Jump to content
ATX Community

To Eli and other Texans


redux
 Share

Recommended Posts

Are you able to stay dry Eli?

Bob,

We received probably just over an inch of rain these past two weeks. Some surrounding areas received over 3 inches, but now it's getting dry again. Daytime time temps have fallen under 100 (just barely) for now. The weather people are saying we'll get more rain, but I don't believe them very much :-)

How are things in your area??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are things in your area??

Lush, Green, and comfortable. This time of year we have deer, hare, turkey, up to 10 hummingbirds (later when the pubs grow, there will be more) and a multitude of other brands of birds as trespassers, no bears yet this year :) Highs ranging in the high 60s or low 70s, to mid 80s, until the past two days when it got to 93 with humidity. Two days a year isn't too bad. I don't miss the 100+ temperature we endured for nearly 40 years in California. There, of course, we used AC, but even with two units of 6 tons each they worked overtime cooling the circa 1957 uninsulated house. The second story was insulated (circa 1973) but not the first floor.

Here, we close the house up in the day time and open up at night...Turn on the ceiling fans...life is good, no air conditioning bills. About 11" of rain since March, about right to replenish the well and water the trees.

It's a pretty normal year for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You grow pubs up there? Is that why the IRS has so many of them?

Funny, here in Sacramento, CA, I close the house during the day and open up at night to spare the AC. We usually have lows in the 50s or 60s at night even if its in the 90s or 100s during the day. And only about 30% humidity. This week it's been in the 80s. Nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You grow pubs up there? Is that why the IRS has so many of them?

Funny, here in Sacramento, CA, I close the house during the day and open up at night to spare the AC. We usually have lows in the 50s or 60s at night even if its in the 90s or 100s during the day. And only about 30% humidity. This week it's been in the 80s. Nice.

Funny thing about spell checkers, they don't account for absurdity....pups not pubs!!!! Actually hummingbird pups, bunny pups, deer pups all sorts of pups.

I first lived in Rancho Cordova. In 1972 I moved to Fair Oaks where we lived until we left for Vermont in 1990. You're right, the sea breeze in that area does tend to cool things off in the evening. We did exactly as you stated, we closed up in the day and opened up at night. Never-the-less in our circa 1957 house with no insulation downstairs, once it got hot it was uncomfortable most of the time. The air conditioner was a good thing but very expensive to operate even at SMUD's rates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in a circa 1937 house, but the downstairs stays pretty comfy due to the shade trees and state of the art rice hull isulation in the walls (I'm not kidding, it's quite a mess if you have to open up a wall. Not to mention what the cats think of the piles of the stuff in the attic). the upstairs, where my home office is, is about 140 degrees, without the wall units running. Its my excuse for not doing work in the summer....

I grew up in the east, but am a real wuss in the cold now. Wouldn't have an idea of how to drive in the snow. and I'm about to put on a third layer because of the over AC at the work office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I grew up in the east, but am a real wuss in the cold now. Wouldn't have an idea of how to drive in the snow. and I'm about to put on a third layer because of the over AC at the work office.

I grew up in OH, but moved to Sacto in 1960. My blood system has become accustomed to the CA temps, now and I am cold when it gets to the 70s. Had a tax/bookkeeping ofc in Carmichael for many years and operated the Montgomery Ward tax centers for abt 15 yrs. Now live north of Sacto, with my A/C and loving it.

Don't like the humidity in OH and when it is hot it stays that way all night there. I do miss the wooded areas around most residences there.

Daune/CA

We all like where we live, and what is "right" for one may not be for the next person. I don't remember ever hearing anyone say they they don't like living where they do. Obviously, I enjoyed the Sacto area and most of the amenities when I was there. I have many fond memories of the area as well as some not so nice, such as a son buried in Mount Vernon Memorial Cemetery. One would be insane to stay 37 years in a place you didn't like.

We all change in our likes and dislikes as we gently age. At this stage in my life I enjoy looking out the window at the trees and animals of the forest instead of roof tops. I especially enjoy the wildlife and their varying habits, it's interesting to see and learn about their unique differences.

My father-in-law had owned and operated Carmichael Upholstery for 50 or more years. I don't know who did his bookkeeping or who his accountant was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>Are you able to stay dry<<

We went on water restrictions more than a month ago. California coast. Weird weather, to be sure. But it's not just global warming -- Mars currently has a planet-wide dust storm that is so dense the solar batteries on the rovers have run down. There's just no where to hide!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>Are you able to stay dry<<

We went on water restrictions more than a month ago. California coast. Weird weather, to be sure. But it's not just global warming -- Mars currently has a planet-wide dust storm that is so dense the solar batteries on the rovers have run down. There's just no where to hide!

Yeah, we're on water restrictions too. My well produces 50+ gallons per minute so I have to be careful I don't use more than that.

Oh, I remember all too well, odd or even watering or none at all. Water police to give out citations for letting your sprinkler wet the sidewalk or street. Come to think of it, I haven't watered a lawn in 17+ years, nature does it for me.

Gads, Human pollution and all the green house gases are affecting Mars too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gads, Human pollution and all the green house gases are affecting Mars too?

Yes, but please don't tell Al Gore, or he will be wanting to sell us even more 'carbon credits' to cover Mars as well!

Sad, isn't it, that the 'global warming' data tracks almost perfectly with the track of sunspots, much better than it tracks with any combination of human inputs, and yet that is ignored, simply because there is nothing we can do about sun spots, so that can not be used to convince us that we need to change in the way the 'global warming' hucksters want us to. It's all about giving governments more reasons to control us, folks, it's that simple. I remember back in the 50's, when the theme was 'the coming ice age'. That too was about wanting reasons to control who, what, and where, people could do ______ [fill in the blank]. Nothing changes. Politicians know the easiest way to get more control is through fear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but please don't tell Al Gore, or he will be wanting to sell us even more 'carbon credits' to cover Mars as well!

Sad, isn't it, that the 'global warming' data tracks almost perfectly with the track of sunspots, much better than it tracks with any combination of human inputs, and yet that is ignored, simply because there is nothing we can do about sun spots, so that can not be used to convince us that we need to change in the way the 'global warming' hucksters want us to. It's all about giving governments more reasons to control us, folks, it's that simple. I remember back in the 50's, when the theme was 'the coming ice age'. That too was about wanting reasons to control who, what, and where, people could do ______ [fill in the blank]. Nothing changes. Politicians know the easiest way to get more control is through fear.

How's this for REAL progress by Al Gore's flock of "Scientists?"

Updated: 2:46 p.m. ET July 9, 2007

LONDON - Manners aside, getting cows to burp less can help reduce global warming. Emphasis added!

Using modern plant-breeding methods to find new diets for cows that make them belch less is a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, scientists said on Monday. Emphasis added!

The key is developing new varieties of food that are easier for cattle to digest and also provide a proper balance of fiber, protein and sugar, said Michael Abberton, a scientist at the UK-based Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research.

This could open up plant-based solutions as alternatives to reducing stock as farmers look for ways to cut methane emissions amid warming climates, he told a briefing on farming and climate change at London's Science Media Centre.

He noted the average dairy cow belches out about 100 to 200 liters of methane each day, making diet changes a key potential factor in reducing this greenhouse gas.

"There is a common misperception about how methane gets into the atmosphere," he said. "It is actually through belching rather than the other end."

Agriculture is responsible for about seven percent of UK greenhouse gas emissions and a large proportion of two of the most potent gases with 37 percent of methane and 67 percent of nitrous oxide.

Greenhouses gases are widely blamed for causing global warming. Scientists say average temperatures will rise by between two and six degrees Celsius by the end of the century, causing droughts, floods and violent storms.

Abberton said introducing easier-to-digest legumes that tend to reduce methane emissions is an example of an approach scientists are beginning to explore. Legumes such as clover and alfalfa are commonly used for animal fodder.

It also requires farmers to balance cows' legume intake with other food and to develop different species of grass that are also more digestible, he added.

"What I'm saying is there are approaches within plant breeding that can lead to reduced emissions," he said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>getting cows to burp less can help reduce global warming<<

Yeah, and the great Ronald Reagan said trees cause pollution.

Reagan was right: trees cause pollution - nation in brief - Ronald Reagan - Brief Article

Insight on the News, April 15, 2003 by John Elvin

Here's hoping former president Ronald Reagan is enjoying the loudest laugh. You may recall that one of the examples used by his critics to portray him as a shallow dimwit was his contention that trees caused as much smog as cars. What a hoot! Well, who's hooting now? New scientific evidence indicates that Reagan's assessment may have been in fact moderate. It appears that coniferous forests actually could be causing more smog than traffic and industry combined.

According to a study by the University of Helsinki, coniferous forests--that is to say, those composed of trees such as pines--release nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere that combine with other pollutants to form smog.

Several scientists and environmentalists contacted by the Associated Press for comment did not dispute the finding, though it contradicts the "conventional wisdom" that forests reduce pollution. Those who commented countered that forest emissions are part of the Earth's natural balance, whereas man-made pollution is an addition and therefore an avoidable health hazard.

COPYRIGHT 2003 News World Communications, Inc.

COPYRIGHT 2003 Gale Group

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>coniferous forests actually could be causing more smog than traffic<<

That's right! I stopped going to Finland because their forests are way too smoggy. I prefer the open air around our local freeways.

I'm so happy for you that you found your niche.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, redux can appreciate this. It rained last night and this morning. A lot. in Sacramento. In July. So don't tell me the climate isn't gettting screwy.

And the sea level has gone up 6 inches in the last century.

First of all, nobody is disputing that the weather is strange in many places. The dispute, if there is one, is as to the cause of such strange weather.

Is "global warming," responsible for the "screwy" weather? Is all that we're witnessing solely caused by man's impact on the planet or is it a natural cycle?. Is it a natural cycle that man's impact is adding to and exacerbating?

Long before man's impact on the planet there were periods of "Global Warming" and well as something called the "Ice Age." How do we explain that other than natural cyclic events?

I remember times of snow in Sacramento also, did that mean we had a period of "Global Freezing," all brought about by man?

Furthermore, my unscientific logic refuses to accept unsubstantiated statements such as "the sea level has risen 6 inches in the last 100 years." Can you wonder how much melting global ice it would take to accomplish such a feat of raising the ocean 6 inches? How many gallons of water is that? Is there enough global ice, that if melted, could raise the oceans a substantial amount? I don't know the answer, none of us do.

By the way, if that is a true statement, then all the mountains in the world are 6 inches shorter than they used to be, since they're all measured as so many feet "above sea level"...right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is "a natural cycle that man's impact is adding to and exacerbating". As well as I understand things I have read, there has been an approximate 100,000 year ice age cycle for the last 700,000 years (and possibly the last 2 million years to the beginning of the Pleistocene geologic epoch). It is made up of 10,000 years of warming (like now) and 90,000 years of the cold "ice age" period. It's called the astronomical theory of the ice ages. There are 3 major cycles: 1) a 100,000 year cycle - the eccentricity of the earth's orbit around the sun. 2) a 41,000 year cycle - the tilt of the earth from 22 degrees to 25 degrees and back. 3) a 23,000 year cycle - the wobble of the earth's orbit known as the precession of the equinoxes.

In the past, the warm periods would peak at a CO2 level of 280-300 parts per million and at an average earth temperature of 60 degrees F. Today the temperature is 60 degrees but the CO2 level is above 300ppm and on its way to 600ppm and more. This is the new situation that man has caused. The higher CO2 levels are predicted to raise the average earth temperature by 5-15 degrees F over the next 50-100 years. Overall, this will probably not be a good thing.

Also, I don't think the sea level has gone up 6 inches in the last century. It may be that is the VERY optimistic prediction for the next 50-100 years. I believe there is 20-50+ feet available in the Greenland and Antarctic glaciers. The sea level has been that much higher at times in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...