School Lunches

[RecycleMichael]

If it is not man-made, what do you intend to do about it?

There is a lot that could be done now. We could implement water conservation measures, use dry tolerant plant species to slow down growth of deserts, invest in de-salination technology, etc.

[heironymouspasparagus]

There is a lot that could be done now. We could implement water conservation measures, use dry tolerant plant species to slow down growth of deserts, invest in de-salination technology, etc.

Truth!!  Big things;

Stop overpopulating/overgrazing/overusing marginal areas - the Sahara was much smaller just a few thousand years ago.  Las Vegas and Phoenix - what idiocy....oh, yeah, our arrogance and hubris - make our society feel that either of those cities is viable.  Front range of Colorado.  There is a lot of water out west - as is positively proven by the fact that there are probably 50 to 60 million living in the dry areas.  The problem is, that large amount of water is not enough for that massive overpopulation.  Again, we learn nothing from history - early southwest cultures that most likely collapsed over water issues.   Can you imagine the screams, yelling, shouting, and gnashing of teeth over "personal property rights" should we try to regain some sanity?

Fixing the prairies would be a big step forward.  There are ways to fix the great plains without abandoning them for grains production.  OSU is working at the forefront of that type of effort.  Read what they have to say about turf grasses - would make a huge difference in water consumption in metro areas like Tulsa and OKC, so we could do our own little part for the effort.  First, stop watering the grass!  That's a Phoenix-type ignorance that we are obsessed with.

De-salination should be the last resort, in large part because of the massive amount of energy required and the big costs.  R-O won't work on the kind of scale for municipal use for pretty much the same reasons, plus it removes so many of the minerals (like distillation) that added minerals will likely be required.  Ever tasted bottled "salty" water?  Sucks....


And with all this, we are frothing at the mouth in this country to build a pipeline that could easily contaminate one of our largest remaining aquifers just so we can get 35 to 40 new jobs - and NO additional tax revenues to offset the potential risk - since all operations will be through tax free zones!!   The psychosis continues!!

[Red Arrow]

There is a lot that could be done now. We could implement water conservation measures, use dry tolerant plant species to slow down growth of deserts, invest in de-salination technology, etc.

My friends that used to live in northeast Albuquerque had a relatively small spot of "lawn".  The rest of the yard was rocks and stuff that were very drought tolerant. That seemed to be the lawn trend in that area.  They moved many years ago but this is their old neighborhood.

http://goo.gl/maps/wC3CI
http://goo.gl/maps/WbhCG

[heironymouspasparagus]

My friends that used to live in northeast Albuquerque had a relatively small spot of "lawn".  The rest of the yard was rocks and stuff that were very drought tolerant. That seemed to be the lawn trend in that area.  They moved many years ago but this is their old neighborhood.

http://goo.gl/maps/wC3CI
http://goo.gl/maps/WbhCG

1980 Phoenix had lots of rock, gravel, paving for yards.  Now, it's totally nuts.  The humidity is higher in the basin than it was decades ago, but that isn't because of more rain.  It's watering yards.  Google Earth - golf courses in Phoenix!

Albuquerque is part of that same band of  country (dessert southwest) and suffering from the same nonsense.  It's a phenomenon I have talked about here on a smaller scale where people visit a place, see something they like, then move there and proceed to bring the carp with them - much of it what they moved to get away from.  Like mowing grass....fine in New Jersey....stupid in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, et. al.

[sauerkraut]

No he's not.  He's going to go to fundraisers and talk about global warming, then he's going to survey the effects of the global warming on fescue and bent grass. . . and report the results at future fundraisers.

Yep, open up your pocket books fuel prices will go sky high.

[sauerkraut]

No.  He did not.  He has made predictions about ocean levels rising over the next century - and they are probably too high, because it will take longer for Antarctica to melt - and that is where all the water is.  Greenland is impressive, but not the big water source.

Tarawa is pretty much all gone now.  So are the glaciers in Glacier National Park - probably gonna have to rename the place.  

CO2 is almost double.  And it is also known that volcanic activity - dust in the air - is what has caused the slowdown in temperature increases.

The biggest problem is not that the ice is gonna melt and flood New York - that is trivial compared to the real problem.  The real problem is the fact that ALL the plants we depend on for everything must be pollinated in some fashion.  Additionally, ALL of them don't do that at high temperatures.  Like above 90 degrees F or so.  Some a little lower, some a little higher.  So even with an average global temperature somewhere in the 60 range, pollination could easily be interrupted with a modest rise in average, because it is the high temps and their timing that make the difference.  If it gets to much more than 90 in June over a wider area, then less pollination, less fruit/vegetable/grain, less plant production.  It's a sliding scale that will vary based on location and weather patterns.  Probably not going to be growing Okra on the Arctic Circle anytime soon, but also not likely to grow worldwide supply of fruit/vegetable/grains there either.  Leading to fewer people.  Bigger desserts.

On the other hand, if we did go to ice age, same problem - other direction.  Miles of ice sitting on top of Kansas City are going to be problematic.  Plants won't be able to pollinate and mature due to being too cold.  Still not likely to be able to grow worldwide supply of food at today's population levels.  

And yeah, I know about fiddlehead ferns - the type of plant from 100 million years ago and much hotter climate.  Can't grow enough, fast enough for the world.

Goodness- how was that Koolaid? You drank it all and  the pitcher is empty.... The ice is NOT melting -both poles have seen huge ice buildups. You need to research the real science and not follow the global warming- uh climate change- wackos who have an agenda to push. The computer models are garbage in & garbage out, since the planet  has not warmed up since 1996 they are now  saying we are in a "warming Pause" instead of re-thinking the science and saying "Maybe there is no global warming after all". It was a record cold winter in 2014  the great lakes froze solid where is that warming?

[Conan71]

I know that guido911 and sauerkraut are experts on global temperatures and don't need to read any more evidence that contradicts with their views. But for those who wants facts...

To me, trying to say that air temperature from cold winters is proof that global warming is a hoax is simply using poor data. 97% of scientists believe global warming is real and the ones that don't are studying air temperatures like meteorologists. Unfortunately, that is like thinking the turkey in the oven is ready because the oven temperature. It is the bird temperature that matters.

Our planet is about 75% water so the ocean temperature matters way more than air temperature. And their has been quite a bit of research lately showing rising water temperatures. Here is a page from the Union of Concerned Scientists...

http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-effects/ocean-temperature.html

The oceans might be a temporary answer to storing the rising temperature. Here is a fascinating article saying that deeper and deeper depths are warming (absorbing) these higher temperatures.  

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140821-global-warming-hiatus-climate-change-ocean-science

Of course hotter water temperatures might buy some time for other parts of the planet to heal, but then again might lead to other problems.

I believe this is a serious problem and anyone who doesn't believe in the science is a fool. You can argue whether or not this problem is man-made, but ignoring the facts of hotter temperatures is simply foolish.
 

Satellite imagery shows the polar ice cap has expanded the last two years.  A shrinking polar ice cap was supposed to be proof of global warming.  

But seven years after his warning, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.

To put it another way, an area the size of Alaska, America's biggest state, was open water two years ago, but is again now covered by ice.

The most widely used measurements of Arctic ice extent are the daily satellite readings issued by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is co-funded by Nasa. These reveal that – while the long-term trend still shows a decline – last Monday, August 25, the area of the Arctic Ocean with at least 15 per cent ice cover was 5.62 million square kilometres.

This was the highest level recorded on that date since 2006 (see graph, right), and represents an increase of 1.71 million square kilometres over the past two years – an impressive 43 per cent.

Other figures from the Danish Meteorological Institute suggest that the growth has been even more dramatic. Using a different measure, the area with at least 30 per cent ice cover, these reveal a 63 per cent rise – from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometres.

The satellite images published here are taken from a further authoritative source, the University of Illinois's Cryosphere project.

They show that as well as becoming more extensive, the ice has grown more concentrated, with the purple areas – denoting regions where the ice pack is most dense – increasing markedly.

Crucially, the ice is also thicker, and therefore more resilient to future melting. Professor Andrew Shepherd, of Leeds University and University Coillege, London, an expert in climate satellite monitoring, said yesterday: 'It is clear from the measurements we have collected that the Arctic sea ice has experienced a significant recovery in thickness over the past year.

'It seems that an unusually cool summer in 2013 allowed more ice to survive through to last winter. This means that the Arctic sea ice pack is thicker and stronger than usual, and this should be taken into account when making predictions of its future extent.'...

...Yesterday Dr Ed Hawkins, who leads an Arctic ice research team at Reading University, said: 'Peter Wadhams's views are quite extreme compared to the views of many other climate scientists, and also compared to what the IPCC report says.'

Dr Hawkins warned against reading too much into ice increase over the past two years on the grounds that 2012 was an 'extreme low', triggered by freak weather.

'I'm uncomfortable with the idea of people saying the ice has bounced back,' he said.

However, Dr Hawkins added that the decline seen in recent years was not caused only by global warming. It was, he said, intensified by 'natural variability' – shifts in factors such as the temperature of the oceans. This, he said, has happened before, such as in the 1920s and 1930s, when 'there was likely some sea ice retreat'.

Dr Hawkins said: 'There is undoubtedly some natural variability on top of the long-term downwards trend caused by the overall warming. This variability has probably contributed somewhat to the post-2000 steep declining trend, although the human-caused component still dominates.'

Like many scientists, Dr Hawkins said these natural processes may be cyclical. If and when they go into reverse, they will cool, not warm, the Arctic, in which case, he said, 'a decade with no declining trend' in ice cover would be 'entirely plausible'.

Peer-reviewed research suggests that at least until 2005, natural variability was responsible for half the ice decline. But exactly how big its influence is remains an open question – and as both Dr Hawkins and Prof Curry agreed, establishing this is critical to making predictions about the Arctic's future.

Prof Curry said: 'I suspect that the portion of the decline in the sea ice attributable to natural variability could be even larger than half.

The problem is politicians making political hay of climatological cycles and spouting complete untruths they pull from their arses.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html

[heironymouspasparagus]

Satellite imagery shows the polar ice cap has expanded the last two years.  A shrinking polar ice cap was supposed to be proof of global warming.  

The problem is politicians making political hay of climatological cycles and spouting complete untruths they pull from their arses.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html

Whew!  You think two years data makes a trend, while 100 years data does not....  Got it...!


So now we have competing measurements!!  Sept 2012, the arctic ice was it's smallest size ever.  And Aug 2013, it averaged bigger than 2012, but still 1.3 million km2 smaller than the 1981 - 2010 average (6 million km2)

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


Some improvement for 2014 - only 7th worst in recorded history...  I guess ya gotta get consolation where ya can!

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

[guido911]

Whew!  You think two years data makes a trend, while 100 years data does not....  Got it...!


So now we have competing measurements!!  Sept 2012, the arctic ice was it's smallest size ever.  And Aug 2013, it averaged bigger than 2012, but still 1.3 million km2 smaller than the 1981 - 2010 average (6 million km2)

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


Some improvement for 2014 - only 7th worst in recorded history...  I guess ya gotta get consolation where ya can!

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

100 years? Hell, remember the looming ice age from the 70s?

[guido911]

Up on drudge...


http://eagnews.org/school-employee-on-snack-rules-you-cannot-buy-a-tic-tac-in-a-nebraska-school-i-checked/

[Conan71]

Whew!  You think two years data makes a trend, while 100 years data does not....  Got it...!


So now we have competing measurements!!  Sept 2012, the arctic ice was it's smallest size ever.  And Aug 2013, it averaged bigger than 2012, but still 1.3 million km2 smaller than the 1981 - 2010 average (6 million km2)

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


Some improvement for 2014 - only 7th worst in recorded history...  I guess ya gotta get consolation where ya can!

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Hi, you do understand climatological cycles, yes?  Earth warms.  Earth cools.  Been doing it for millions of years.

It's only the last 30-40 years politicians figured out a way to harness that to rape and plunder.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Hi, you do understand climatological cycles, yes?  Earth warms.  Earth cools.  Been doing it for millions of years.

It's only the last 30-40 years politicians figured out a way to harness that to rape and plunder.

I have been talking about the Vostok ice cores for about 15 years or so (they came out in '98-'99 time frame).  They show beyond any doubt that the changing temperature always precedes changing CO2.  Which pretty much means that temperature is the determining factor - NOT CO2.  I guess no on here has even looked at one of those charts.

So, yeah, I do understand at least that part of the climatological cycles.  Actually, been doing it for billions of years....

[Conan71]

I have been talking about the Vostok ice cores for about 15 years or so (they came out in '98-'99 time frame).  They show beyond any doubt that the changing temperature always precedes changing CO2.  Which pretty much means that temperature is the determining factor - NOT CO2.  I guess no on here has even looked at one of those charts.

So, yeah, I do understand at least that part of the climatological cycles.  Actually, been doing it for billions of years....

I don't claim to be a climatologist.  I'm also skeptical of people who have their salaries paid for by government grants which encourage them to prove a pre-determined hypothesis. 

Don't even start with: "That's not how science works."  Follow the money, Heir.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I don't claim to be a climatologist.  I'm also skeptical of people who have their salaries paid for by government grants which encourage them to prove a pre-determined hypothesis. 

Don't even start with: "That's not how science works."  Follow the money, Heir.

I do.  Did you even read that last post??  I mean, really READ it...??   Come on...I know you can do it!!  Overcome your high school education!!  Now is the time!

Or look at the Vostok ice core data?? 

Want a hint?




Hint: global warming is NOT caused by increasing CO2.  Increasing CO2 always occurs after the fact of rising temperatures.  Think about that statement for a while.

[heironymouspasparagus]

100 years? Hell, remember the looming ice age from the 70s?

I know your infatuation with bongs and all things smokin'....this puts everyone else to shame!

Eat your heart out Rabon Martin!  (RIP!!)


https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152654382711138