| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
On Microclimates
http://www.emmitsburg.net/gardens/ar...roclimates.htm or http://thurly.net/148z Just some ideas on how to protect or enhance or inhibit plant growth. In a way your home can save energy using similar info. -- Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden http://uppitywis.org/ live WI |
On Microclimates
yes it all starts with knowing about and being able to identify the
aspects of the land, ie.,. northern hemi' ideal would be a southern aspect around to eastern. add some knowledge of average weather conditions eg.,. rainfall an you can have a producing garden in an area that say gets more rain than other near by places. then the right sort of house needs to be built for the climate area so it is truely efficient to run. lots of stumbling block in there as many have no idea to even look for aspect let alone what it is, and outside the indoctrinated mcmansion designs very many won't look at altenatives. so when buying property use the head and not the heart, the heart can come later, develop a criteria. the orientation of the house on the property counts. On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:50:00 -0400, Bill who putters wrote: -- Matthew 25:13 KJV "Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh" Mark 13:33 "Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is". and also: Isaiah 38:1&17-18 KJV 1: Thus saith the Lord, set thine house in order: for thou shalt die and not live. 17: for thou hast cast all my sins behind my back. 18: For the grave cannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee: they that go down in the pit cannot hope for truth. len With peace and brightest of blessings, "Seek truth and understanding will follow" http://www.lensgarden.com.au/ |
On Microclimates
Bill who putters wrote:
http://www.emmitsburg.net/gardens/ar...roclimates.htm or http://thurly.net/148z Just some ideas on how to protect or enhance or inhibit plant growth. In a way your home can save energy using similar info. Some good basic information there but as is so often the case the author fails the international community by not considering which hemisphere the garden is in. David |
On Microclimates
gardenlen wrote:
yes it all starts with knowing about and being able to identify the aspects of the land, ie.,. northern hemi' ideal would be a southern aspect around to eastern. add some knowledge of average weather conditions eg.,. rainfall an you can have a producing garden in an area that say gets more rain than other near by places. then the right sort of house needs to be built for the climate area so it is truely efficient to run. lots of stumbling block in there as many have no idea to even look for aspect let alone what it is, and outside the indoctrinated mcmansion designs very many won't look at altenatives. so when buying property use the head and not the heart, the heart can come later, develop a criteria. the orientation of the house on the property counts. Quite right Len. So many houses, even newly erected, contain basic errors that could easily be avoided. For example, they are oriented towards the street or the view not the sun, or in hot climates they have unshaded sunward windows. I know of people who are saving money by not including insulation but they worry whether the portico should have Ionic or Corinthian columns, of course they plan for aircon to deal with their design errors. Such carelessness and ignorance will come back and bite them and their heirs and successors. Something else to consider is using the garden to improve the house. It is common for people to assume that this means only the aspect and decorating concepts such as linking the outdoors into the house. The plants that you grow can do all that as well as improving the thermal performance of the house. For example you can shade a sun-facing window in summer but allow in the sun in winter by having a trellis with a deciduous vine over it. David |
On Microclimates
In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote: Bill who putters wrote: http://www.emmitsburg.net/gardens/ar...roclimates.htm or http://thurly.net/148z Just some ideas on how to protect or enhance or inhibit plant growth. In a way your home can save energy using similar info. Some good basic information there but as is so often the case the author fails the international community by not considering which hemisphere the garden is in. David Having a bad day? -- - Billy "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_vN0--mHug http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw |
On Microclimates
Billy wrote:
In article , "David Hare-Scott" wrote: Bill who putters wrote: http://www.emmitsburg.net/gardens/ar...roclimates.htm or http://thurly.net/148z Just some ideas on how to protect or enhance or inhibit plant growth. In a way your home can save energy using similar info. Some good basic information there but as is so often the case the author fails the international community by not considering which hemisphere the garden is in. David Having a bad day? There are cases where hemisphere is not important but not this time. It's a fairly fundamental error in the context of microclimates. Unless you already understand what is going on and are used to making the switch the article in question is going to be misleading. Either the author doesn't get this herself or she is being parochial and only addressing the northern hemisphere. David |
On Microclimates
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:06:30 +1100, "David Hare-Scott"
wrote: gardenlen wrote: yes it all starts with knowing about and being able to identify the aspects of the land, ie.,. northern hemi' ideal would be a southern aspect around to eastern. add some knowledge of average weather conditions eg.,. rainfall an you can have a producing garden in an area that say gets more rain than other near by places. then the right sort of house needs to be built for the climate area so it is truely efficient to run. lots of stumbling block in there as many have no idea to even look for aspect let alone what it is, and outside the indoctrinated mcmansion designs very many won't look at altenatives. so when buying property use the head and not the heart, the heart can come later, develop a criteria. the orientation of the house on the property counts. Quite right Len. So many houses, even newly erected, contain basic errors that could easily be avoided. For example, they are oriented towards the street or the view not the sun, or in hot climates they have unshaded sunward windows. I know of people who are saving money by not including insulation but they worry whether the portico should have Ionic or Corinthian columns, of course they plan for aircon to deal with their design errors. Such carelessness and ignorance will come back and bite them and their heirs and successors. Something else to consider is using the garden to improve the house. It is common for people to assume that this means only the aspect and decorating concepts such as linking the outdoors into the house. The plants that you grow can do all that as well as improving the thermal performance of the house. For example you can shade a sun-facing window in summer but allow in the sun in winter by having a trellis with a deciduous vine over it. David I admit that we got the best orientation when we bought this house. But it was luck. The house faces the west and we have two very large Oak trees in the front yard. The deck is on the back and gets the morning sun. By late afternoon the deck is completely shaded and comfortable unless the day is extremely hot. We got one of the sunshade awnings and roll it out early in the day to keep the heat out of the kitchen and family room. If I were looking for a building lot I would be checking out the orientation and prevailing winds. Then see if I could build the kind of house and orientation I wanted there. If I were planning to garden I would also think about orientation & winds. -- USA North Carolina Foothills USDA Zone 7a |
On Microclimates
The Cook wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:06:30 +1100, "David Hare-Scott" wrote: gardenlen wrote: yes it all starts with knowing about and being able to identify the aspects of the land, ie.,. northern hemi' ideal would be a southern aspect around to eastern. add some knowledge of average weather conditions eg.,. rainfall an you can have a producing garden in an area that say gets more rain than other near by places. then the right sort of house needs to be built for the climate area so it is truely efficient to run. lots of stumbling block in there as many have no idea to even look for aspect let alone what it is, and outside the indoctrinated mcmansion designs very many won't look at altenatives. so when buying property use the head and not the heart, the heart can come later, develop a criteria. the orientation of the house on the property counts. Quite right Len. So many houses, even newly erected, contain basic errors that could easily be avoided. For example, they are oriented towards the street or the view not the sun, or in hot climates they have unshaded sunward windows. I know of people who are saving money by not including insulation but they worry whether the portico should have Ionic or Corinthian columns, of course they plan for aircon to deal with their design errors. Such carelessness and ignorance will come back and bite them and their heirs and successors. Something else to consider is using the garden to improve the house. It is common for people to assume that this means only the aspect and decorating concepts such as linking the outdoors into the house. The plants that you grow can do all that as well as improving the thermal performance of the house. For example you can shade a sun-facing window in summer but allow in the sun in winter by having a trellis with a deciduous vine over it. David I admit that we got the best orientation when we bought this house. But it was luck. The house faces the west and we have two very large Oak trees in the front yard. The deck is on the back and gets the morning sun. By late afternoon the deck is completely shaded and comfortable unless the day is extremely hot. We got one of the sunshade awnings and roll it out early in the day to keep the heat out of the kitchen and family room. You may have got the best aspect for your deck but not for the overall thermal performance of the house. In temperate zones the best aspect is that the long sides of the house face north and south. In your climate you would be missing out on getting winter sun into the house which will add to your heating bills. If I were looking for a building lot I would be checking out the orientation and prevailing winds. Then see if I could build the kind of house and orientation I wanted there. If I were planning to garden I would also think about orientation & winds. Certainly. David |
On Microclimates
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
... Bill who putters wrote: http://www.emmitsburg.net/gardens/ar...roclimates.htm or http://thurly.net/148z Just some ideas on how to protect or enhance or inhibit plant growth. In a way your home can save energy using similar info. Some good basic information there but as is so often the case the author fails the international community by not considering which hemisphere the garden is in. LOL. As a result of wandering round the Net, I've become convinced that Geography is either ineffectively taught, or not taught at all in USian schools. |
On Microclimates
"Billy" wrote in message
"David Hare-Scott" wrote: Bill who putters wrote: http://www.emmitsburg.net/gardens/ar...roclimates.htm or http://thurly.net/148z Just some ideas on how to protect or enhance or inhibit plant growth. In a way your home can save energy using similar info. Some good basic information there but as is so often the case the author fails the international community by not considering which hemisphere the garden is in. David Having a bad day? So much for critical analysis............... |
On Microclimates
FarmI wrote:
LOL. As a result of wandering round the Net, I've become convinced that Geography is either ineffectively taught, or not taught at all in USian schools. I vote for taught but completely forgotten after the test by the majority of students. Consider the TV show "Are you smarter than a fifth grader?" to see how much most forget. How much school stuff should be retained? Vastly more than is by most. How much effort should be spent at imporoving the median retention? I have no idea. I remember enough of the material that I am amazed at what folks don't know. |
On Microclimates
Doug Freyburger wrote:
FarmI wrote: LOL. As a result of wandering round the Net, I've become convinced that Geography is either ineffectively taught, or not taught at all in USian schools. I vote for taught but completely forgotten after the test by the majority of students. Consider the TV show "Are you smarter than a fifth grader?" to see how much most forget. How much school stuff should be retained? Vastly more than is by most. How much effort should be spent at imporoving the median retention? I have no idea. I remember enough of the material that I am amazed at what folks don't know. I am sure that forgetting large amounts of material we were taught in schools happens everywhere. One of my concerns is with attitudes to facts and learning rather than data retention. Do schools effectively teach good attitudes to verifying facts and claims? To me this is an essential skill for life because we are constantly bombarded by advertisers, politicians and the like who want us to believe their view of things. Evaluating claims requires the will and the skills to acquire facts and opinions. Having done so if you forget some of the facts this is not such a big deal in comparison with those who never bother and just accept and pass on opinions somebody has handed them or they feel emotionally comfortable with. Getting back on topic, we see plenty of unverified "facts" presented in gardening and by gardeners. Who was it (Mark Twain??) who said " the problem with folks isn't what they don't know it's what they know that just ain't so". David |
On Microclimates
"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
... FarmI wrote: LOL. As a result of wandering round the Net, I've become convinced that Geography is either ineffectively taught, or not taught at all in USian schools. I vote for taught but completely forgotten after the test by the majority of students. Consider the TV show "Are you smarter than a fifth grader?" to see how much most forget. How much school stuff should be retained? Vastly more than is by most. How much effort should be spent at imporoving the median retention? I have no idea. I remember enough of the material that I am amazed at what folks don't know. :-)) I'm amazed too - and especially that so much of the compulsory subject matter didn't seem to penetrate some skulls. I was listening to a radio quizz the other night and the question asked was: What was the relationship between Ophelia and Laertes and give the name of the Shakespearian play in which they appeared? The answers astounded me. In the end the compere had to give so many hints about the realtionship that he effectivley gave the person the answer, but then she couldn't manage to produce the name of the play. She said Grapes of Wrath. Another guess was something just as equally impossible and by an another American author although that guess was actually a play rather than a novel. Of the actual Shakespearean plays the offerings were Romeo and Juliet, Othello (at least there was one tragedy mentioned), Much ado about nothing, Midsummer's Night Dream and a couple of others. It was gobbsmackingly depressing that it took so long and that so many people couldn't answer or bowed out and even attempt to answer. |
On Microclimates
FarmI wrote:
"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message ... FarmI wrote: LOL. As a result of wandering round the Net, I've become convinced that Geography is either ineffectively taught, or not taught at all in USian schools. I vote for taught but completely forgotten after the test by the majority of students. Consider the TV show "Are you smarter than a fifth grader?" to see how much most forget. How much school stuff should be retained? Vastly more than is by most. How much effort should be spent at imporoving the median retention? I have no idea. I remember enough of the material that I am amazed at what folks don't know. :-)) I'm amazed too - and especially that so much of the compulsory subject matter didn't seem to penetrate some skulls. I was listening to a radio quizz the other night and the question asked was: What was the relationship between Ophelia and Laertes and give the name of the Shakespearian play in which they appeared? The answers astounded me. In the end the compere had to give so many hints about the realtionship that he effectivley gave the person the answer, but then she couldn't manage to produce the name of the play. She said Grapes of Wrath. Another guess was something just as equally impossible and by an another American author although that guess was actually a play rather than a novel. Of the actual Shakespearean plays the offerings were Romeo and Juliet, Othello (at least there was one tragedy mentioned), Much ado about nothing, Midsummer's Night Dream and a couple of others. It was gobbsmackingly depressing that it took so long and that so many people couldn't answer or bowed out and even attempt to answer. There is a difference between not knowing your Shakespeare and voting for candidates who want to invade a country that you cannot find on a map and know nothing about. David |
On Microclimates
In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote: Doug Freyburger wrote: FarmI wrote: LOL. As a result of wandering round the Net, I've become convinced that Geography is either ineffectively taught, or not taught at all in USian schools. I vote for taught but completely forgotten after the test by the majority of students. Consider the TV show "Are you smarter than a fifth grader?" to see how much most forget. How much school stuff should be retained? Vastly more than is by most. How much effort should be spent at imporoving the median retention? I have no idea. I remember enough of the material that I am amazed at what folks don't know. I am sure that forgetting large amounts of material we were taught in schools happens everywhere. One of my concerns is with attitudes to facts and learning rather than data retention. Do schools effectively teach good attitudes to verifying facts and claims? To me this is an essential skill for life because we are constantly bombarded by advertisers, politicians and the like who want us to believe their view of things. Evaluating claims requires the will and the skills to acquire facts and opinions. Having done so if you forget some of the facts this is not such a big deal in comparison with those who never bother and just accept and pass on opinions somebody has handed them or they feel emotionally comfortable with. Getting back on topic, we see plenty of unverified "facts" presented in gardening and by gardeners. Who was it (Mark Twain??) who said " the problem with folks isn't what they don't know it's what they know that just ain't so". David http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...y_of_maryland_ study_shows.html?cat=9 University of Maryland Study Shows Watching Fox News Makes You Ignorant A study conducted by the University of Maryland gives credence to the view that Fox News is anything but, and is really a propaganda machine meant to further a right wing agenda. ----- Uh, he's one of yours, isn't he? If you like weekends, thank a union. -- --------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw |
On Microclimates
Billy wrote:
University of Maryland Study Shows Watching Fox News Makes You Ignorant A study conducted by the University of Maryland gives credence to the view that Fox News is anything but, and is really a propaganda machine meant to further a right wing agenda. My entire family except me are strong fundamental Christians. I am an atheist with strong ties to science. Almost everyone in my family believes in the Ptolemaic system where I believe in the Copernican system. I would ask them if the Sun was the center of the solar system, they all stated the earth was the center because they could see the sun move. And the bible states that the Sun stood still, so how could it be the center if it did not move. They laugh at me and laugh at the scientific types as being stupid... It is a sad world... I am also out numbered. Religious people refuse to believe in global warming, because the bible states that God would not destroy the earth with water again and refuse to believe that the poles are melting. They dismiss pollution because they believe God will create a new planet for them when Jesus Christ returns. I have two minister nephews that went to Christian universities at have PHD's in theology and they believe in the crap listed above! They believe in the literal translation of the bible. They all watch Glen Beck and believe in the crap he spews. Religious people have no concept of logical reasoning, they believe in what the religious authorities tell them without question. They all belong to the so called "archery" classes. But in reality the teach kids as young as six years old to use guns. They teach them propaganda like the government is going to take away their second amendment rights. The list goes on and they are not the few they are in the many, in the thousands. This is one reason why I want to be alone. I cannot stand my family or others like them. -- Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan) |
On Microclimates
Nad R wrote:
My entire family except me are strong fundamental Christians. I am an atheist with strong ties to science. Just to check - When I read this what I see is you reject one actively anti-rational religion and become an atheist without seeming to notice that there are a ton of other religious options out there. How is that a rational approach? It's the major weakness of many atheists than runs like this - 1) Assume there is only one valid religion in the world. Ignore that this is a false basic assumption that allows the claims of that one religion to dictate the terms. 2) Find flaws in that one religion and thus reject all religions. Become an atheist rather than even address that the competition exists. 3) Never notice that the question of addressing deity has little or nothing to do with the question of which religion, if any, to use as a framework for that. For that matter never notice that there are religions that don't much care if you actually believe in deity or not. There are only two religions out there that are actively irrational. They happen to be the two with the largest populations but "eat crap, a trillion flies can't be wrong" is false in pretty much every group other than a gardening one with composters in it. If you have such objections to Christianity I figure you're not going to convert to Islam in reaction to the irrationality of Christianity. Science addresses the how. Religion addresses the why. To go without religion is to throw away ages of why and reinvent the wheel yourself. To change to a different religion is to chose among why's that have centuries or millinnia of working on specific why's. They laugh at me and laugh at the scientific types as being stupid... So look at the grillion other religions that have zero conflict with science. This is a gardening group so consider one of the many nature based religions. At one point I asked Thor if he cared how people followed him. Thor is very good about being there but not so good at paying attention to questions. After about a year of repeating the question he finally came back with a shrugging "followers are good" "have another ale". I conclude from that that it doesn't much matter if you decide to follow his nature based system versus one of the many others. But you don't seem to have noticed that options exist at all. Religious people refuse to believe in global warming ... This one I have trouble accepting. Century old photos and year old photos of pretty much any glacier in the world make the conclusion so trivial. What I have trouble accepting is the irrationality of the stance of ignoring such simple and overwhleming evidence. On the other hand I am also very slow about my stance on the degree of human input. But my being behind the times on degree of human influence changes little in how I would approach the issue. I do have objections to how folks are reaction to the fact of climate change. In the 900s cattle were ranched on Greenland so it's clear the current records don't go very far back. But Greenland was settled in a period of global warming that was clearly warmer than we are right now. Exactly how bad was it to be able to ranch cattle on Greenland? This matters on why I am slow to evolve my stance on the degree of human contribution - There was not much human contribution in those centuries compared to now. Reading history books says it was a time of extreme social change. Ah hah, there's the political motivation right there. Folks are grabbing for power at a time near the beginning of extreme social change. They want time to build momentum and use leverage. Clearly it's not about whether global warming is happening but about who will be in power and what they will do with that power. That means their degree of sincerity is extremely crucial. Folks calling themselves environmentalists who are anti-nuke, check, very low degree of rationality and thus very low degree of sincerity. Billy has dived face first into that political fray. What's wrong with ranching cattle on Greenland? What's wrong with letting the social change as it will as the USDA zones move? Why bother with an irrational religion that battles with science when there are rational religions with zero conflict with science that are nature based? |
On Microclimates
Doug Freyburger wrote:
There are only two religions out there that are actively irrational. Another irrational statement from a religious person. Science addresses the how. Religion addresses the why. Science addresses the why. Engineering addresses the how. Religion is just pure nonsense. Not needed at all. So look at the grillion other religions that have zero conflict with science. Science and Religion is like oil and water, they do not mix. I do have objections to how folks are reaction to the fact of climate change. Of course you do, most religious people are, they believe god will protect them and save us all. While destroying our environment until Jesus returns... Oh Brother! Folks calling themselves environmentalists who are anti-nuke. Yea, yea, God will protect us all. I have no faith in Nukes or your God! Why bother with an irrational religion that battles with science when there are rational religions "Rational Religions"? That is an Oxymoron statement like "Pretty Ugly". I see I cannot escape the religious nuts even on Usenet. This is last of this religious debate and will i not respond further as a waste of time. -- Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan) |
On Microclimates
In article ,
Nad R wrote: Billy wrote: http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...y_of_maryland_ study_shows.html?cat=9 University of Maryland Study Shows Watching Fox News Makes You Ignorant A study conducted by the University of Maryland gives credence to the view that Fox News is anything but, and is really a propaganda machine meant to further a right wing agenda. My entire family except me are strong fundamental Christians. I am an atheist with strong ties to science. Almost everyone in my family believes in the Ptolemaic system where I believe in the Copernican system. I would ask them if the Sun was the center of the solar system, they all stated the earth was the center because they could see the sun move. And the bible states that the Sun stood still, so how could it be the center if it did not move. They laugh at me and laugh at the scientific types as being stupid... It is a sad world... I am also out numbered. Religious people refuse to believe in global warming, because the bible states that God would not destroy the earth with water again and refuse to believe that the poles are melting. They dismiss pollution because they believe God will create a new planet for them when Jesus Christ returns. I have two minister nephews that went to Christian universities at have PHD's in theology and they believe in the crap listed above! They believe in the literal translation of the bible. They all watch Glen Beck and believe in the crap he spews. Religious people have no concept of logical reasoning, they believe in what the religious authorities tell them without question. They all belong to the so called "archery" classes. But in reality the teach kids as young as six years old to use guns. They teach them propaganda like the government is going to take away their second amendment rights. The list goes on and they are not the few they are in the many, in the thousands. This is one reason why I want to be alone. I cannot stand my family or others like them. It is strange, once progressive, Kansas is now part of the "Bible Belt". I'm happy that they are consoled by their faith, but dismayed that they disregard science, also in the name of faith. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/15/op...t.html?pagewan ted=1 Believe It, or Not By Nicholas D. Kristof New York Times, Friday, August 15, 2003 Today marks the Roman Catholics' Feast of the Assumption, honoring the moment that they believe God brought the Virgin Mary into Heaven. So here's a fact appropriate for the day: Americans are three times as likely to believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus (83 percent) as in evolution (28 percent). Then the 'faithful" take a huge flying "leap of faith". Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free by Charles P. Pierce http://www.amazon.com/Idiot-America-...e/dp/076792615 3/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1299029037&sr=1-1 (Available at better libraries near you.) INTRODUCTION Dinosaurs with Saddles (August 2005) There IS some art—you might even say design—in the way southern Ohio rolls itself into the hills of northern Ken- tucky. The hills build gently under you as you leave the interstate. The roads narrow beneath a cool and thickening can- opy as they wind through the leafy outer precincts of Hebron, a small Kentucky town named, as it happens, for the place near Jerusalem where the Bible tells us that David was anointed the king of the Israelites. This resulted in great literature and no lit- tle bloodshed, which is the case with a great deal of Scripture. At the top of the hill, just past the Idlewild Concrete plant, there was an unfinished wall with an unfinished gate in the mid- dle of it. Happy, smiling people trickled in through the gate on a fine summer's morning, one minivan at a time. They parked in whatever shade they could find, which was not much. They were almost uniformly white and almost uniformly bubbly. Their cars came from Kentucky and Tennessee and Ohio and Illinois and from as far away as New Brunswick, in the Cana- 2 Introduction dian Maritimes. There were elderly couples in shorts, suburban families piling out of the minivans, the children all Wrinkle Re- sistant and Stain Released. All of them wandered off, chattering and waving and stopping every few steps for pictures, toward a low-slung building that seemed to be the most finished part of the complex. Outside, several of them stopped to be interviewed by a video crew. They had come from Indiana, one woman said, two impatient toddlers pulling at her arms, because they had been homeschooling their children and they'd given them this adven- ture as a field trip. The whole group then bustled into the lobby of the building, where they were greeted by the long neck of a huge, herbivorous dinosaur. The kids ran past it and around the corner, where stood another, smaller dinosaur. "Which was wearing a saddle. It was an English saddle, hornless and battered. Apparently, this was a dinosaur that performed in dressage competitions and stakes races. Any dinosaur accustomed to the rigors of ranch work and herding other dinosaurs along the dusty trail almost certainly would have worn a sturdy western saddle. This, obviously, was very much a show dinosaur. The dinosaurs were the first things you saw when you en- tered the Creation Museum, the dream child of an Australian named Ken Ham, who is the founder of Answers in Genesis, the worldwide organization for which the museum is meant to be the headquarters. The people here on this day were on a special tour. They'd paid $149 to become "charter members" of the museum. "Dinosaurs," Ham said, laughing, as he posed for pictures with his honored guests, "always get the kids interested." AiG is dedicated to the proposition that the biblical story of the creation of the world is inerrant in every word. Which Dinosaurs with Saddles (August 2005) 3 means, in this interpretation, and among other things, that di- nosaurs co-existed with humans (hence the saddles), that there were dinosaurs in Eden, and that Noah, who certainly had enough on his hands, had to load two brachiosaurs onto the Ark along with his wife, his sons, and his sons' wives, to say nothing of the green ally-gators and the long-necked geese and the humpty-backed camels and all the rest. (Faced with the obvious question of how Noah kept his 300-by-30-by-50-cubit Ark from sinking under the weight of the dinosaur couples, Ham's literature argues that the dinosaurs on the Ark were young ones, who thus did not weigh as much as they might have.) "We," announced Ham, "are taking the dinosaurs back from the evolutionists!" And everybody cheered. This was a serious crowd. They gathered in the museum's auditorium and took copious notes while Ham described the great victory won not long before in Oklahoma, where city offi- cials had announced a decision—which they would later reverse, alas—to put up a display based on Genesis at the city's zoo so as to eliminate the discrimination long inflicted upon sensitive Christians by the statue of the Hindu god Ganesh that deco- rated the elephant exhibit. They listened intently as Ham went on, drawing a straight line from Adam's fall to our godless pub- lic schools, from Charles Darwin to gay marriage. He talked about the great triumph of running Ganesh out of the elephant paddock and they all cheered again. The heart of the museum would take the form of a long walkway down which patrons would be able to journey through the entire creation story. The walkway was in only the earliest stages of construction. On this day, for example, one young art- ist was working on a scale model of a planned exhibit depicting the day on which Adam named all the creatures of the earth. 4 Introduction Adam was depicted in the middle of the delicate act of nam- ing the saber-toothed tiger while, behind him, already named, a woolly mammoth seemed on the verge of taking a nap. Elsewhere in the museum, another Adam, this one full-sized, was reclining peacefully, waiting to be installed. Eventually, he was meant to be placed in a pool under a waterfall. As the figure depicted a prelapsarian Adam, he was completely naked. He also had no penis. This seemed to be a departure from Scripture. If you were willing to stretch Job's description of a "behemoth" to include baby Triceratops on Noah's Ark, as Ham did in his lecture, then surely, since he was being depicted before his fall, Adam should have been out there waving unashamedly in the paradisiacal breezes. For that matter, what was Eve doing there, across the room, with her hair falling just so to cover her breasts and her midsection, as though in a nude scene from some 1950$ Swedish art-house film? After all, Genesis 2:25 clearly says that at this point in their lives, "the man and the woman were both naked, and they were not ashamed." If Adam could sit there courageously unencum- bered while naming the saber-toothed tiger, then why, six thou- sand years later, should he be depicted as a eunuch in some - family-values Eden? And if these people can take away what Scripture says is rightfully his, then why can't Charles Darwin and the accumulated science of the previous hundred and fifty- odd years take away the rest of it? These were impolite questions. Nobody asked them here by the cool pond tucked into the gentle hillside. Increasingly, amazingly, nobody asked them outside the gates, either. It was impolite to wonder why our parents had sent us all to college, and why generations of immigrants had sweated and bled so that their children could be educated, if not so that one day we Dinosaurs with Saddles (August 2005) 5 would feel confident enough to look at a museum full of dino- saurs rigged to run six furlongs at Aqueduct and make the not unreasonable point that it was batshit crazy, and that anyone who believed this righteous hooey should be kept away from sharp objects and their own money. Instead, people go to court over this kind of thing. Dinosaurs with saddles? Dinosaurs on Noah's Ark? Welcome to your new Eden. Welcome to Idiot America. » » » THE title of this book very nearly was Blinking from the Ru- ins, and it very nearly was merely a tour of the extraordinary way America has gone marching backward into the twenty-first century. Unquestionably, part of the process was the shock of having more than three thousand of our fellow citizens killed by medievalist murderers who flew airplanes into buildings in the service of a medieval deity, and thereby prompted the United States, born of Enlightenment values, to seek for itself the me- dieval remedies for which the young country was born too late: Preemptive war. Secret prisons. Torture. Unbridled, unaccount- able executive power. The Christian god was handed Jupiter's thunderbolts, and a president elected by chance and intrigue was dressed in Caesar's robes. People told him he sounded like Churchill when, in fact, he sounded like Churchill's gardener. All of this happened in relative silence, and silence, as Earl Shor- ris writes, is "the unheard speed of a great fall, or the unsounded sigh of acquiescence," that accompanies "all the moments of the descent from democracy." That is why this book is not merely about the changes in 6 Introduction the country wrought by the atrocities of September 11, 2001. The foundations of Idiot America had been laid long before. A confrontation with medievalism intensified a distressing pa- tience with medievalism in response, and that patience reached beyond the politics of war and peace and accelerated a momen- tum in the culture away from the values of the Enlightenment and toward a dangerous denial of the consequences of believing nonsense. Let us take a tour, then, of one brief period in the new cen- tury; a sliver of time three years after the towers fell. A federally funded abstinence program suggests that the human immuno- deficiency virus can be transmitted through tears. An Alabama legislator proposes a bill to ban all books by gay writers. The Texas House of Representatives passes a bill banning sugges- tive cheerleading at high school football games. And the nation doesn't laugh at any of this, as it should, or even point out that, in the latter case, having Texas ban suggestive cheerleading is like having Nebraska ban corn. James Dobson, a prominent Christian conservative spokes- man; compares the Supreme Court of the United States with the Ku Klux Klan. Pat Robertson, another prominent conservative preacher man, says that federal judges are a greater threat to the nation than is Al Qaeda and, apparently taking his text from the Book of Gambino, later sermonizes that the United States should get on the stick and snuff the democratically elected president of Venezuela. And the nation does not wonder, audi- bly, how these two poor fellows were allowed on television. The Congress of the United States intervenes to extend into a televised spectacle the prolonged death of a woman in Florida. The Majority Leader of the Senate, a physician, pronounces a diagnosis from a distance of eight hundred miles, relying for his information on a heavily edited videotape. The majority leader Dinosaurs with Saddles (August 2005) 7 of the House of Representatives, a former exterminator, argues against cutting-edge research into the use of human embryonic stem cells by saying "An embryo is a person. . . . We were all at one time embryos ourselves. So was Abraham. So was Mu- hammad. So was Jesus of Nazareth." Nobody laughs at him, or points out that the same could be said of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or the inventor of the baby-back rib. And finally, in August 2005, the cover of Time—for almost a century, the clear if dyspeptic voice of the American estab- lishment—hems and haws and hacks like an aged headmaster gagging on his sherry and asks, quite seriously, "Does God have a place in science class?" Fights over evolution—and its faddish camouflage, "intel- ligent design," a pseudoscience that posits without proof or method that science is inadequate to explain existence and that supernatural sources must be studied as well—roil through school boards across the country. The president of the United States announces that he believes that ID ought to be taught in the public schools on an equal footing with the theory of evolution. And in Dover, Pennsylvania, during one of these con- troversies, a pastor named Ray Mummert delivers the line that ends our tour and, in every real sense, sums it up. "We've been attacked," he says, "by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture." And there you have it. Idiot America is not the place where people say silly things. It is not the place where people believe in silly things. It is not the place where people go to profit from the fact that people believe in silly things. That America has been with us always— the America of the medicine wagon and the tent revival, the America of the juke joint and the gambling den, the America of lunatic possibility that in its own mad way kept the original 8 Introduction revolutionary spirit alive while an establishment began to cal- cify atop the place. Idiot America isn't even those people who believe that Adam sat down under a tree one day and named all the dinosaurs. Those people pay attention. They take notes. They take time and spend considerable mental effort to con- struct a worldview that is round and complete, just as other Americans did before them. The rise of Idiot America, though, is essentially a war on expertise. It's not so much antimodernism or the distrust of the intellectual elites that Richard Hofstadter teased out of the na- tional DNA, although both of those things are part of it. The rise of Idiot America today reflects—for profit, mainly, but also, and more cynically, for political advantage and in the pursuit of power—the breakdown of the consensus that the pursuit of knowledge is a good. It also represents the ascendancy of the notion that the people we should trust the least are the people who know best what they're talking about. In the new media age, everybody is a historian, or a scientist, or a preacher, or a sage. And if everyone is an expert, then nobody is, and the worst thing you can be in a society where everybody is an expert is, well, an actual expert. This is how Idiot America engages itself. It decides, en masse, with a million keystrokes and clicks of the remote control, that because there are two sides to every question, they both must be right, or at least not wrong. And the words of an obscure biologist carry no more weight on the subject of biology than do the thunderations of some turkeyneck preacher out of the Church of Christ's Own Parking Structure in DeLand, Florida. Less weight, in fact, because our scientist is an "expert" and, therefore, an "elitist." Nobody buys his books. Nobody puts him on cable. He's brilliant, surely, but no different from all the rest of us, poor fool. Dinosaurs with Saddles (August 2005) 9 How does it work? This is how it works. On August 21, 2005, a newspaper account of the intelligent design movement contained this remarkable sentence: "They have mounted a politically savvy challenge to evolution as the bedrock of modern biology, propelling a fringe academic movement onto the front pages and putting Darwin's defenders firmly on the defensive." "A politically savvy challenge to evolution" makes as much sense as conducting a Gallup poll on gravity or running some- one for president on the Alchemy party ticket. It doesn't matter what percentage of people believe that they ought to be able to flap their arms and fly: none of them can. It doesn't matter how many votes your candidate got: he's not going to be able to turn lead into gold. The sentence is so arrantly foolish that the only real news in it is where it appeared. On the front page. Of the New York Times. Consider that the reporter, one Jodi Wilgoren, had to com- pose this sentence. Then she had to type it. Then, more than likely, several editors had to read it. Perhaps even a proofreader had to look it over after it had been placed on the page—the front page—of the Times. Did it occur to none of them that a "politically savvy challenge to evolution" is as self-evidently ridiculous as an "agriculturally savvy" challenge to Euclidean geometry would be? Within three days, there was a panel on the topic on Larry King Live, in which Larry asked the following question: "All right, hold on, Dr. Forrest, your concept of how you can out-and-out turn down creationism, since if evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?" And why, dear Lord, do so many of them host television programs? ----- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...02/15/AR200802 1502901.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR The Dumbing Of America Call Me a Snob, but Really, We're a Nation of Dunces By Susan Jacoby Sunday, February 17, 2008; Page B01 "The mind of this country, taught to aim at low objects, eats upon itself." Ralph Waldo Emerson offered that observation in 1837, but his words echo with painful prescience in today's very different United States. Americans are in serious intellectual trouble -- in danger of losing our hard-won cultural capital to a virulent mixture of anti-intellectualism, anti-rationalism and low expectations. The classic work on this subject by Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter, "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," was published in early 1963, between the anti-communist crusades of the McCarthy era and the social convulsions of the late 1960s. Hofstadter saw American anti-intellectualism as a basically cyclical phenomenon that often manifested itself as the dark side of the country's democratic impulses in religion and education. But today's brand of anti-intellectualism is less a cycle than a flood. If Hofstadter (who died of leukemia in 1970 at age 54) had lived long enough to write a modern-day sequel, he would have found that our era of 24/7 infotainment has outstripped his most apocalyptic predictions about the future of American culture. (cont.) ---- If you like weekends, thank a union. -- -- --------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw |
On Microclimates
In article ,
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: "Billy" wrote in message "David Hare-Scott" wrote: Bill who putters wrote: http://www.emmitsburg.net/gardens/ar...roclimates.htm or http://thurly.net/148z Just some ideas on how to protect or enhance or inhibit plant growth. In a way your home can save energy using similar info. Some good basic information there but as is so often the case the author fails the international community by not considering which hemisphere the garden is in. David Having a bad day? So much for critical analysis............... How about constructive analysis? Enlighten me. What is different for antipodials, except that they want a northern exposure, whereas we want a southern exposure (unless you're a painter, then it is just the inverse). After that, East is still East, and West is still West. Or were you referring to the cursory exposition of the microclimates? Or were you referring to the type of habit where a person says things like,"a gardener would be more efficient, if he . . ."? Or all, or none of the above? Inquiring antipodals want to know. -- - Billy "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_vN0--mHug http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw |
On Microclimates
In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote: Nad R wrote: My entire family except me are strong fundamental Christians. I am an atheist with strong ties to science. Just to check - When I read this what I see is you reject one actively anti-rational religion and become an atheist without seeming to notice that there are a ton of other religious options out there. How is that a rational approach? It's the major weakness of many atheists than runs like this - 1) Assume there is only one valid religion in the world. Ignore that this is a false basic assumption that allows the claims of that one religion to dictate the terms. 2) Find flaws in that one religion and thus reject all religions. Become an atheist rather than even address that the competition exists. 3) Never notice that the question of addressing deity has little or nothing to do with the question of which religion, if any, to use as a framework for that. For that matter never notice that there are religions that don't much care if you actually believe in deity or not. There are only two religions out there that are actively irrational. They happen to be the two with the largest populations but "eat crap, a trillion flies can't be wrong" is false in pretty much every group other than a gardening one with composters in it. If you have such objections to Christianity I figure you're not going to convert to Islam in reaction to the irrationality of Christianity. Science addresses the how. Religion addresses the why. To go without religion is to throw away ages of why and reinvent the wheel yourself. To change to a different religion is to chose among why's that have centuries or millinnia of working on specific why's. They laugh at me and laugh at the scientific types as being stupid... So look at the grillion other religions that have zero conflict with science. This is a gardening group so consider one of the many nature based religions. At one point I asked Thor if he cared how people followed him. Thor is very good about being there but not so good at paying attention to questions. After about a year of repeating the question he finally came back with a shrugging "followers are good" "have another ale". I conclude from that that it doesn't much matter if you decide to follow his nature based system versus one of the many others. But you don't seem to have noticed that options exist at all. Religious people refuse to believe in global warming ... This one I have trouble accepting. Century old photos and year old photos of pretty much any glacier in the world make the conclusion so trivial. What I have trouble accepting is the irrationality of the stance of ignoring such simple and overwhleming evidence. On the other hand I am also very slow about my stance on the degree of human input. But my being behind the times on degree of human influence changes little in how I would approach the issue. I do have objections to how folks are reaction to the fact of climate change. In the 900s cattle were ranched on Greenland so it's clear the current records don't go very far back. But Greenland was settled in a period of global warming that was clearly warmer than we are right now. Exactly how bad was it to be able to ranch cattle on Greenland? This matters on why I am slow to evolve my stance on the degree of human contribution - There was not much human contribution in those centuries compared to now. Reading history books says it was a time of extreme social change. Ah hah, there's the political motivation right there. Folks are grabbing for power at a time near the beginning of extreme social change. They want time to build momentum and use leverage. Clearly it's not about whether global warming is happening but about who will be in power and what they will do with that power. That means their degree of sincerity is extremely crucial. Folks calling themselves environmentalists who are anti-nuke, check, very low degree of rationality and thus very low degree of sincerity. Billy has dived face first into that political fray. What's wrong with ranching cattle on Greenland? What's wrong with letting the social change as it will as the USDA zones move? Why bother with an irrational religion that battles with science when there are rational religions with zero conflict with science that are nature based? Somebody call? It's called arrogance to say you know something, when you have no proof one way, or the other. A theist claims certainty. An atheist claims certainty. We agnostics see no proof one way or another. Theism, and atheism are both a matter of faith. As far as global warming goes, I'm down with dairy ranching in Greenland, but when California's Central Valley floods because of rising sea levels, where are you going to get your produce then? -- And then there is living(?) with Global Warming. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...eID=00037A5 D -A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000 October 2006 Scientific American Magazine Impact from the Deep Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions. Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again? By Peter D. Ward . . . In today's oceans, oxygen is present in essentially equal concentrations from top to bottom because it dissolves from the atmosphere into the water and is carried downward by ocean circulation. Only under unusual circumstances, such as those that exist in the Black Sea, do anoxic conditions below the surface permit a wide variety of oxygen-hating organisms to thrive in the water column. Those deep-dwelling anaerobic microbes churn out copious amounts of hydrogen sulfide, which also dissolves into the seawater. As its concentration builds, the H2S diffuses upward, where it encounters oxygen diffusing downward. So long as their balance remains undisturbed, the oxygenated and hydrogen sulfide-saturated waters stay separated, and their interface, known as the chemocline, is stable. Typically the green and purple sulfur bacteria live in that chemocline, enjoying the supply of H2S from below and sunlight from above. Yet calculations by geoscientists Lee R. Kump and Michael A. Arthur of Pennsylvania State University have shown that if oxygen levels drop in the oceans, conditions begin to favor the deep-sea anaerobic bacteria, which proliferate and produce greater amounts of hydrogen sulfide. In their models, if the deepwater H2S concentrations were to increase beyond a critical threshold during such an interval of oceanic anoxia, then the chemocline separating the H2S-rich deepwater from oxygenated surface water could have floated up to the top abruptly. The horrific result would be great bubbles of toxic H2S gas erupting into the atmosphere. Their studies indicate that enough H2S was produced by such ocean upwellings at the end of the Permian to cause extinctions both on land and in the sea. And this strangling gas would not have been the only killer. Models by Alexander Pavlov of the University of Arizona show that the H2S would also have attacked the planet's ozone shield, an atmospheric layer that protects life from the sun's ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Evidence that such a disruption of the ozone layer did happen at the end of the Permian exists in fossil spores from Greenland, which display deformities known to result from extended exposure to high UV levels. Today we can also see that underneath "holes" in the ozone shield, especially in the Antarctic, the biomass of phytoplankton rapidly decreases. And if the base of the food chain is destroyed, it is not long until the organisms higher up are in desperate straits as well. Kump and Arthur estimate that the amount of H2S gas entering the late Permian atmosphere from the oceans was more than 2,000 times the small amount given off by volcanoes today. Enough of the toxic gas would have permeated the atmosphere to have killed both plants and animals--particularly because the lethality of H2S increases with temperature. And several large and small mass extinctions seem to have occurred during short intervals of global warming. That is where the ancient volcanic activity may have come in. Around the time of multiple mass extinctions, major volcanic events are known to have extruded thousands of square kilometers of lava onto the land or the seafloor. A by-product of this tremendous volcanic outpouring would have been enormous volumes of carbon dioxide and methane entering the atmosphere, which would have caused rapid global warming. During the latest Permian and Triassic as well as in the early Jurassic, middle Cretaceous and late Paleocene, among other periods, the carbon-isotope record confirms that CO2 concentrations skyrocketed immediately before the start of the extinctions and then stayed high for hundreds of thousands to a few million years. (cont.) ---- The above article refers to CO2 in the 1000 ppm range. We are coming up on 400 ppm presently. --- If you like weekends, thank a union. === -- --------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw |
On Microclimates
In article ,
Nad R wrote: Doug Freyburger wrote: There are only two religions out there that are actively irrational. Another irrational statement from a religious person. Science addresses the how. Religion addresses the why. Science addresses the why. Engineering addresses the how. Religion is just pure nonsense. Not needed at all. So look at the grillion other religions that have zero conflict with science. Science and Religion is like oil and water, they do not mix. I do have objections to how folks are reaction to the fact of climate change. Of course you do, most religious people are, they believe god will protect them and save us all. While destroying our environment until Jesus returns... Oh Brother! Folks calling themselves environmentalists who are anti-nuke. Yea, yea, God will protect us all. I have no faith in Nukes or your God! Why bother with an irrational religion that battles with science when there are rational religions "Rational Religions"? That is an Oxymoron statement like "Pretty Ugly". I see I cannot escape the religious nuts even on Usenet. This is last of this religious debate and will i not respond further as a waste of time. In the introduction to Cat's Cradel, Kurt Vonnegut says,"If you can't understand how a perfectly good religion can be based on a pack of lies, then you probably shouldn't read this book". Let me assure you, Nad, that Doug is one of the "good guys". If you haven't already listened to it, you'd probably enjoy the last URL below. If you like weekends, thank a union. == -- --------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw |
On Microclimates
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
FarmI wrote: "Doug Freyburger" wrote in message ... FarmI wrote: LOL. As a result of wandering round the Net, I've become convinced that Geography is either ineffectively taught, or not taught at all in USian schools. I vote for taught but completely forgotten after the test by the majority of students. Consider the TV show "Are you smarter than a fifth grader?" to see how much most forget. How much school stuff should be retained? Vastly more than is by most. How much effort should be spent at imporoving the median retention? I have no idea. I remember enough of the material that I am amazed at what folks don't know. :-)) I'm amazed too - and especially that so much of the compulsory subject matter didn't seem to penetrate some skulls. I was listening to a radio quizz the other night and the question asked was: What was the relationship between Ophelia and Laertes and give the name of the Shakespearian play in which they appeared? The answers astounded me. In the end the compere had to give so many hints about the realtionship that he effectivley gave the person the answer, but then she couldn't manage to produce the name of the play. She said Grapes of Wrath. Another guess was something just as equally impossible and by an another American author although that guess was actually a play rather than a novel. Of the actual Shakespearean plays the offerings were Romeo and Juliet, Othello (at least there was one tragedy mentioned), Much ado about nothing, Midsummer's Night Dream and a couple of others. It was gobbsmackingly depressing that it took so long and that so many people couldn't answer or bowed out and even attempt to answer. There is a difference between not knowing your Shakespeare and voting for candidates who want to invade a country that you cannot find on a map and know nothing about. Indeed, but then we had moved to discussing retention of skool larned material. |
On Microclimates
"Nad R" wrote in message
My entire family except me are strong fundamental Christians. I am an atheist with strong ties to science. Almost everyone in my family believes in the Ptolemaic system where I believe in the Copernican system. I would ask them if the Sun was the center of the solar system, they all stated the earth was the center because they could see the sun move. And the bible states that the Sun stood still, so how could it be the center if it did not move. They laugh at me and laugh at the scientific types as being stupid... It is a sad world... I am also out numbered. Religious people refuse to believe in global warming, because the bible states that God would not destroy the earth with water again and refuse to believe that the poles are melting. They dismiss pollution because they believe God will create a new planet for them when Jesus Christ returns. I have two minister nephews that went to Christian universities at have PHD's in theology and they believe in the crap listed above! They believe in the literal translation of the bible. They all watch Glen Beck and believe in the crap he spews. Religious people have no concept of logical reasoning, they believe in what the religious authorities tell them without question. Are you kidding? |
On Microclimates
FarmI wrote:
"Nad R" wrote in message My entire family except me are strong fundamental Christians. I am an atheist with strong ties to science. Almost everyone in my family believes in the Ptolemaic system where I believe in the Copernican system. I would ask them if the Sun was the center of the solar system, they all stated the earth was the center because they could see the sun move. And the bible states that the Sun stood still, so how could it be the center if it did not move. They laugh at me and laugh at the scientific types as being stupid... It is a sad world... I am also out numbered. Religious people refuse to believe in global warming, because the bible states that God would not destroy the earth with water again and refuse to believe that the poles are melting. They dismiss pollution because they believe God will create a new planet for them when Jesus Christ returns. I have two minister nephews that went to Christian universities at have PHD's in theology and they believe in the crap listed above! They believe in the literal translation of the bible. They all watch Glen Beck and believe in the crap he spews. Religious people have no concept of logical reasoning, they believe in what the religious authorities tell them without question. Are you kidding? Sadly no. The fundamentalist/creationist bible belt of the USA is way beyond anything that that you or I are likely to meet in the flesh. Think of the child of Pauline Hanson and Fred Nile on crystal meth. I am not having a go at religion or Christianity in general but this particular mob are crazy, ignorant and would love to see the world made into a theocracy, with them in charge of course - Christian Taliban. We are way OT so I think I will stop now. D |
On Microclimates
In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote: FarmI wrote: "Nad R" wrote in message My entire family except me are strong fundamental Christians. I am an atheist with strong ties to science. Almost everyone in my family believes in the Ptolemaic system where I believe in the Copernican system. I would ask them if the Sun was the center of the solar system, they all stated the earth was the center because they could see the sun move. And the bible states that the Sun stood still, so how could it be the center if it did not move. They laugh at me and laugh at the scientific types as being stupid... It is a sad world... I am also out numbered. Religious people refuse to believe in global warming, because the bible states that God would not destroy the earth with water again and refuse to believe that the poles are melting. They dismiss pollution because they believe God will create a new planet for them when Jesus Christ returns. I have two minister nephews that went to Christian universities at have PHD's in theology and they believe in the crap listed above! They believe in the literal translation of the bible. They all watch Glen Beck and believe in the crap he spews. Religious people have no concept of logical reasoning, they believe in what the religious authorities tell them without question. Are you kidding? Sadly no. The fundamentalist/creationist bible belt of the USA is way beyond anything that that you or I are likely to meet in the flesh. Think of the child of Pauline Hanson and Fred Nile on crystal meth. I am not having a go at religion or Christianity in general but this particular mob are crazy, ignorant and would love to see the world made into a theocracy, with them in charge of course - Christian Taliban. We are way OT so I think I will stop now. D Remember, we didn't just get criminals, we got the religious wackos too. -- - Billy Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron. - Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_vN0--mHug http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw |
On Microclimates
Billy wrote:
In the introduction to Cat's Cradel, Kurt Vonnegut says,"If you can't understand how a perfectly good religion can be based on a pack of lies, then you probably shouldn't read this book". I always thought you were a hobokenist! It must have been the 250,000 cigarets, 2000 quarts of booze or your three wives that made you say that Billy or your getting confused with Mark Twain with the Bible "being a pack of lies". Let me assure you, Nad, that Doug is one of the "good guys". I am not saying he is or isn't. He did seem to confirm my suspicions. He seemed to support a belief in a God, questioned global warming as being man made and seemed to think nuclear energy is not that harmful to the environment. These are common traits among people. Yes they are exceptions to the rules. However, it is also in my nature to categorize people and their beliefs. After a while when i get some basic information, I can almost always surmise the rest of his or her views. We humans weather you like it or not fall into a few categories therefore can be type casted. -- Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan) |
On Microclimates
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"Nad R" wrote in message My entire family except me are strong fundamental Christians. I am an atheist with strong ties to science. Almost everyone in my family believes in the Ptolemaic system where I believe in the Copernican system. I would ask them if the Sun was the center of the solar system, they all stated the earth was the center because they could see the sun move. And the bible states that the Sun stood still, so how could it be the center if it did not move. They laugh at me and laugh at the scientific types as being stupid... It is a sad world... I am also out numbered. Religious people refuse to believe in global warming, because the bible states that God would not destroy the earth with water again and refuse to believe that the poles are melting. They dismiss pollution because they believe God will create a new planet for them when Jesus Christ returns. I have two minister nephews that went to Christian universities at have PHD's in theology and they believe in the crap listed above! They believe in the literal translation of the bible. They all watch Glen Beck and believe in the crap he spews. Religious people have no concept of logical reasoning, they believe in what the religious authorities tell them without question. Are you kidding? No. -- Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan) |
On Microclimates
Billy wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote: Billy has dived face first into that political fray. What's wrong with ranching cattle on Greenland? What's wrong with letting the social change as it will as the USDA zones move? Why bother with an irrational religion that battles with science when there are rational religions with zero conflict with science that are nature based? Somebody call? Chortle. You and I disagree on politics. Part of the deal. It's what people do. It's called arrogance to say you know something, when you have no proof one way, or the other. A theist claims certainty. An atheist claims certainty. And most atheists claim that certainty based on the errors of one specific religion without even looking at others. That's letting the opposition define the rules in your game. The rest of the religions out there are dismissed out of hand on the false assumption they all make the same mistakes - They don't. As if all other religions address deity at all -They don't. As if all other religions expect their members to believe in the existance of deity - They don't. As if all other religions oppose science - They don't. As if all other religions make the errors of biblical inerrancy or biblical literalism - They don't. To base one's atheism on these points is like dismissing the existance of mountains because you happened to grow up in a flat region with no visible mountains. Or to conclude the world is flat because you've never been high enough to see its curvature youreself. We agnostics see no proof one way or another. Theism, and atheism are both a matter of faith. Going on the objective only, the agnostic approach is the best supported. Until you consider my "They don't" points above. I personally accept, for myself, subjective evidence, knowing full well that by definition subjective evidence is only available to myself and does not apply to others. So I'm not an atheist. Nonetheless I decided to join a religion that does not care if its members are atheists or not. As far as global warming goes, I'm down with dairy ranching in Greenland It's an issue not handled in the currect discussion. While the fact of global warming completely real it demonstrates that our current century is not the warmest of recent times. It demonstrates that the records cited do not go back as far as climate records in general. It also demonstrates that degree of human causation is not the primary issue because humans have done fine in centuries past that were warmer than today. The primary issue is the social change triggered by climate change and what to do about it. The history of Greenland makes it clear that global warming has happened in the past without human input so it's not about that. A point that Nad R hasn't gotten. but when California's Central Valley floods because of rising sea levels, where are you going to get your produce then? Whew it would take a lot of sea level elevation to fill the San Joacin valley! A question for climate geologists - As climate has changed across the last several tens of millions of years, how much has the amount of arable land changed? As the glaciers receded towards the poles the deserts near the equator grew. How close to parity was that change? Right now the USDA zones keep north in the northern hemisphere. How much of that is a reduction of total arable land and how much of that is a change of where the arable land is? And how much of the change in amount of arable land is from other causes of desertification like the human caused ones of deforrestation and irrigation causing gradual salt build up in the soil? The discussion never does seem to address the net change in arable land as the glaciers recede and the deserts grow. Until you start reading Billy's material about building up new soil and that's an indirect reference. |
On Microclimates
In article ,
Nad R wrote: Billy wrote: In the introduction to Cat's Cradel, Kurt Vonnegut says,"If you can't understand how a perfectly good religion can be based on a pack of lies, then you probably shouldn't read this book". I always thought you were a hobokenist! It must have been the 250,000 cigarets, 2000 quarts of booze or your three wives that made you say that Billy or your getting confused with Mark Twain with the Bible "being a pack of lies". Let me assure you, Nad, that Doug is one of the "good guys". I am not saying he is or isn't. He did seem to confirm my suspicions. He seemed to support a belief in a God, questioned global warming as being man made and seemed to think nuclear energy is not that harmful to the environment. These are common traits among people. Yes they are exceptions to the rules. However, it is also in my nature to categorize people and their beliefs. After a while when i get some basic information, I can almost always surmise the rest of his or her views. We humans weather you like it or not fall into a few categories therefore can be type casted. All analogies fall apart at some point. ----- The garden suggests there might be a place where we can meet nature halfway. -- Michael Pollan --- If you like weekends, thank a union. -- --------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw |
On Microclimates
Doug Freyburger wrote:
.... A question for climate geologists - As climate has changed across the last several tens of millions of years, how much has the amount of arable land changed? As the glaciers receded towards the poles the deserts near the equator grew. How close to parity was that change? Right now the USDA zones keep north in the northern hemisphere. How much of that is a reduction of total arable land and how much of that is a change of where the arable land is? And how much of the change in amount of arable land is from other causes of desertification like the human caused ones of deforrestation and irrigation causing gradual salt build up in the soil? The discussion never does seem to address the net change in arable land as the glaciers recede and the deserts grow. Until you start reading Billy's material about building up new soil and that's an indirect reference. a large portion of desertification is from human activities like overgrazing cows/sheep/goats and removing covering forests for crops and firewood. some areas the moisture in the forrests is part of the local weather cycle. remove the forrest, change the weather... some desertland can be reclaimed by doing simple things like lining up rocks on the ground (which stops water from flowing away quickly). soon these lines trap seeds and the plants sprout and that sets up a small windbreak which further protects tree seedlings and gives them a chance to grow. as long as these are not grazed by goats it can go a long ways towards getting some growth going even in very harsh climates. in China they are trying to reforrest some areas, but i'm not sure how much success they've had. i don't think they have enough moisture or organic stuff planted along with the saplings so they bake before they can grow. instead they probably need an approach like the one above that starts small and works up to supporting trees one step at a time. songbird |
On Microclimates
In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote: Billy wrote: Doug Freyburger wrote: Billy has dived face first into that political fray. What's wrong with ranching cattle on Greenland? What's wrong with letting the social change as it will as the USDA zones move? Why bother with an irrational religion that battles with science when there are rational religions with zero conflict with science that are nature based? Somebody call? Chortle. You and I disagree on politics. Part of the deal. It's what people do. It's called arrogance to say you know something, when you have no proof one way, or the other. A theist claims certainty. An atheist claims certainty. And most atheists claim that certainty based on the errors of one specific religion without even looking at others. That's letting the opposition define the rules in your game. The rest of the religions out there are dismissed out of hand on the false assumption they all make the same mistakes - They don't. As if all other religions address deity at all -They don't. As if all other religions expect their members to believe in the existance of deity - They don't. What religion doesn't believe in a divine being that can act in the world? Spirituality is just sensing the interconnectedness of everything. As if all other religions oppose science - They don't. As if all other religions make the errors of biblical inerrancy or biblical literalism - They don't. To base one's atheism on these points is like dismissing the existence of mountains because you happened to grow up in a flat region with no visible mountains. Or to conclude the world is flat because you've never been high enough to see its curvature yourself. Faith isn't proof. Correct me, if I'm wrong, but there has been no metric which proves the existence of God, although atheist have taken LSD and/or psilocybin, and have had spiritual experiences, not Christian, but spiritual none the less. We agnostics see no proof one way or another. Theism, and atheism are both a matter of faith. Going on the objective only, the agnostic approach is the best supported. Until you consider my "They don't" points above. I personally accept, for myself, subjective evidence, knowing full well that by definition subjective evidence is only available to myself and does not apply to others. So I'm not an atheist. Nonetheless I decided to join a religion that does not care if its members are atheists or not. Need some definitions here. An atheistic religion? Spirituality and religiosity aren't exactly the same thing. The former would be constrained by natural laws, the later wouldn't. As far as global warming goes, I'm down with dairy ranching in Greenland It's an issue not handled in the currect discussion. While the fact of global warming completely real it demonstrates that our current century is not the warmest of recent times. It demonstrates that the records cited do not go back as far as climate records in general. It also demonstrates that degree of human causation is not the primary issue because humans have done fine in centuries past that were warmer than today. The primary issue is the social change triggered by climate change and what to do about it. The history of Greenland makes it clear that global warming has happened in the past without human input so it's not about that. A point that Nad R hasn't gotten. but when California's Central Valley floods because of rising sea levels, where are you going to get your produce then? Whew it would take a lot of sea level elevation to fill the San Joacin valley! It's done it before, but it won't be done quickly, if at all. A question for climate geologists - As climate has changed across the last several tens of millions of years, how much has the amount of arable land changed? As the glaciers receded towards the poles the deserts near the equator grew. How close to parity was that change? Right now the USDA zones keep north in the northern hemisphere. How much of that is a reduction of total arable land and how much of that is a change of where the arable land is? And how much of the change in amount of arable land is from other causes of desertification like the human caused ones of deforrestation and irrigation causing gradual salt build up in the soil? The food supply would have to reflect the more tropical nature of the world. The discussion never does seem to address the net change in arable land as the glaciers recede and the deserts grow. Until you start reading Billy's material about building up new soil and that's an indirect reference. High CO2 levels have led to several mass extinctions. Global warming could be more than just inconvenient. -- --------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw |
On Microclimates
Billy wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote: And most atheists claim that certainty based on the errors of one specific religion without even looking at others. That's letting the opposition define the rules in your game. The rest of the religions out there are dismissed out of hand on the false assumption they all make the same mistakes - They don't. As if all other religions address deity at all -They don't. As if all other religions expect their members to believe in the existance of deity - They don't. In this case we have a person who was exposed to toxic religion when young who has rejected religion based on that. Rather like hating all fruit because of being forced to eat brussel sprouts as a child. What religion doesn't believe in a divine being that can act in the world? Buddhism at least. Number three in the list of the big 4 based on worldwide population. There are also plenty of religions where the individual's belief in deity is irrelevant even though the written scripture describes deity as existing. Judaism for exmple. Also Hindu, number four in the list of the big 4 based on worldwide population. Spirituality is just sensing the interconnectedness of everything. Among other aspects. Note that science is a spiritual method in that meaning so the spiritual means more than the religious. To base one's atheism on these points is like dismissing the existence of mountains because you happened to grow up in a flat region with no visible mountains ... Faith isn't proof. Correct. Reading a map and seeing Greenland and thinking that Greenland exists is an act of faith. Reading reports of deity written by others and thinking that deity exists is an act of faith. The difference is in how to convert that faith into conviction. Anyone can take someone else to Greenland. No one can take anyone else to an experience of deity. It's always only real to the individual - Subjective. Correct me, if I'm wrong, but there has been no metric which proves the existence of God, although atheist have taken LSD and/or psilocybin, and have had spiritual experiences, not Christian, but spiritual none the less. There are metrics which disprove the existance of specific gods, none that prove the existance of them. That part of religion is always subjective. There are necessary and sufficient aspects to religion. Belief in deity is sufficient without being necessary. Need some definitions here. An atheistic religion? Buddhism is an entire faith which does not require any address to deity. There are Buddhist sects that do address deity but it is always optional. There are also religions that are theistic in their writings that do not require it of their members. Once you're past Christianity and Islam, numbers one and two in world population, few of the remaining religions make such a requirement even in theory. A question for climate geologists - As climate has changed across the last several tens of millions of years, how much has the amount of arable land changed? As the glaciers receded towards the poles the deserts near the equator grew. How close to parity was that change? The food supply would have to reflect the more tropical nature of the world. Only if the world population does not migrate to reflect the changing location of arable land. Static humanity has never been true and can not be expected to be true now. As the arable land shifts away from the equator so does the human population. Such migrations across history have triggered sigificant social change. The discussion never does seem to address the net change in arable land as the glaciers recede and the deserts grow. Until you start reading Billy's material about building up new soil and that's an indirect reference. High CO2 levels have led to several mass extinctions. Global warming could be more than just inconvenient. Could. Agreed. Human hunting has already triggered a mass extinction. We do need the environmentalist movement. We do need to continue solar cells on their exponential growth until they replace much of the fossil fuel use. We do need to build soil as a part of our farming methods. We do need to plant more trees and slow/stop the net cutting of trees. |
On Microclimates
Doug Freyburger wrote:
It's an issue not handled in the currect discussion. While the fact of global warming completely real it demonstrates that our current century is not the warmest of recent times. It demonstrates that the records cited do not go back as far as climate records in general. It also If there are no temperature records of the past, how do yo know that our century is not the warmest century in "human" history? demonstrates that degree of human causation is not the primary issue because humans have done fine in centuries past that were warmer than today. The primary issue is the social change triggered by climate change and what to do about it. The history of Greenland makes it clear that global warming has happened in the past without human input so it's not about that. A point that Nad R hasn't gotten. When has global warming happened in the past? The planet has had ice ages due to volcanos and possible meteor impacts. When the dust settled, the earth returned to normal temperatures. Because the ice melted does not constitute a global warming, higher than normal temperature.. Note: "faith" means believing in something in which all the facts are not there. Ex: I have "faith"I will find that hot looking woman and have a happy life :) -- Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan) |
On Microclimates
songbird wrote:
a large portion of desertification is from human activities like overgrazing cows/sheep/goats and removing covering forests for crops and firewood. some areas the moisture in the forrests is part of the local weather cycle. remove the forrest, change the weather... Humans have done a large but unknown about of that over the millennia. The Sahara used to be grassland, as was most of central Asia. How much was human grazing and farming and how much was natural climate change? Very hard to tell after the fact. in China they are trying to reforrest some areas, but i'm not sure how much success they've had. i don't think they have enough moisture or organic stuff planted along with the saplings so they bake before they can grow. instead they probably need an approach like the one above that starts small and works up to supporting trees one step at a time. It would need to be done a step at a time. Getting grasses and shrub bushes then building generation to generation. |
On Microclimates
Nad R wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote: It's an issue not handled in the currect discussion. While the fact of global warming completely real it demonstrates that our current century is not the warmest of recent times. It demonstrates that the records cited do not go back as far as climate records in general. It also If there are no temperature records of the past, how do yo know that our century is not the warmest century in "human" history? There are types of records other than direct temperature measurements. Grazing cattle in the Greenland colony is one such measurement. We still can not graze cattle on Greenland therefore the claim that this is the warmest century in the last ten is a weak assertion. The primary issue is the social change triggered by climate change and what to do about it ... A point that Nad R hasn't gotten. That I object to the socialists claiming the topic as theirs and then proceeding to push their agenda based on that claim. I don't buy that the socialist approach is the right way to go. It's not like that approach worked well in the Soviet Union. Global warming is real quite independent of human causation. What to do about it and how to go about it matters. For example, not trying again that which failed in the Soviet Union matters. I do not think that taking the Soviet approach is the way to go. That's not about whether global warming is human caused or not. That's about how to react to global warming irrespective of causation. I think this is my main disagreement with Billy - He favors the socialist approach without explaining why since it failed for the Soviets we should try it again now. When has global warming happened in the past? I already mentioned the Medival warming via the Greenland colony. I will also mention the "Little Ice Age" of the 1300s that killed the Greenland colony and the 1st century AD examples of Caesar Marcus Antonius Aurelius marching his legionary vexellations across the Danube without a bridge to rush to fight against the Panonian revolt. To have two such centuries of global cooling implies at least one more century of global warming before 1000 AD on some sort of human written record that does predate the invention of the thermometer. The planet has had ice ages due to volcanos and possible meteor impacts. When the dust settled, the earth returned to normal temperatures. Because the ice melted does not constitute a global warming, higher than normal temperature.. For the last million years the planet has alternated between warm periods and ice ages. The causes have been more than volcanoes. There is variation in the orbital elipse (greater eccetricity gives harsher winters). There is precession of the equinoxes relative to the orbital elipse (axis aligned with the eccentricity gives wider range of seasons). There are cycles of variation in total solar output that have more effect than orbit/spin interaction. And now there are greenhouse gases from human activity. Remember that under 50 years ago projections of the ice age estimates suggested that the next ice age could start in this century. That the science has changed so in my lifetime tells me it's current projections remain tentative not certain. To someone 20 the projections have not changed in their lifetime. I've also read of very many scientific revolutions across history and the current science remains tentative to me. In the atomic theory of chemistry we now have photographs of atoms. In the genetic/evolutionary theory of biology we now have genetic engineering. In climatology we have a growing database and a concensus among scientists that is new in the last several decades. That's a big difference in uncertainty. We should act like it. Including the parts that are definitely certain like the CO2 release into the atmosphere being huge compared to other eras. Including the fact that the soviet socialist approach has already been shown a failure. Current concensus of scientists is the best data we have but it is a concensus. It doesn't have its equivalent of photographs of individual atoms or Xray crystalography showing the spiral structure of DNA. A cautious approach that acknowledges this difference in quality is not the same as a denial based on religious nonsense. A conservative approach that remembers the fall of the Soviet Union under socialism is not the same as jumping into socialism control because it feels good to be doing something, anything. An understanding that climate change need not be the actual motivation of politicians but rather their leverage to get power is not denial. Plant bushes. Install solar cells. Compost. |
On Microclimates
Doug Freyburger wrote:
There are types of records other than direct temperature measurements. Grazing cattle in the Greenland colony is one such measurement. We still can not graze cattle on Greenland therefore the claim that this is the warmest century in the last ten is a weak assertion. If it is a "week" assertion, then you also cannot state that this is century is not the warmest. This century could be the warmest in a million years. I doubt cattle grazing has been going on for more that a millennia or a good measure of past temperature recordings. That I object to the socialists claiming the topic as theirs and then proceeding to push their agenda based on that claim. I don't buy that the socialist approach is the right way to go. It's not like that approach worked well in the Soviet Union. Global warming is real quite independent of human causation. What to do about it and how to go about it matters. For example, not trying again that which failed in the Soviet Union matters. I do not think that taking the Soviet approach is the way to go. That's not about whether global warming is human caused or not. That's about how to react to global warming irrespective of causation. I think this is my main disagreement with Billy - He favors the socialist approach without explaining why since it failed for the Soviets we should try it again now. I also object that Ultra Right Wing Capitalist claiming the global warming is not man made. That political view is a two way street. Let face it, your belief is on a God, not science. If your wrong and the human race continues on it's reckless path the earth will be very uncomfortable place to live for short term gains. If global warming is not man made what harm is implementing a policy of reducing CO2 and the human population. I think there should be a balance between humans and nature vs destroying nature at a breakneck pace to support a growing population that will consume more and more resources. without a bridge to rush to fight against the Panonian revolt. To have two such centuries of global cooling implies at least one more century of global warming before 1000 AD on some sort of human written record that does predate the invention of the thermometer. I disagree with your presuppositions that global cooling is preceded by a global warming. Their are cooling temperatures in the past followed by normal temperatures. NOT above normal temperatures like today's time. more effect than orbit/spin interaction. And now there are greenhouse gases from human activity. Yes! "And now there are greenhouse gases from human activity". Thank for confirming that global warming ( Greenhouse Gasses ) from human activities. A cautious approach that acknowledges this difference in quality is not the same as a denial based on religious nonsense. A conservative approach that remembers the fall of the Soviet Union under socialism is not the same as jumping into socialism control because it feels good to be doing something, anything. An understanding that climate change need not be the actual motivation of politicians but rather their leverage to get power is not denial. Plant bushes. Install solar cells. Compost. If I understand this correctly, you think that Climate Change is a socialist plot to be used for political power? If so you have have really really gone off the deep end of the Glen Beck World of grand delusions. Yea I half read "Collapse", some of which has interesting theories. But I do not buy it completely. This video may be of some interest here. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ja..._collapse.html -- Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan) |
On Microclimates
In article ,
Nad R wrote: Doug Freyburger wrote: It's an issue not handled in the currect discussion. While the fact of global warming completely real it demonstrates that our current century is not the warmest of recent times. It demonstrates that the records cited do not go back as far as climate records in general. It also If there are no temperature records of the past, how do yo know that our century is not the warmest century in "human" history? demonstrates that degree of human causation is not the primary issue because humans have done fine in centuries past that were warmer than today. The primary issue is the social change triggered by climate change and what to do about it. The history of Greenland makes it clear that global warming has happened in the past without human input so it's It appears to be more global cooling than global warming, as you might expect considering the fiery origins of the planet. not about that. A point that Nad R hasn't gotten. When has global warming happened in the past? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#Overall_view The planet has had ice ages due to volcanos and possible meteor impacts. When the dust settled, the earth returned to normal temperatures. Because the ice melted does not constitute a global warming, higher than normal temperature.. Global warming can happen because of increased CO2 levels, or increased solar luminance. Heightened CO2 levels have preceded at least 5 GLOBAL MASS EXTINCTION'S. Note: "faith" means believing in something in which all the facts are not there. Ex: I have "faith"I will find that hot looking woman and have a happy life :) Note: "faith" means believing in something in the abscence of objective proof. -- --------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw |
On Microclimates
Billy wrote:
In article , Nad R wrote: Doug Freyburger wrote: It's an issue not handled in the currect discussion. While the fact of global warming completely real it demonstrates that our current century is not the warmest of recent times. It demonstrates that the records cited do not go back as far as climate records in general. It also If there are no temperature records of the past, how do yo know that our century is not the warmest century in "human" history? demonstrates that degree of human causation is not the primary issue because humans have done fine in centuries past that were warmer than today. The primary issue is the social change triggered by climate change and what to do about it. The history of Greenland makes it clear that global warming has happened in the past without human input so it's It appears to be more global cooling than global warming, as you might expect considering the fiery origins of the planet. not about that. A point that Nad R hasn't gotten. When has global warming happened in the past? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#Overall_view The planet has had ice ages due to volcanos and possible meteor impacts. When the dust settled, the earth returned to normal temperatures. Because the ice melted does not constitute a global warming, higher than normal temperature.. Global warming can happen because of increased CO2 levels, or increased solar luminance. Heightened CO2 levels have preceded at least 5 GLOBAL MASS EXTINCTION'S. Note: "faith" means believing in something in which all the facts are not there. Ex: I have "faith"I will find that hot looking woman and have a happy life :) Note: "faith" means believing in something in the abscence of objective proof. In my argumentation I think I stated in the last millennia, one thousand years, global warming was not to be found. I admit millions of years ago global warming occurred as the earth was still forming and dinosaurs were roaming around. Doug was indicating in recent history of the "recent" ice ages was followed by global warming a higher than normal temperature. I view which I reject. Also to me, "facts are not all there" seems to have the same meaning as "absence of objective proof". Are we going to be splitting hairs over this seemingly same definition :) -- Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan) |
On Microclimates
In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote: songbird wrote: a large portion of desertification is from human activities like overgrazing cows/sheep/goats and removing covering forests for crops and firewood. some areas the moisture in the forrests is part of the local weather cycle. remove the forrest, change the weather... Humans have done a large but unknown about of that over the millennia. The Sahara used to be grassland, as was most of central Asia. How much was human grazing and farming and how much was natural climate change? Very hard to tell after the fact. What is "natural climate change"? The graph on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#Recent_past indicates that the planet was "naturally" getting cooler. in China they are trying to reforrest some areas, but i'm not sure how much success they've had. i don't think they have enough moisture or organic stuff planted along with the saplings so they bake before they can grow. instead they probably need an approach like the one above that starts small and works up to supporting trees one step at a time. It would need to be done a step at a time. Getting grasses and shrub bushes then building generation to generation. -- --------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:20 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter