Cutting your expenses/trimming your costs

Martha, that sounds like a good rig. Could you describe it in more detail? What size pipe? What kind and size of wire? Did you drill holes in the pipe to receive the wire? How wide did you make it?

Thanks for any info.

Mikey
 
Rok said:
Re: Global warming

I am a big advocate of preserving our environment...however, the causes of the current warming trend are uncertain.  The fact that this is occuring during the industrial revolution does not prove cause and effect.   :eek:  

Over geologic history there have been many episodes of global warming and cooling (ie ice ages) which clearly had nothing to do with human activity. There is a popular misconception that such climate variations are abnormal.  Natural systems flutuate, with or without our help.  Sea levels rise and fall time and again over long periods of time. This is well known.

The point is, such climatic changes may not be "our fault" or even preventable.  There are worse things to worry about.  How about N. Korea, or mercury pollution?  Lets focus on things we can prevent...burning fossil fuels is currently not one of them.

Oops, didn't mean to post a rant.

I don't think there are any serious scientist who question the existance or cause of global warming at this point. Ten years ago, there was still some question. . . but not today . . . not in any serious science circles. Worse than that, we now understand that we have made about a 100 year committment to warming. In other words, if today we stopped producing greenhouse gases, the warming effects we have started would continue for about 100 years.

Scientists studying this today are not debating the existance or cause of global warming, they are trying to understand the long term consequences of it. :)
 
SG,
In the 70's no serious serioius scientiest questioned the idea that the world was getting colder.

We are very fortunate on this earth. The average temperatures of the last ice age were only a few degrees colder than the average temperaturs are now.
FROM
Newsweek
April 28, 1975 Studies
Facts & Figures
Selected Links
Weather
Health
The Cooling World

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

Reprinted from Financial Post - Canada, Jun 21, 2000
 
Okey dokey. All super points and arguments.

Now what exactly is the downside of prarie dogging this and suggesting that all the pollution probably isnt doing us any favors, and start cutting our greenhouse gasses and reducing our oil/coal firing anyhow? That it reduces our dependency on that bastion of stability, the middle east, and gets us out of the backyards of the terrorists is just a plus to me.

Arguing the merits of is it or isnt it is scientifically interesting, but...uhh...so frickin what?
 
dex said:
SG,
In the 70's no serious serioius scientiest  questioned the idea that the world was getting colder. . .
One Newsweek article from 1975 is hardly a consensus of scientists. In fact, the scientific study of global environment was a relatively new science in the 1970s. There was anything but consensus. Models and theory were emerging, but unproven. Computer simulations were primative by today's standards. There were those who anticipated and predicted global warming even then. And there were those who were not convinced.

As I said in my first post, as recently as about 10 years ago, there was still doubt in the scientific community about even the existence of global warming.

But I suspect this is going to be like the tobacco companies and cancer. Long after it is obvious to everyone with half a brain that we are indeed damaging the environment in ways that will be very detrimental, there will be a few people with PhDs working for the big poluting industries in the world denying it. They will proclaim that any direct link between the black smoke pouring out of their factories and the poor air quality is coincidental. They will deny that the chemicals they are pouring into the ground are linked in any provable way with the outbreak of 3-headed babies downstream. etc. Big companies with big $$'s will be able to find people with formal educational credentials to pretend to do science. And the non-scientific community that reads Newsweek and Time instead of professional journals to gain scientific knowledge is really not able to tell the difference.

As TH has pointed out, do we really need to debate the scientific basis of this to know that polution is not good? :eek:
 
Pollution is good. Ask a Chinese getting the benefit of 9% GDP growth - that big cloud of we had over SE Asia a few years back was a small price to pay. Do you really think that tree hugging crap is going to sell to people who see the 'pot of gold of modernization'. Convincing them to scrap coal and go nuclear might sell though.
 
unclemick2 said:
Pollution is good. . .
I think unclemick is interviewing for one of those science jobs the big poluting industries are offering. :) :) :)
 
mikey said:
Martha, that sounds like a good rig. Could you describe it in more detail? What size pipe? What kind and size of wire? Did you drill holes in the pipe to receive the wire? How wide did you make it?

Thanks for any info.

Mikey

Mikey, it is far from artfull and was made as a result of wanting a cold frame of sorts and going into the garage to see what I could use to make one. My DH has LOTS of plumbing supplies from apartment remodels. The pvc I used was the size used for sink drains. The dimensions were roughly 30 inches by 72 inches. The wire was aluminum from an old tv antenae so it was pretty thick. I drilled holes into the pvc and stuck the wire hoops in the holes. I covered the whole thing with plastic. The part of the design which is far from elegant was that I attached the plastic to the pvc with duct tape. But it doesn't show because I attached it on the interior side. The ends I left loose so I could vent it.

Here is one made entirely of pvc: http://www.pvcplans.com/coldframe.htm

Given the price of the overstock coldframe/minigreenhouse, it probably makes more sense to buy that one unless you have all the parts available.
 
Thanks, Martha. That is pretty much what I visualized, but I wasn't sure. I'll have a look at what I have in the garage. The only thing I know for sure that I won't find in my garage is my car. :)

Mikey
 
Caroline said:
I hear you, th, this guy has really disappointed me lately. On the other hand, I have some bay-front property out here I've been worried about. Maybe he'd like to take it off my hands.

His show on cnbc just got cancelled. Apparently we werent the only disappointed ones.
 


A bit different rom Martha's but oh so easy!

CHP... the picture didn't happen, I'll try again.

Judy
 
Back
Top Bottom