In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article ,
Frank wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Frank wrote:

Bill who putters wrote:
In article ,
Frank wrote:

Every Man wrote:
Very strange.

I'm in eastern Virginia -- Northumberland County, along the Potomac
River.

Last year as we were building our house we planted a dozen or so
tomato plants along the back of the lot and harvested tomatoes all
summer and into the fall.

This year, I have 26 plants, all heirloom varieties. They are in
raised beds that are filled with half-and-half compost and topsoil.

I prune my plants so there are 3-4 main stems. I have lots of
foilage, healthy plants, no pests, and lots of green tomatoes.
However
-- only two of my plants are ripening. I have been picking an
occasional ripe tomato from these two plants for 3 weeks; the rest of
the plants show no sign of ripening although they are loaded with
tomatoes.

Any suggestions?

Thanks.
Slow here too in northern DE. I blame the weather as it's been cooler
and rainier than normal.
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/st...merica%20(excl.
%
20Arctic

What the stations worth a look.

It's a small world after all.

Bill

As a global warming skeptic I got on the Heartland Institutes mailing
list and have publication of their study of the temperature measuring
stations in the US. This is part of it:

http://www.surfacestations.org/

There are over 1,200 monitoring stations in the US and so far the group
has looked at 850 of them and found that 89% fail to meet the National
Weather Services site requirements that they must be 30 meters or more
away from an artificial heating or reflecting source.

Satellite data is more reliable:

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/head...d06oct97_1.htm

"Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements
of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no
definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend
that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest
fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made
activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions
from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global
warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower
atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the
temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity."

It would cost a lot of corporate profits to keep "greenhouse gases"
under the equivalent of 450 ppm CO2. It would require life style changes
for everyone as well.

Since none of us has the data, I guess we'll just have to decide which
side we trust. If Frank has chosen the correct side, the rest of us will
look pretty silly. If the Union of Concerned Scientists is right, we
could be looking at a mass extinction (us, among others). So the choice
of the undecideds is, would you rather take a chance on looking silly,
or would you rather take a chance on being extinct?

I just think it is prudent not to jump to conclusions. Suggest reading
Michael Crichton's "State of Fear". We all want a clean environment and
conservation of resources but draconian moves like the cap and trade
bill do little in this direction other than more government control.
Individual scientists continue to question and evaluate data while large
scientific organizations, like the American Chemical Society which I
belong to, tend to be very political.

Frank

I must admit that I am no expert on "Global Warming". I would just be
happy (at least in the short run), if I could just figure out what is
messin' my melons. I have looked into the subject, mostly superficially
(there is only so much time), and from what I see, Global Warming is
accepted by the "Union of Concerned Scientists" (UCS), and "Scientific
American". If these scientists had investments in, say, parasol futures,
my doubts would be raised, but that doesn't seem to be the case. If you
have a response to my logic, from the last post (see above), I would
like to hear it. Until then, it remain my position.

You say read Crichton, and the UCS has a page devoted to rebutting him
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...lobal_warming_
contrarians/crichton-thriller-state-of.html
I only have so much time to research a question, and I feel that I have
spent mine. If someone says, "Here's the answer", for sure I'll read it.
Normally, I turn to some authority I trust, like the "League of Women
Voters" for voting, or the USC on scientific matters.

If you have time to go through the UCS website on "Global Warming"
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/, and can come up with holes in
their arguments, I would love to hear them. What time I have to study,
is mostly being spent in studying GMOs, and the physiological effects of
statins. Then there is the "job" which starts in ten days, which always
cramps my life style.

My take on why it is cooler here. Read somewhere as the ice melts it
exposes soil which can hold the solar gain so why not hotter now? Well
it seem the solar gain heat also melts the ice which runs off to the
ocean. Water lever rise imperceptible but something else occurs.

Ocean salinity is decreased which is no big deal. But the ocean
ability to hold heat is related to salinity. So we get cooler and
fluctuations . Think heat sink being effected.

Gabbing Bill.... look at below url on left side for Global Warming
stuff.

http://www.whoi.edu/

--

Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA