce....and perhaps that is where death (in an indirect way) contributes to evolving by that organism not reproducing;

2) I don't think that man 's existence has the sole purpose of dying....dying is just a stage of the life-death cycle (biological organisms are designed to reproduce, eat, and die....but not necessarily in that order :biggrin: ). Death doesn't allow us to combine gene pools....living organisms most often are required to produce and somehow mix the two contributing gene pools.....that doesn't happen when dead organisms bump in the night. Perhaps decaying matter ( relatively dead) feeds the fertilized egg/cell, etc.....but it is a meal plan most often, rather than a progenitor;

3) Less value from aged people? Wow !!!!:o Wisdom and experience usually trumps impulsivity and inexperience. Old coots can think outside of the box....because at least they recognize they are in a box. Being old doesn't necessarily mean that folks are set in ALL their ways.....but it is a risk....of non-adaptation.

I would say that birth, more than death, creates more opportunity to evolve....the organism's life is ahead of itself....and more adaptive opportunity that the old fart set in his/her ways.

What do the rest of you old boots think? :?:

wessongroup - 4-12-2015 at 01:20 PM

Have to agree with age comes wisdom ... in most cases :):)

Defining the purpose of "life cycles" within the context of evolution ... has little long term meaning IMHO

Defining life cycles is useful in planning and/or discovery as they relate to evolution ... anything else is human desire of wants not needs

Life cycles are just that ... life cycles and all contribute to OUR environment on this planet and perhaps the Universe

But, it would appear that certain "life cycles" have more impact on the "environment" than others ... at this time

Oh, on topic ... Appears that everyone drinking "bottle" water may be a factor ...

A Lot Of Bottled Water Comes From Drought-Stricken California

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/10/bottled-water-droug...

Interesting thread ... :):)

[Edited on 4-12-2015 by wessongroup]

Skipjack Joe - 4-12-2015 at 01:49 PM

It's not death that saves mankind. It's change. And for change to occur there needs to be a life/death process. A man who lives 400 years is less valuable than 5 who have lived 80 years. As measured for humanity.

And species lifespans are most definitely controlled by evolution. You can look that up.

There is definitely value to old age wisdom but not that many are needed.

My point is that we do not live to our old age because our cells break down and can't fight invaders. We could have been designed otherwise. But this is the best design for mankind. That rate of change has worked best.

Mexitron - 4-12-2015 at 02:06 PM

Perhaps in the past that's true Skipjack, though we will likely be seeing centennials becoming commonplace soon enough. Another hundred years of genetic and tissue research and we'll likely be going far longer than that. Mankind will be evolving more to our whims rather than nature's and population genetic's determinations. Unless of course that's a dead-end in itself (creating a population divorced from any kind of survival-based genetics). Brave new world.

Skipjack Joe - 4-12-2015 at 02:24 PM

Let's look at the global warming logjam and DavidK. Imagine having that kind of rigidity for 400 years. And this is not meant to be a personal attack. By having a reasonable turnover we have a chance to move on.

Then you say what's the advantage of an Einstein not living 400 years. Virtually all of our geniuses have done all of their great work by 30, sometimes 40. It's true of scientists, mathematicians, artists, and photographers. The productive period is about 20 years for humans. After that our value goes down.

Cliffy - 4-12-2015 at 02:26 PM

WHOA! Boy where did this drift come from after my commentary on evolutionary process of the planet Earth?

It's my contention that man is just another evolutionary process being "controlled" by the Earth's long history and it's uncontrollable processes.
Mankind MAY have some influence on the earth's processes but in the end the earth will win and do what ever it wants to do and that will be a long long time after any of our relatives are gone.


Skipjack Joe - 4-12-2015 at 02:52 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  


.... in the end the earth will win and do what ever it wants to do and that will be a long long time after any of our relatives are gone.



You've just made my point. You have made this same statement over and over again on this subject.

David K - 4-12-2015 at 02:55 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  
WHOA! Boy where did this drift come from after my commentary on evolutionary process of the planet Earth?

It's my contention that man is just another evolutionary process being "controlled" by the Earth's long history and it's uncontrollable processes.
Mankind MAY have some influence on the earth's processes but in the end the earth will win and do what ever it wants to do and that will be a long long time after any of our relatives are gone.



Mother Nature ALWAYS Bats Last!

It's good to try and be clean and green, but unless the other 7 billion people do, to pressure, shame, blame, guilt the 320 million (1/3 of 1 billion) Americans is quite hypocritical or at least unfair and unrealistic.

In the end, no matter how clean and green we become, the climate is STILL going to change when ever it wants to.

Cisco - 4-12-2015 at 03:00 PM

Quote: Originally posted by wessongroup  
Have to agree with age comes wisdom ... in most cases :):)

[Edited on 4-12-2015 by wessongroup]



Age brings experience, not necessarily wisdom.

Glad you cranked in most cases Wiley.

What we do with that experience is the critical factor, at any age.

And if wisdom comes from it we can only hope that wisdom is used properly.


wessongroup - 4-12-2015 at 05:26 PM

Certainly would not disagree with that Cisco

Prudent judgement based on "experience" and "wisdom" is a better bet than most others ... IMHO

And of course weather changes ... and that is the concern at this time ... the CHANGE being observed through scientific measurements

Which would fall under the category of "information" based on data aquired through scientific investigation ... Not from personal opinion ... which makes this discussion difficult

Perception vs Reality is always a tough one ... there are examples :biggrin::biggrin:

How about MTBE ... :biggrin::biggrin:

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

And btw ... their "numbers" on clean up, are way off ...

think San Gabriel and San Fernando Super Fund Sites ... they are still pumping :):)

Say, could one call that "man's" impact on the environment .. in a negative manner ...

Check what they find in YOUR water through sampling ... that information is readily available for the entire United States ... you might be surprised ... or maybe not ... :):)

[Edited on 4-13-2015 by wessongroup]

bajadogs - 4-12-2015 at 06:03 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  
Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  
WHOA! Boy where did this drift come from after my commentary on evolutionary process of the planet Earth?

It's my contention that man is just another evolutionary process being "controlled" by the Earth's long history and it's uncontrollable processes.
Mankind MAY have some influence on the earth's processes but in the end the earth will win and do what ever it wants to do and that will be a long long time after any of our relatives are gone.



No matter how clean and green we become, the climate is STILL going to change when ever it wants to.


Yep David, Solid observation. :?:

rts551 - 4-12-2015 at 06:26 PM

Quote of the day

Quote: Originally posted by David K  

Mother Nature ALWAYS Bats Last!

It's good to try and be clean and green, but unless the other 7 billion people do, to pressure, shame, blame, guilt the 320 million (1/3 of 1 billion) Americans is quite hypocritical or at least unfair and unrealistic.

In the end, no matter how clean and green we become, the climate is STILL going to change when ever it wants to.






here is another

“With age comes wisdom, but sometimes age comes alone.” Oscar Wiide

bajacamper - 4-12-2015 at 06:41 PM

Maybe someone will come along and hijack this thread...Ya think?

Cisco - 4-12-2015 at 06:54 PM




http://www.alternet.org/environment/how-defeat-science-denie...

bajacamper - 4-12-2015 at 06:56 PM

O well, probably not.

wessongroup - 4-12-2015 at 07:40 PM

There is an aspect which hasn't been covered yet ...

The effects of Global Warming on the "poles"

Think the Arctic has been the receiver of:

The Thing, The Blob and Spaceships from Krypton ...

This is getting really serious .... :):)

Sure wish we had 2012, as it related to the Maya prediction of the end of the world, to chew on .... again :biggrin::biggrin:

still like the first one best .... (The Thing) ... Matt Dillion getting electrocuted ...

Certainly proved effective in working his way up in the industry



[Edited on 4-13-2015 by wessongroup]

bajacamper - 4-12-2015 at 08:11 PM

I was in Chechin Itzen (sp) in 2012 and the fellow told me that if I bought a tee shirt from him, I would be saved from the coming end of the world. Thank goodness I listened. I'm still here and occasionally wear that crumby tee shirt.

Skipjack Joe - 4-12-2015 at 08:29 PM

Quote: Originally posted by bajacamper  
Maybe someone will come along and hijack this thread...Ya think?


Do you yourself have anything to contribute?

Oh, I see. 7 posts so far.

soulpatch - 4-12-2015 at 08:42 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Skipjack Joe  
The productive period is about 20 years for humans. After that our value goes down.


I guess it is how your paradigm of value is defined.

I disagree.

Maybe when life spans were much shorter but now it is hard to refute decades of experience having less value than a few short years.

But, that is just my opinion and my response has nothing to do with global warming.

wessongroup - 4-12-2015 at 09:13 PM

"Value" typically is subjective ... excluding the Physical and Natural Science's

I for one, wouldn't mind seeing someone like Albert, or say Will Rogers, et al .. stick around a while longer

For sure Will Rogers ... or Mark Twain :biggrin::biggrin:

And since one can't develop a means to accurately measure "value" to the planet ... of an "individual" .. all bets are off

[Edited on 4-13-2015 by wessongroup]

Sweetwater - 4-13-2015 at 09:03 AM

There are several thesis now included in this thread that don't deal with human caused climate change. All done very well for the most part.

The simplest fact remains that the HUMAN population load on the planet as it currently exists combined with the means and methods that the population uses to manipulate it's individual environments (vehicles, heating/cooling, agricultural water use) is causing an unprecedented impact globally. The impact can be measured, quantified and qualified. Individually, we have the choice to contribute to a solution or to ignore and deny the reality. Nobody argues that natural circumstances occur that also have a huge impact on that environment, volcanoes and other geologic events can cause similar changes to occur. However, the history of the planet has never included over 7 billion humans as the additional burden.

I choose to act responsibly when approaching the issue, DK and many others don't. They find their own rationalizations to continue in their ignorance. Two brothers who are part of the richest 10 humans, the Koch brothers, actively campaign against science and they have a huge influence because of their money. I don't support them or their Tea Party agenda as another personal choice.

Finally, I do think that if enough of us join together to recognize the problems we face collectively, we can have a positive impact on the issue: Human caused climate change.

Or, we can be those bacteria that overwhelm the resources of their limited agar plate and crash their population by not implementing longer term solutions. Sustainability is really the solution that we need to work towards as well as not allowing ignorance to rule our policies and actions.

bajacamper - 4-13-2015 at 09:08 AM

I harken back to the Baja Amigo days where you got information and help if needed regarding all things Baja. Do not try that "Shut up newbie" crap on me. My only point regarding this thread is, enough already. Please.

Skipjack Joe - 4-13-2015 at 02:23 PM

A shut up for a shut up. What did you expect.

bajacamper - 4-13-2015 at 02:36 PM

I surrender..........for the time being.

motoged - 4-13-2015 at 02:42 PM

Ken,
My position very well-said. :light:

Our human contribution to the planet cannot be ignored or not considered as relevant...

Quote: Originally posted by Sweetwater  
There are several thesis now included in this thread that don't deal with human caused climate change. All done very well for the most part.

The simplest fact remains that the HUMAN population load on the planet as it currently exists combined with the means and methods that the population uses to manipulate it's individual environments (vehicles, heating/cooling, agricultural water use) is causing an unprecedented impact globally. The impact can be measured, quantified and qualified. Individually, we have the choice to contribute to a solution or to ignore and deny the reality. Nobody argues that natural circumstances occur that also have a huge impact on that environment, volcanoes and other geologic events can cause similar changes to occur. However, the history of the planet has never included over 7 billion humans as the additional burden.

I choose to act responsibly when approaching the issue, DK and many others don't. They find their own rationalizations to continue in their ignorance. Two brothers who are part of the richest 10 humans, the Koch brothers, actively campaign against science and they have a huge influence because of their money. I don't support them or their Tea Party agenda as another personal choice.

Finally, I do think that if enough of us join together to recognize the problems we face collectively, we can have a positive impact on the issue: Human caused climate change.

Or, we can be those bacteria that overwhelm the resources of their limited agar plate and crash their population by not implementing longer term solutions. Sustainability is really the solution that we need to work towards as well as not allowing ignorance to rule our policies and actions.

Skipjack Joe - 4-13-2015 at 03:12 PM


Quote: Originally posted by Sweetwater  


Or, we can be those bacteria that overwhelm the resources of their limited agar plate and crash their population by not implementing longer term solutions. Sustainability is really the solution that we need to work towards as well as not allowing ignorance to rule our policies and actions.



Pretty much what I said as well. Primitive animals crash and start over in the same way, only to eventually crash again. We don't crash because when we start over we do it differently than what failed. One generation learns from it's previous one. Just a theory.

wessongroup - 4-13-2015 at 03:53 PM

Great synopsis Sweetwater ... Dittos :biggrin::biggrin:


and it would appear "The Blob" ... is showing up, just not in the Arctic as expected :biggrin::biggrin:

"Weird US weather: Blame the big warm blob in the Pacific"

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/0411/Weird-US-weather-...

[Edited on 4-13-2015 by wessongroup]

bajacamper - 4-13-2015 at 07:11 PM

India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, has indicated that he will not submit to Western pressure on cutting CO2 emissions.

In the lengthy run up to the international climate conference (‘COP21’) in Paris later this year, Modi’s comments will be sure to cause consternation amongst climate campaigners. Indeed, since his investiture last May last year, the Guardian has expressed concern that he might be (gasp!) a climate sceptic.

As the third largest CO2 emitter behind China (1st) and the U.S. (2nd), climate negotiators are keen to secure some kind of meaningful agreement to reductions from India at the Paris negotiations. However, Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has pursued a development agenda that is at odds with Western hand-wringing. The BJP has opened up the nation’s coal mining industry in a bid to meet domestic demand. It has also taken on environmentalist groups such as Greenpeace, regarding the latter as inimically hostile to India’s economic success.

Modi has made some conciliatory remarks aimed at the anti-CO2 lobby about switching to “cleaner” energy sources. However, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that India’s energy demands will continue to grow by 2.8% per year and that most of this will be met through increased fossil fuel production.

It is possible that India may elect to follow China’s method of sidestepping this issue previously by making further promises to reduce ‘Carbon intensity’ rather than overall CO2 emissions. This means reducing the emissions per capita (per person) rather than adhering to a total emissions cap. China has failed to adhere to its own commitment on this, though it was sufficient to mollify climate negotiators at the time.

Ultimately though, Modi’s position highlights the continuing hypocrisy of Western governments who demand such restrictions with no regard for Indian or Chinese aspirations for their citizens to achieve a Western standard of living.

Just another view.

wessongroup - 4-13-2015 at 07:15 PM

How ya going to keep them down on the farm ... as the old saying goes ...

Difficult to tell Billions of folks ... well, sorry, but thats the way it has to be ...

[Edited on 4-14-2015 by wessongroup]

mtgoat666 - 4-13-2015 at 07:27 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  
Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  
WHOA! Boy where did this drift come from after my commentary on evolutionary process of the planet Earth?

It's my contention that man is just another evolutionary process being "controlled" by the Earth's long history and it's uncontrollable processes.
Mankind MAY have some influence on the earth's processes but in the end the earth will win and do what ever it wants to do and that will be a long long time after any of our relatives are gone.



Mother Nature ALWAYS Bats Last!

It's good to try and be clean and green, but unless the other 7 billion people do, to pressure, shame, blame, guilt the 320 million (1/3 of 1 billion) Americans is quite hypocritical or at least unfair and unrealistic.

In the end, no matter how clean and green we become, the climate is STILL going to change when ever it wants to.


DK:
gringos are worst polluters. gringo per capita CO2 emission rate is worst. gringos are wasteful! the most wasteful!

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/sci...




[Edited on 4-14-2015 by mtgoat666]

Bajaboy - 4-13-2015 at 07:41 PM

Quote: Originally posted by bajacamper  
India’s Prime Minister,

Ultimately though, Modi’s position highlights the continuing hypocrisy of Western governments who demand such restrictions with no regard for Indian or Chinese aspirations for their citizens to achieve a Western standard of living.

Just another view.


It's no different than Israel telling Iran they can't build nuclear weapons:light:

wessongroup - 4-13-2015 at 08:08 PM

Me thinks India has more immediate problems ....

Continued attempts to expand the production of food and fiber has necessarily placed even greater demands on "their" water supply .. and this coming year and perhaps others may have a rather negative impact on the ability to produce ... in qualities necessary to feed the people, let alone enter into "trade" with other countries ... in finished farm produce .. let alone "decrease" co2 ... they are running on empty most of the time

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

And to think population isn't a factor in India ... Well, it takes all kinds

Not to mention the problems of human waste disposal ....

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=aErNiP_V4RLc&pid=...

A bit dated, but, as I understand the current situation .... it hasn't really changed

And goat ... its the United States ... which just happens to be around 70% white ... as most folks SOB do tend to think of other Mexican's as gringo's ... "whitewashed" maybe ... but, definitely not Gringo

And if we are only kicking out 17% considering how much "oil" we use ... we HAVE made some progress ... which IMHO is good .. .as it used to be much higher, in the 60s and 70s as I recall

That we become more efficient and less polluting is only positive long term for the human species and the United States of America in particular

Being free of OPEC and a few other nagging problems ... could make a big change in how we live .. :):)

I'm betting on science via the LHC ... to develop something which can move us a "quantum leap" forward in many things which have been holding us back as a species



[Edited on 4-14-2015 by wessongroup]

Sweetwater - 4-13-2015 at 09:28 PM

And again, on topic, the biggest population centers for the globe are having to address and deal with these same issues. Even though they lie at the base of the highest mountains with their melting glaciers, China is facing significant fresh water shortages. This weeks Business Week notes that they plan to use a lot of energy to produce fresh water through massive desalination projects. Some 400 cities in China are facing this fresh water shortage with the projects planned for 2019. Their plans are noted to be the most ambitious but other countries developing and implementing desalination facilities include Israel, Spain, the US and Australia. The current need is based in California, San Diego investing $1billion to begin converting Pacific seawater by 2016 at a rate off 50 million gallons of potable water per day.

Denial is a river, a state of mind, or maybe just futile? The real world we live in has our footprints, fingerprints and excretion all over it......

The End Is Near

motoged - 4-14-2015 at 10:16 AM

My life will come to an end soon if this keeps up......:biggrin:

Due to water consumption needed to grow almonds.... ( 1 gallon is needed to produce 1 almond nut), there is a movement afoot to bring farmers into the fray.

Years ago I discovered the pleasures of almond butter (roasted is better), and have preferred it to peanut butter for a range of reasons ( and don't get me started on cashew butter.....proof there might be a god looking out for us).

Now, there is a movement against the almond industry in California....

hmmmmm????? golf courses, swimmimg pools, and misting stations.....OR almond butter?????

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/almond-backlash-tied-to-california-drought-1.3031125

Mexitron - 4-14-2015 at 10:27 AM

Almonds use a lot of water but the cattle industry is by far the largest user growing alfalfa and hay. Eat less beef and we'll have plenty of water. Residential,golf courses, etc. only account for 20 percent of the water used in CA.

wessongroup - 4-14-2015 at 10:34 AM

“Whiskey is for drinking—water is for fighting.”

Mark Twain

mtgoat666 - 4-14-2015 at 10:39 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Mexitron  
Almonds use a lot of water but the cattle industry is by far the largest user growing alfalfa and hay. Eat less beef and we'll have plenty of water. Residential,golf courses, etc. only account for 20 percent of the water used in CA.


your comparison is ridiculous. you fail to point out that gross sales of almonds is less than meat/dairy.

to evaluate crops use or abuse of water, a more useful comparison than total water used would be

quantity of water per calorie of food product produced
quantity of water per acre of specific crop produced
quantity of water per gross sales of crop produced


wessongroup - 4-14-2015 at 10:53 AM

No Almonds ... Big hit to the Bee Industry and to Blue Dimond ... just saying

Will say, that I like Alfalfa ... over Almonds

But, that is because I loved the smell ... in the early morning after a cut ...

One of the best smells out there ... in Production Ag ... IMHO :):)

Feed lots, chickens, turkeys and a few others, which also use a lot of water .... not so much :biggrin::biggrin:



[Edited on 4-14-2015 by wessongroup]

Mexitron - 4-14-2015 at 10:58 AM

Not ridiculous---I'm saying in overall water use for CA almonds use quite a bit (up to possible 10% of irrigation water). Cattle use upwards of 33 percent and more when considering hay and alfalfa.
Read 'Diet for a Small Planet' and look at some water use charts for California---its all there goat. But, specifically, since you asked---cattle consume 25 times the amount of energy that we get back from them in calories so either way you look at it cattle are expensive (and subsidized heavily I might add). By comparison chickens are 2.5-3 units of energy per returned calorie. And per your first comparison lettuce and other greens would have zero value since they provide essentially no calories...so rethink your database queries.

Mexitron - 4-14-2015 at 11:02 AM

Here's some info on cattle and water:

http://www.publiclandsranching.org/htmlres/wr_guzzling_water...

"When people think of California and water, they often imagine sprawling cities dotted liberally with swimming pools and watered lawns; legions of vain auto owners washing their SUVs, sports cars, and minivans; and endless acres of verdant golf courses - all sucking down rivers both near and far. This image is partly correct - rivers are going dry. But the major reason is not direct consumption by humans - urbanites running sprinklers on their front yards and the like. In California, the major user of water is agriculture, and within agriculture, the thirstiest commodity is the cow.

Overall, agriculture accounts for 83 percent of all water used in California. It's true that California grows the majority of America's fruits and vegetables, so liberal use of water by its agricultural sector would not be unexpected. However, few people would suspect that growing feed for cattle is the predominant agricultural use of water in California. In 1997, 1.7 million acres of the state were planted to alfalfa alone. Irrigated pasture and hayfields consume more water than any other single crop in California - more than a third of all irrigation water. 1 Together, alfalfa and hay and pasturage account for approximately half of all water used in the state.

The story is similar in other western states. In Colorado, some 25 percent of all water consumed goes to alfalfa crops. 2 In Montana, agriculture takes 97 percent of all water used in the state, and just about the only irrigated crop there is hay and pasture forage; more than 5 million acres in the state are irrigated hay meadows. 3 In Nevada - the most arid state in the country - domestic water use amounted to 9.8 million gallons a day in 1993. By contrast, agriculture used 2.8 billion gallons of water per day. 4 Altogether, agriculture uses 83 percent of Nevada's water 5 - and the major crop is hay for cattle fodder. In Nevada, while cow pastures are flood irrigated, wetlands at wildlife refuges and the state's rivers often go bone-dry. 6

Cows are poorly adapted to arid environments. They are profligate consumers of water. Beef production demands an estimated 3,430 gallons of water just to produce one steak! 7 Most western rangelands simply don't provide enough forage alone - because the climate is too dry - to run livestock economically. Supplemental feed and irrigated pasture are also needed. Many of the ecological and health impacts of livestock production in the West are associated with the use and abuse of water: the livestock industry alters water quantity and quality and water flow regimes. "

There's more to read in the article...

wessongroup - 4-14-2015 at 11:03 AM

Dittos Mexitron ... :):)

My aunt and uncle ran cattle in AZ ... was a full time job making sure they had water ... using a "cat" to make "catchment ponds" for ANY rain that fell ... as there really wasn't much water around

Something changed when the Europeans .. replaced the Apache's with a different "land use" approach

One could say, change effected by man ... :biggrin::biggrin:

From an article in the Payson Roundup 9/2014

"By June and July when the tall grasses had died, and before the monsoon arrived, the cowboys followed practices they learned from the Indians, burning the countryside. Rancher Slim Ellison told of watching the Apaches tie a burning tree branch to a horse’s tail and send it across the countryside and through the
forests to light the ground cover. They counted on the July rains to put the fires out, and in the process prepared the ground for fresh new grass. It also kept the forests pruned.

Early military detachments during the Indian War reported a “park like” appearance to the ponderosa forests. The huge trees had open spaces between them where grasses and wildflowers flourished. With the ground fuel consumed annually, lightening caused fires had no opportunity to climb into the crowns of the
trees."

This has only led to the current situation faced by BLM and others in the area ... which isn't really very good, compared to what it was ... before it was changed .. based on the need of very large "returns" financially speaking

After my uncle died (RIP) my aunt (RIP) ran it with my cousins for for the next two decades .. but, they got out of "cattle" in the late 90s ... completely and focused on other business's which they were involved in ..

Must say, as a kid growing up ... it was living in a dream, for me, as that was what these folks were ... Cowboys :):)

Loved their life style and where they lived .. in that period .. late 40s to the late 60s ... when subdivision took off for all those folks down in the "Valley" ... who wanted to get the hell out of the Phoenix heat in the summer ... progress .. OK if you say so :lol::lol:

[Edited on 4-14-2015 by wessongroup]

[Edited on 4-14-2015 by wessongroup]

mtgoat666 - 4-14-2015 at 02:11 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Mexitron  
Here's some info on cattle and water:

http://www.publiclandsranching.org/htmlres/wr_guzzling_water...

"When people think of California and water, they often imagine sprawling cities dotted liberally with swimming pools and watered lawns; legions of vain auto owners washing their SUVs, sports cars, and minivans; and endless acres of verdant golf courses - all sucking down rivers both near and far. This image is partly correct - rivers are going dry. But the major reason is not direct consumption by humans - urbanites running sprinklers on their front yards and the like. In California, the major user of water is agriculture, and within agriculture, the thirstiest commodity is the cow.

Overall, agriculture accounts for 83 percent of all water used in California. It's true that California grows the majority of America's fruits and vegetables, so liberal use of water by its agricultural sector would not be unexpected. However, few people would suspect that growing feed for cattle is the predominant agricultural use of water in California. In 1997, 1.7 million acres of the state were planted to alfalfa alone. Irrigated pasture and hayfields consume more water than any other single crop in California - more than a third of all irrigation water. 1 Together, alfalfa and hay and pasturage account for approximately half of all water used in the state.

The story is similar in other western states. In Colorado, some 25 percent of all water consumed goes to alfalfa crops. 2 In Montana, agriculture takes 97 percent of all water used in the state, and just about the only irrigated crop there is hay and pasture forage; more than 5 million acres in the state are irrigated hay meadows. 3 In Nevada - the most arid state in the country - domestic water use amounted to 9.8 million gallons a day in 1993. By contrast, agriculture used 2.8 billion gallons of water per day. 4 Altogether, agriculture uses 83 percent of Nevada's water 5 - and the major crop is hay for cattle fodder. In Nevada, while cow pastures are flood irrigated, wetlands at wildlife refuges and the state's rivers often go bone-dry. 6

Cows are poorly adapted to arid environments. They are profligate consumers of water. Beef production demands an estimated 3,430 gallons of water just to produce one steak! 7 Most western rangelands simply don't provide enough forage alone - because the climate is too dry - to run livestock economically. Supplemental feed and irrigated pasture are also needed. Many of the ecological and health impacts of livestock production in the West are associated with the use and abuse of water: the livestock industry alters water quantity and quality and water flow regimes. "

There's more to read in the article...


ya,... i know cattle are bad for the environment,...
but i still like beef. meat consumption is an "affluenza"






[Edited on 4-14-2015 by mtgoat666]

wessongroup - 4-14-2015 at 04:40 PM

"liberal use of water by its agricultural sector would not be unexpected"

Unless things have changed ... it cost the growers ... one way or another and "costs" of any business must be controlled ... if possible

Pumping costs on 1,200 ft well's on the "West Side" of the Central Valley can get a bit steep ... just saying

"Groundwater conditions vary considerably from eastern to western Fresno County. Aquifers east of the valley trough are generally semi-confined to unconfined, while aquifers west of the valley trough are generally semi-confined to confined. Most pumping occurs below a naturally occurring subterranean clay, although considerable pumping also occurs above the layer, depending upon location and water quality issues. This layer is several hundred feet below the ground surface, and pumping costs are high."

http://www2.co.fresno.ca.us/4510/4360/General_Plan/GP_Final_...

That's just Fresno County ... others counties have a similar situation in the Southern Central Valley

And they grow quite a bit in that region ... From Wheeler Ridge .. North

And is the reason the Governor of the State of CA and the other guys ... just passed new legislation to reduce the "overdraft" ...



[Edited on 4-14-2015 by wessongroup]

Sweetwater - 4-14-2015 at 05:49 PM

What might motivate people to continue to drill baby drill and burn baby burn.....could it be that the huge money reserves have a stake in our energy use? I haven't seen so many muscle cars on the road as I did today, cheap OIL and cheap mogas get folks stimulated.....


Quote:

Supply was only half the calculus, though. While the new Saudi stance was being trumpeted as a war on shale, Naimi’s not-so-invisible hand pushing prices lower also addressed an even deeper Saudi fear: flagging long-term demand. Naimi and other Saudi leaders have worried for years that climate change and high crude prices will boost energy efficiency, encourage renewables, and accelerate a switch to alternative fuels such as natural gas, especially in the emerging markets that they count on for growth. They see how demand for the commodity that’s created the kingdom’s enormous wealth—and is still abundant beneath the desert sands—may be nearing its peak. This isn’t something the petroleum minister discusses in depth in public, given global concern about carbon emissions and efforts to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. But Naimi acknowledges the trend. “Demand will peak way ahead of supply,” he told reporters in Qatar three years ago. If growth in oil consumption flattens out too soon, the transition could be wrenching for Saudi Arabia, which gets almost half its gross domestic product from oil exports. Last week, in a speech in Riyadh, Naimi said Saudi Arabia would stand “firmly and resolutely” with others who oppose any attempt to marginalize oil consumption. “There are those who are trying to reach international agreements to limit the use of fossil fuel, and that will damage the interests of oil producers in the long-term,” he said. U.S. State Department cables released by WikiLeaks show that the Saudis’ interest in prolonging the world’s dependence on oil dates back at least a decade. In conversations with colleagues and U.S. diplomats, Naimi responded to the American fixation on “security of supply” with the Saudi need for “security of demand,” according to a 2006 embassy dispatch. “Saudi officials are very concerned that a climate change treaty would significantly reduce their income,” James Smith, the U.S. ambassador to Riyadh, wrote in a 2010 memo to U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu. “Effectively, peak oil arguments have been replaced by peak demand.”



full article here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-12/saudi-arab...

redhilltown - 4-14-2015 at 06:00 PM

Quote: Originally posted by wessongroup  
“Whiskey is for drinking—water is for fighting.”

Mark Twain



"I always carry of bottle of whiskey with me in case of snake bite...I also carry a snake" W.C. Fields (or something like that)

wessongroup - 4-14-2015 at 11:40 PM

Ya mean like this ... :biggrin::biggrin:

"707-horsepower Dodge Challenger SRT Hellcat? Hell yes!"

http://www.cnet.com/products/2015-dodge-challenger-srt-hellc...

Mexitron - 4-15-2015 at 10:25 AM

Quote: Originally posted by wessongroup  
"liberal use of water by its agricultural sector would not be unexpected"

Unless things have changed ... it cost the growers ... one way or another and "costs" of any business must be controlled ... if possible

Pumping costs on 1,200 ft well's on the "West Side" of the Central Valley can get a bit steep ... just saying

"Groundwater conditions vary considerably from eastern to western Fresno County. Aquifers east of the valley trough are generally semi-confined to unconfined, while aquifers west of the valley trough are generally semi-confined to confined. Most pumping occurs below a naturally occurring subterranean clay, although considerable pumping also occurs above the layer, depending upon location and water quality issues. This layer is several hundred feet below the ground surface, and pumping costs are high."

http://www2.co.fresno.ca.us/4510/4360/General_Plan/GP_Final_...

That's just Fresno County ... others counties have a similar situation in the Southern Central Valley

And they grow quite a bit in that region ... From Wheeler Ridge .. North

And is the reason the Governor of the State of CA and the other guys ... just passed new legislation to reduce the "overdraft" ...



[Edited on 4-14-2015 by wessongroup]


Yeah, water may be just going to go up in price until a new equilibrium between crop type and price settles in. Though I think in the early days water was a negligible cost in the valleys...and many homes out there had no water meters on them. Though rice might be here to stay since now things have worked out with the migratory birds using the fields. Heh, arguably the best crop for the dollar/water would be marijuana. Start cultivating some of that Turlock Gold.

wessongroup - 4-15-2015 at 11:44 AM

"Turlock Gold" ... :biggrin::biggrin:

Would be very interesting what "Production Ag" could squeeze out of an section of "dirt" ... :lol::lol:

[Edited on 4-16-2015 by wessongroup]

bezzell - 4-22-2015 at 06:05 PM

:lol::lol: ... "how's that hope and faith workin' out for ya"?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/22/republicans-climate...

Cliffy - 4-22-2015 at 06:44 PM

Someone at Duke University just came out with a scientific study showing that "normal changes in atmospheric heating and cooling" (everyday changes) can account for any "forecasts for global warming" after they analyzed 1,000 years of study material.
Also the actual "changes experienced" over the last couple of decades has been WAY less than all the predictions.
Maybe this "science" has some traction Maybe it's just not "nay-sayer's postulations".
Just told #1 to put the shields up!

bezzell - 4-22-2015 at 09:19 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  
Someone at Duke University just came out with!


ah yes, the mysterious 'someones' :rolleyes:
"how come no-one will answer my question!? how can man be considered part of the natural order, when he takes trillions of buried (sequestered) carbon from the ground, and just ... 'throws it up in the air, like he just don't care" !?
whaaaaaay won't somebody answer me!? (crying emoji)

wake up, tontos

edited to add: or don't wake up. It's all good, and won't make any difference anywhos. Sure was and continues to be a great ride!

[Edited on 4-23-2015 by bezzell]

Cliffy - 4-22-2015 at 10:28 PM


Well here's the link to the "mysterious" someone
Keep drinking the imminent doom kool-aide

https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/global-warming-more-moderate-...

wessongroup - 4-22-2015 at 10:52 PM

Closer to "home" and on topic ... :biggrin::biggrin:

California only has one year’s worth of its water supply left, NASA scientist warns

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/03/california-only-has-one-year...

bezzell - 4-22-2015 at 10:58 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  

Well here's the link to the "mysterious" someone
Keep drinking the imminent doom kool-aide

https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/global-warming-more-moderate-...


did ya actually READ it !? :):)
buckle (and pucker) up brothers & sisters (but ... shhhhh ... don't scare the children)

Glidergeek - 4-22-2015 at 11:19 PM

So let's build a bullet train, who needs desalination plants:o

Skipjack Joe - 4-23-2015 at 04:47 AM

Have you read this?

"William Shatner: Solve California drought with Seattle pipeline"

He's starting a campaign to raise the $30 billion. Trouble is, Washingtonians aren't that crazy about the idea.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-william-shatner-...

Favorite quote is that he recommends it be built above ground. That way if it leaks it will irrigate the countryside.

Let's see - I'm 68 and he's 84. That means I have 16 years of sanity left.

bajacamper - 4-23-2015 at 08:35 AM

Before any solid conclusions can be reached, we need to hear from Pee Wee Herman.

Glidergeek - 4-23-2015 at 08:59 AM

These guys don't know squat, right?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_t...

ncampion - 4-23-2015 at 09:42 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  

Well here's the link to the "mysterious" someone
Keep drinking the imminent doom kool-aide

https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/global-warming-more-moderate-...


Gee, in the 5th paragraph it says that the authors actually used "empirical evidence" to reach their conclusions rather than "climate models" (e.g. conjecture).

Imagine that actually using facts to support a position.

wessongroup - 4-23-2015 at 10:16 AM

Farm water costs mimic desalting price tag

http://westernfarmpress.com/miscellaneous/farm-water-costs-m...

Looking at from the "growers standpoint" ...

Strange they are basing it on "costs" of production ... :biggrin::biggrin:

btw the state of Washington is suffering from a drought also ..

Then toss this one in ... for production costs .. along with man's not having any impact on the environment

Popular Pesticide Hurts Wild Bees, Study Finds

http://time.com/3832788/pesticide-hurts-wild-bees-study/

Things get hard fast in producing "Food and Fiber" .... I'm sure size has nothing to do with it ... HUH

[Edited on 4-23-2015 by wessongroup]

[Edited on 4-23-2015 by wessongroup]

Pee Wee's suggestion

motoged - 4-23-2015 at 11:27 AM

Well, you asked for it....


chuckie - 4-23-2015 at 12:04 PM

I was in Boulder Colorado last weekend....Many more huge "look at me" homes under construction with big landscaped (read watered) surrounds....It never stops...Our dryland wheat here in Kansas is looking good so far, adequate moisture for a change....

bajacamper - 4-23-2015 at 12:57 PM

OK, now I'm convinced.

wessongroup - 4-24-2015 at 09:27 AM

This is good ... :):)
 Pages:  1  ..  3    5