Used to grow fig trees 20 ft tall and 20 ft across. Now I cant get one to live two years without freezing. Supposedly, 12 degrees is the point of no return on fig trees. Not going to waste my time with figs anymore. We may have fewer days with temps below 32 degrees, but it sure seems like we have more days of below ten degrees - which used to be pretty rare
Do you remember it being colder
- Thread starter Howboutthemdawgs
- Start date
I am 1.2 miles from the HWY and it took me (being very careful) 10 minutes this morning to weave my way through the abandoned cars on the solid ice road to make it there. Once there, it was not too bad and took me roughly an hour to make it 23 miles. Return trip was much better.
May get her to the HWY tonight and she can take it from there.
May get her to the HWY tonight and she can take it from there.
As long as you believe that .03% of earth's atmosphere control climate or temperature, nothing will be right.
Did you know that most environmental causes achieve the opposite of their intent?
Cane toads.
feral horses.
fire
now weather.
Do you know why?
Because they are practicing religion, not science.
Telemark
5 year old buck +
Interesting. Turns out my memory is pretty decent, considering what I said in Post #9:
tooln
5 year old buck +
I can't say I remember it being colder. But I can say I remember getting a lot more snow. I can remember deer hunting rifle season in the 60's and into the early 80's. It wasn't a matter of if we were going to have any tracking snow, it was how much. There are many times where we would have 2' plus on the ground in mid November and it stuck around till April.
4wanderingeyes
5 year old buck +
I grew up in southern MN, and I deer hunted every year there from 1980 until mid 2000's, and late 90's I started deer hunting in northern Wisconsin. I can remember hunting in everything from -30 to 80 degrees in both places. I can remember hunting in feet of snow, and no snow. I dont think temps on average are much different now than then. What I do notice is people who watch the news do think temps are very different than people who dont watch tv. My inlaws are die hard liberals and may as well be another MSM puppet, because anything they see on tv, they drill me about when I am there.
Maybe my world is small, and I pretty much only compare it to my experiences, but even if you believe the MSM, and temps on average are 1-2 degrees warmer in the last 100 years, there isnt a 1 of you that can say by experience you feel it warmer now then it has been.
My personal observation, this year has had some warmer days, and some colder days, with less than average snow. Last year was warmer than average, the year before way more snow than average, the year before, average snow, but colder than average, add them all up, you have average, or at least close to it.
Maybe my world is small, and I pretty much only compare it to my experiences, but even if you believe the MSM, and temps on average are 1-2 degrees warmer in the last 100 years, there isnt a 1 of you that can say by experience you feel it warmer now then it has been.
My personal observation, this year has had some warmer days, and some colder days, with less than average snow. Last year was warmer than average, the year before way more snow than average, the year before, average snow, but colder than average, add them all up, you have average, or at least close to it.
Bowsnbucks
5 year old buck +
You missed my point entirely. Many folks think being smart environmentally means doing away with 100% of anything fossil-fuel-wise. By using wind, solar, nuclear, and geothermal for power generation as additional / supplemental sources of energy, (thus reducing greenhouse gases) - I'll ask it again ........ what the H is wrong with that?? Less pollution is less pollution. Do we care nothing for what our kids & grandkids will be saddled with???Thank you for highlighting this enormous chasm of misunderstanding.
What’s wrong with those things?! Plenty! They have the chance to economically ruin a society and I’m not being dramatic. I work on this stuff every day in world scale petrochemical mfg. I’ve seen what it takes to take these facilities to net zero. No one could afford the products.
The scary thing is I’ve had really smart people tell me, “well .gov will just have to subsidize the products to make them affordable.”
Before we see a post again about China burning coal for electricity - if a pile of people jump off a building - do we all want to follow suit?? The argument that, "..... well - China burns coal ....." is the same logic as jumping off buildings. China is working on many ways to generate power much more cleanly. They want a piece of the world-wide "green technology" market. Just because they haven't shut down all their coal plants doesn't mean they aren't moving toward transitioning from coal to cleaner energy sources. Smart, intelligent countries will want to grab as much of that global green market as possible, since it'll create thousands of good-paying jobs in those countries. Will the U.S. lead in that endeavor ..... or suck hind T##???
I worked on stack pollution mitigation projects at coal-fired power plants in my career. Coal is filthy, any way you look at it, and burning it releases a toxic brew of particulate and chemical pollution that no one would want to live near. I worked on one in Jersey where the people living downwind of that plant had a long list of ailments, diseases, and neurological problems. After numerous air studies, soil studies, plant studies, water studies, and blood samples from residents - it was found that the mercury levels were very high downwind of the plant. Not so upwind. Burning coal gives off mercury pollution, as well as sulfur compounds and many other toxic gases. Chemical fact. But .......... maybe the science community has it all wrong ....... and social media yappers know soooooo much more.
If you read much financial / investment reporting, the big oil companies are going ahead with their future-sighted, smart plans to "go greener" whether the "all-knowing" public agrees with it or not. The transition to cleaner isn't going to stop. An article I just read about a week ago had interviews with the CEO's of Exxon, Chevron, and I believe Shell. They all said the same thing - "Don't look for us to 'drill-baby-drill.' We're looking at 'cash-baby-cash' since we're producing record amounts of oil already. Much of our future growth will be from mergers & acquisitions, plus our ongoing projects for cleaner sources of energy - not more drilling." Bringing more oil into the marketplace may be good for consumers at the pumps - but it's not good for their bottom lines. Or the environment - and the big oil companies are playing the long game. They know cleaner & greener is the way forward.
Last edited:
CO2 is pollution just like sticks and leaves are litter. Can something naturally occurring and ubiquitous be considered pollution? What about oxygen? Oxygen is known to be far more chemically reactive than co2.You missed my point entirely. Many folks think being smart environmentally means doing away with 100% of anything fossil-fuel-wise. By using wind, solar, nuclear, and geothermal for power generation as additional / supplemental sources of energy, (thus reducing greenhouse gases) - I'll ask it again ........ what the H is wrong with that?? Less pollution is less pollution. Do we care nothing for what our kids & grandkids will be saddled with???
Before we see a post again about China burning coal for electricity - if a pile of people jump off a building - do we all want to follow suit?? The argument that, "..... well - China burns coal ....." is the same logic as jumping off buildings. China is working on many ways to generate power much more cleanly. They want a piece of the world-wide "green technology" market. Just because they haven't shut down all their coal plants doesn't mean they aren't moving toward transitioning from coal to cleaner energy sources. Smart, intelligent countries will want to grab as much of that global green market as possible, since it'll create thousands of good-paying jobs in those countries. Will the U.S. lead in that endeavor ..... or suck hind T##???
I worked on stack pollution mitigation projects at coal-fired power plants in my career. Coal is filthy, any way you look at it, and burning it releases a toxic brew of particulate and chemical pollution that no one would want to live near. I worked on one in Jersey where the people living downwind of that plant had a long list of ailments, diseases, and neurological problems. After numerous air studies, soil studies, plant studies, water studies, and blood samples from residents - it was found that the mercury levels were very high downwind of the plant. Not so upwind. Burning coal gives off mercury pollution, as well as sulfur compounds and many other toxic gases. Chemical fact. But .......... maybe the science community has it all wrong ....... and social media yappers know soooooo much more.
If you read much financial / investment reporting, the big oil companies are going ahead with their future-sighted, smart plans to "go greener" whether the "all-knowing" public agrees with it or not. The transition to cleaner isn't going to stop. An article I just read about a week ago had interviews with the CEO's of Exxon, Chevron, and I believe Shell. They all said the same thing - "Don't look for us to 'drill-baby-drill.' We're looking at 'cash-baby-cash' since we're producing record amounts of oil already. Much of our future growth will be from mergers & acquisitions, plus our ongoing projects for cleaner sources of energy - not more drilling." Bringing more oil into the marketplace may be good for consumers at the pumps - but it's not good for their bottom lines. Or the environment - and the big oil companies are playing the long game. They know cleaner & greener is the way forward.
Most emissions systems for combustion engines increase the amount co2 released.
Jerry-B-WI
5 year old buck +
Bows, I'm not doubting the downwind pollution from those plants, but did any of them have scrubbers? I'm curious if the scrubbers took any of the mercury or other pollutants out of the plume. I worked at a sulfite pulp mill that had to put in scrubbers to mitigate the SO2 emissions.You missed my point entirely. Many folks think being smart environmentally means doing away with 100% of anything fossil-fuel-wise. By using wind, solar, nuclear, and geothermal for power generation as additional / supplemental sources of energy, (thus reducing greenhouse gases) - I'll ask it again ........ what the H is wrong with that?? Less pollution is less pollution. Do we care nothing for what our kids & grandkids will be saddled with???
Before we see a post again about China burning coal for electricity - if a pile of people jump off a building - do we all want to follow suit?? The argument that, "..... well - China burns coal ....." is the same logic as jumping off buildings. China is working on many ways to generate power much more cleanly. They want a piece of the world-wide "green technology" market. Just because they haven't shut down all their coal plants doesn't mean they aren't moving toward transitioning from coal to cleaner energy sources. Smart, intelligent countries will want to grab as much of that global green market as possible, since it'll create thousands of good-paying jobs in those countries. Will the U.S. lead in that endeavor ..... or suck hind T##???
I worked on stack pollution mitigation projects at coal-fired power plants in my career. Coal is filthy, any way you look at it, and burning it releases a toxic brew of particulate and chemical pollution that no one would want to live near. I worked on one in Jersey where the people living downwind of that plant had a long list of ailments, diseases, and neurological problems. After numerous air studies, soil studies, plant studies, water studies, and blood samples from residents - it was found that the mercury levels were very high downwind of the plant. Not so upwind. Burning coal gives off mercury pollution, as well as sulfur compounds and many other toxic gases. Chemical fact. But .......... maybe the science community has it all wrong ....... and social media yappers know soooooo much more.
If you read much financial / investment reporting, the big oil companies are going ahead with their future-sighted, smart plans to "go greener" whether the "all-knowing" public agrees with it or not. The transition to cleaner isn't going to stop. An article I just read about a week ago had interviews with the CEO's of Exxon, Chevron, and I believe Shell. They all said the same thing - "Don't look for us to 'drill-baby-drill.' We're looking at 'cash-baby-cash' since we're producing record amounts of oil already. Much of our future growth will be from mergers & acquisitions, plus our ongoing projects for cleaner sources of energy - not more drilling." Bringing more oil into the marketplace may be good for consumers at the pumps - but it's not good for their bottom lines. Or the environment - and the big oil companies are playing the long game. They know cleaner & greener is the way forward.
Bowsnbucks
5 year old buck +
Sticks & leaves are not pollution. They're above ground and part of nature on the Earth's surface - which is where we live - not underground. Co2 is part of nature - surface nature. The Co2 we get from burning fossil fuels would not have migrated up through thousands of feet of soil & rock unless we dig or drill it to the surface - thus the name "fossil fuels."
The Co2 that's been here since Creation is surface Co2, and plants need it for photosynthesis, which causes them to give off oxygen. When plants die & decay, they release that original, surface carbon back into the atmosphere & soil - at a slow rate. The carbon sources that come from deep inside the earth are an overloading of carbon - any way you slice it. Without digging or drilling it out of the ground - it would stay right there - underground. For clarity - - I'm not suggesting that 100% of all oil products should be done away with, and I know of no one who is suggesting that. But what is the harm in reducing fossil fuel sources to generate electricity, and moving to cleaner energy sources?? The often-lamented position that jobs will be lost for miners & drillers (and they won't all go away) ........ that can be said of all kinds of industries. Workers in past years were told to re-train for new kinds of jobs. Wait until the big players get AI into everything. That'll cost millions & millions of jobs .... by their own admission & comments. Some big companies are already laying off thousands of people, even "safe career" coders & engineers, because AI is replacing them.
Bowsnbucks
5 year old buck +
Those plants did not have "scrubbers" in the stacks before we designed and installed several types of scrubbing systems in the stacks. Some take out particulate pollution, usually electro-static plates and wires. Others capture and mitigate the chemical types of pollution. I have no data on how efficient those systems were at "scrubbing" the stacks after installation. As it turns out, the last coal-fired plant I worked at implementing those scrubbers has since closed down entirely. The one a few miles upwind of our home closed down about 6 years ago as well. Didn't work on that one. Our white windows are now cleaner - not all that black dust collecting on the exterior frames. That site is scheduled to become a geo-thermal plant generating power ..... the latest word is. New, higher-tech plant.
Foggy47
5 year old buck +
Nearly 40 years ago, my daughter and I did a science fair project for her school when she was in the 6th grade. "We" made an electrostatic smoke stack cleaner that would get nearly all the smoke (from a fire-cracker punk, located at the bottom).....to cling to the walls of our smoke stack which was about a 1.5" diameter x 15" long aluminum tube.
IIRC we used a copper wire down the stack and a 6v lantern battery with a lever switch to power it. When she would throw that switch the smoke stopped...and right now! She got a blue ribbon on that project.....but most of the teachers and parents looked at me with a bit of disbelief that she had built that model. lol. She did assemble it, with my supervision, and it was fun letting her tell about how it worked.
Sticks and leaves are made of carbon. When they deteriorate in the soil they release co2. Damned pollution emitters those sticks and leaves.
So all the oil and coal in the ground is carbon carbon overload that needed to be removed from the atmosphere? Really?
Did you know that when that carbon "overload" was chemically fixed by sunlight, it was one of the most biologically productive times in Earth's history? So it appears life on this planet thrives with a carbon "overload."
Fossil fuels are literally stored solar energy; Nature's battery any way you slice it.
I grew up in a coal mining community surrounded by coal fired plants. I never saw smoke. I saw lots of steam (also a "greenhouse gas"). As a scientist, I get more concerned about carbon deposition in downwind soil and increases in invasive species than I do about it creating bad weather. Some people worry about the color of the carpet when the house is on fire.
jsasker007
5 year old buck +
The driving force behind a lot of the clean energy is the money/expense of the "new" technology. Many clean energy additions are just that, additions. Several don't replace anything they are just an addition to what is already being used and will continue being used for many more decades. The only way going green can ever really work is if it's 100% a global effort and every country in the world is doing it. Otherwise we spend all the extra money to make cleaner air and the wind blows our cleaner air somewhere else and we in turn are getting some other countries dirtier air. We are spending all this money to give cleaner air to where ever the winds take it. jmo
Foggy47
5 year old buck +
Agree to a large extent. I would like to read some comparisons made on the real pollution levels of the various energy sources. Wind is a good example of a tech that sounds really good.....but the environmental and recycling cost are quite high. Without subsidy many of these alternative forms of energy would never fly.
OTOH we have some tech (Nuclear) that scares too many of us away from more use. I thought I had read some recent info that touted that this power is far safer than that of the past. Dunno.....I suppose the engineers and investors would migrate in that direction if it were fact.
The thing is....all too often the government subsidy is the only item that continues to make a new tech viable.....and many of those tech's do not appear sustainable in the long run. There needs to be a sunset feature built into those subsidies so we do not continue to get fleeced forever. If the new tech is not sound after a period of time.....it's gotta be chopped.
For every combustion engine that is replaced by electric, the equivalent power plus the efficiency loss must be used to produce that electricity. Essentially you are taking an engine out of a car and putting in a fixed location to generate the equivalent power. Solar and wind will not do it.
There is no free lunch.
There is no free lunch.
rocksnstumps
5 year old buck +
It's not about the free lunch, it's about saying what you have already bought and paid for is not acceptable and you must now give us more money cause we have all these reasons that sound so dramatic but not a real economic savings. Agree, totally remove subsidy and let em stand on their own. But wait, my power company already has added a surcharge to reach some certain percentage of "green" energy. Maybe we should coin the term "greed" energy.
