Fran Farmer writes:

On 13/03/2014 3:36 AM, Todd wrote:
On 03/11/2014 11:10 PM, Fran Farmer wrote:
On 12/03/2014 5:40 AM, Todd wrote:

And, there a a lot of "climate scientists" that don't
agree with global warming.

Cite?

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=climate%20...rming&kl=us-en

LOL. I asked that you provide a cite to support your claim that a lot
of climate scientists DON'T agree on global warming. You can't have
even bothered to look at what came up or you'd have realised that that
sitelists lots of cites which kills your claim stone dead.

I'm not going to read anything else you post from now on as you have
simply got to be trolling.

Yep.

I pointed that out too, and he just switched the subject.
Meanwhile he's telling us WE are immune to facts.

At least he's relatively polite.
I suppose he doesn't see calling a large group of scientists "scammers"
is not polite. As long as you don't insult someone to their face,
it's okay.



Meanwhile, last year I bought 2 blooming orchids at the supermarket.
They went through dormancy and starting blooming again.
What a great plant. The bigger one opened it's first flower Dec 24th.
Now the plant has 11 flowers, and all of them look fresh.

The second one has been blooming for a few weeks.

I can't think of any other plant that holds it's blooms so long.
I think I'm hooked.

--
Dan Espen

Fran Farmer wrote:
songbird wrote:
....
here is a recent link with much useful information:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/cloudy-forecast

i love the part about the 20 climate model research
groups and trying to find a negative feedback from
cloud cover.

Thanks 'bird. I've bookmarked it to read later tonight. It looks like
and interesting site.

you're welcome.

i used to enjoy their weekly magazine (of a few pages)
that came in the mail. they switched to every other week
right about when i decided my budget could no longer
support them. i was glad that their on-line site is
available instead. the organization behind the scenes is
well worth supporting.


songbird

songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
songbird wrote:

the basic problem is that we've gotten into the
habit of mixing human waste with potable water to
begin with.

No.

this compounds many other problems and
they tag along with the whole process. clean up
the basic misconception and you get many benefits
in result. not having to build nuclear
desalinization plants would be one of them (who
needs more chances at Fukushima? are you seriously
considering more nuclear plants in California?
are you really that idiotic? yes, i am seriously
calling you an idiot if you are building more
nuclear plants in that area).


An emotive side issue.

we're allowed emotions.


much of the use of water is simply to flush waste
materials away

It's true some water is used to flush but you still need to have a
sewerage system in cities. If using dual flush toilets and only
hitting the button when required the use on toilet flushing is not
that high. There are only small savings there. Domestically,
washing and showering use much more. Gardens, golf courses, pools,
fountains, hosing the driveway etc use astronomically more.

to me this is poor design (especially in an arid
climate). if most of the water being used is for
washing then a graywater system which keeps the
water on site is much better for recharging the
groundwater and of benefit to the plants and animals.
polluting it with waste and then having to pump
it some place else, then to be cleaned up again
is really a huge waste of energy and resources.

yes, it is the primary sytem in use now in many
places but that doesn't mean it is the best way
of doing things.


when you consider how much energy it takes to pump
and clean the water again after it is used as a waste
transport system then perhaps you'll understand the
sheer stupidity of this whole system.

most human waste is valueable and can be composted
safely without having to use all that water.


Composting toilets are fashionable round here. They smell in normal
operation and are a bitch to clean out, someone has to go in and dig
them out.

if you can smell it, then it isn't operating
normally, do you smell nasty fumes coming out of
your compost piles?

to me this is not a good design at all if you
have a system that involves paying someone else
to clean up after yourself then you're quite a
ways from simplicity.

that a poorly designed or misunderstood system
doesn't work well isn't a mystery to me. but of
course, if the people using it don't maintain it
properly or understand it then it's not going to
be the greatest. however, if you're raised to
take care of things and understand what you're
doing it's not going to be a problem.

change can be hard, but this isn't beyond most
people once they understand the reasons for doing
it and the methods involved.


You can't pay someone enough to do it.

you don't have to pay someone to do it. do you
have to pay someone to carry a bucket of compost
materials out to the compost pile?


They are suitable for deserts not cities.

false. people compost in cities.


In high humidty areas they stay too wet.

improper design. improper use. improper
maintenance. people compost in wet or humid
climates.


But you still need to
have water reticulation and sewerage networks.

no, people only need water, food, air and
shelter. there is no need for piping gray
water off site. it is lazyness and habit and
a temporary illusion of richness (mostly due
to fossil fuel use).


Flushing with grey water is more practical.

only if you have the expensive system already
paid for and installed, but then that doesn't
deal with expenses of keeping it running or
the energy involved.

if in the future energy gets more expensive
and fresh water more scarce, you'll see a lot
more changes and rethinking of how we do waste
systems.

once you switch to an in place composting system
with any grey water being handled on site processes
then there's no need to pay anyone for waste
processing any more than you pay someone to put
things on the compost heap or scrub out a bucket.


the waste which is not safely compostable (hormone
treatments, some drugs, chemotherapeutics and nuclear
medicine) should be treated differently, but those
people who know they are doing such things could be
set up with their medical providers to have a clean
disposal path for their waste (so that it does not
become a hazard to others).


Yes if the whole family is healthy compost it otherwise cart your
shit to a waste centre if any one of you are taking pills. Or have
a honey pot collection.

compost it on site and use it on site, no need to
ship it anywhere.


Can you imagine this system in a big city. In the 19th century
before the sewer was built London was called "the great wen" Get
serious.

i am, any reasonably normal person can understand
composting and accomplish it.

that is then, this is now, do we understand things
better today or not?


in a world of limited resources there is no excuse
for not recycling of most materials. for areas with
limited water they certainly should not be wasting
water by using it as a waste transport mechanism.


Most of the water in the sewer is not from flushing.

it doesn't have to be, once it's contaminated
by poop that means the entire volume must be
cleaned up again. if you only had to move poop
and pee around that would be how much less per
person of material to deal with cleaning up,
processing or disposing of?

dehydrate it and reclaim that water, and then
you're down by another factor or two of reduction.
isn't that a much more efficient use of energy
and materials to deal only with the problem
instead of multiplying it?


Bird you haven't thought this out.

funny assumption, you've not seen my reading
list for the past dozen years.

a very simple system of handling waste from
people is quite possible that doesn't involve
having to move or dig out huge tanks. if you
are used to composting processes then it fits
in very well. that it will work even when the
power goes out, that it means valuable materials
don't leave the gardens, saves water, energy,
etc. that's all a bonus as far as i'm concerned.

take a look at _the humanure handbook_ it's in
third edition and online for free.

the trouble is not composting it's getting
people to accept that it can be done at all
as they are raised to flush and forget. raise
them with a different way and they'll be fine
and much better off in the long run.


songbird

I admire your idealism to a degree. The problem is that you are so absorbed
with it you give no time to the practicalities of whether your proposal can
be done in various places or circumstances and what the cost may be. You
complain that nobody is listening but make no effort to address the big
issues with implementing your plan, until you can show that it can work and
maintain public health and that the benefits outweigh the costs of a large
scale implementation you are just ****ing on the lemon tree.

D

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:33:35 PM UTC-7, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Fran Farmer wrote:

On 13/03/2014 3:36 AM, Todd wrote:

On 03/11/2014 11:10 PM, Fran Farmer wrote:

On 12/03/2014 5:40 AM, Todd wrote:

[....snip....]
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=climate%20...rming&kl=us-en



LOL. I asked that you provide a cite to support your claim that a lot
[...snip

Not necessarily, he could be genuine. Crazy as it may seem to you and I

seeing nothing at all wrong with cherry-picking data is characteristic of

deniers. But you are right saying there is no point in going on.

Grammar Police he

You are politely indicted on charges of using a subject pronoun where an indirect object pronoun is required. "Crazy as it may seem to you and I..."

Would you say "Crazy as it may seem to I"? Of course not! You would naturally say "...to ME..."

Never understood why normally good speakers get confused by a double object.. "...you and [somebody else]. I talked this over with fellow language freaks and they put forth a not wholly implausible theory that the poor little object pronoun "me"(him, her, them) has somehow acquired a plebian reputation.

Ah, well...back to saving CA from drought

HB

David Hare-Scott wrote:
....
I admire your idealism to a degree. The problem is that you are so absorbed
with it you give no time to the practicalities of whether your proposal can
be done in various places or circumstances and what the cost may be.

the costs will vary by location.

if you have your own land and easy access to
fairly dried shredded materials then the continuing
cost is nearly zero. the start up costs are some
buckets, a redesigned toilet so the buckets can
fit under and a change in habits.

if you live in the city, that is different
but it isn't impossible. change the toilets
to be composting buckets, have the person
move the bucket when needed to a collection
point, pay someone to take those buckets to
a composting site and rinse them out, return
them with the next round of picking up the
next lot. about the same start up costs
(buckets and different designed toilet) other
than needing materials (shredded paper, sawdust,
leaves, bark, etc. still all work).

what costs are avoided by using a composting
system? i thought i was pretty clear. pumping
water costs, cleaning up polluted water costs,
pipes and pumps maintenance costs, billing and
collecting bill costs.


You
complain that nobody is listening

funny, i don't recall complaining in that post,
i went back and re-read it, nope, still don't see
complaints of being ignored in there.


but make no effort to address the big
issues with implementing your plan, until you can show that it can work and
maintain public health and that the benefits outweigh the costs of a large
scale implementation you are just ****ing on the lemon tree.

when the power goes out and stays out for
a few weeks in a large city then what? you
think those toilets are going to be clean
and maintaining public health? put a cover
on a bucket of sawdust and human waste and
leave it for a few weeks and it's not going to
smell the greatest when opened but it won't
kill anyone either.

at least under a simple system of composting
the human waste is still able to be dealt with.
with a large and complex system, once the power
goes out, then people are up shit's creek when
the water stops flowing.

the problem isn't that it is impossible to
change, it's just that we have a large embedded
system with all the inertia and costs and people
are trained to use that and accept it. when it
stops working, causes other problems (poor
water quality), or becomes too expensive i think
it a good idea to think about alternatives.


songbird

songbird writes:

if you live in the city, that is different
but it isn't impossible. change the toilets
to be composting buckets, have the person
move the bucket when needed to a collection
point, pay someone to take those buckets to
a composting site and rinse them out, return
them with the next round of picking up the
next lot. about the same start up costs
(buckets and different designed toilet) other
than needing materials (shredded paper, sawdust,
leaves, bark, etc. still all work).

Holy c**p.

You write like you've never been to a city.
Just one of those 30 story high rises would produce
so many buckets of crap, you might die in the lobby
from the smell. When you have mile after mile of people
living right on top of each other, emptying those buckets
would be something to see. Smelling it? No thanks.

Ever walk in Manhattan? The sidewalks regularly fill up
with people and you're forced to walk in the street too.
That's without brigades of people carrying buckets.

when the power goes out and stays out for
a few weeks in a large city then what?

Power out in a city for few weeks?
Say what?

The bottom line is, if you live in civilization
you get the benefits of civilization.
You build a sewage treatment system and the poop
gets taken care of.

Basically the same thing as composting
but on a different scale.

--
Dan Espen

I give up, you aren't worth talking to when you get like this.

D

On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 18:52:01 -0700, Todd wrote:

On 03/11/2014 12:06 PM, songbird wrote:
the trouble is not composting it's getting
people to accept that it can be done at all
as they are raised to flush and forget. raise
them with a different way and they'll be fine
and much better off in the long run.

Has any of this been looked at for the space program.
I am wondering how Moon and Mars colonies will handle
their human waste?

Um, obviously the same as on this space rock.

David Hare-Scott wrote:

I give up, you aren't worth talking to when you get like this.

thanks for the laugh. and yes, i make sure the horse
is well flogged into oblivion at times.


songbird

On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 13:32:13 -0400, (Dan.Espen) wrote:

Todd writes:

On 03/12/2014 09:57 AM, Dan.Espen wrote:
Todd writes:

On 03/11/2014 11:10 PM, Fran Farmer wrote:
On 12/03/2014 5:40 AM, Todd wrote:

And, there a a lot of "climate scientists" that don't
agree with global warming.

Cite?

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=climate%20...rming&kl=us-en

That's a cite?

I forget, was your statement "a minuscule number of scientists don't
agree with global warming"?

Oh, I recognized Freeman Dyson, so I looked him up:

Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written
that "[one] of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels
such as oil and coal and natural gas."[41] However, he believes that
existing simulation models of climate fail to account for some
important factors, and hence the results will contain too much error
to reliably predict future trends:

Geez, research my a**.


Dan,

There were a lot of hits for you to choose from.
Stop looking at Global Warming as an Axiom. Look at
it from a scientific standpoint. Question everything.

Here is John Coleman (founder of the cable TV's Weather Channel):

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-b...lobal_warming/

"It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled
and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM.
Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political
motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an
illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the
same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to
support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the
totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends
in government steered huge research grants their way to
keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

And John Coleman is not along.

You keep sinking lower and lower.
You think this clowns journalism degree makes him a qualified
scientist?

And while your are questioning authority: follow the money.
What do you think caused all the fraud I noted earlier:
lots of money for research grants.

If you don't start questioning, if you every get high cholesterol
or Diabetes, you are going to be in real trouble.

Sorry, but this is just idiotic.

Follow the money indeed.
These scientists are forced to do peer reviewed science.
The oil companies? Not so much.

And should all of us suppose that you fail to find it is just a little too
convenient that a bunch of new "Journals" popped up with reviewers and
editorial staff of true AGW believers?

?-)