U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 08-22-2013, 10:58 AM
 
Location: Wherabouts Unknown!
7,764 posts, read 16,838,766 times
Reputation: 9316

Advertisements

Josseppie wrote: my personal goal is to be completely off the electrical grid and on solar by 2020. That goes for my house and the business I own in Pueblo.

Seems like a worthy AND achievable goal. At least a half dozen homes in my Grand Junction neighborhood of 45 homes have installed solar panels on their roofs in the past year alone. Solar is catching on. The homes with solar panels are still in the minority, but that is changing quite rapidly. Soon, those without solar panels will be the oddballs.

 
Old 08-22-2013, 10:58 AM
 
Location: Pluto's Home Town
9,995 posts, read 11,641,669 times
Reputation: 5579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glacierx View Post
Anyone is says that the 1930s were wetter than today is either an liar or a fool (not that anyone here would be that foolish).
Well, such a statement might vary a lot from place to place. We are seeing our precipitation rise in Oregon too. But a small rise in water-rich places like the Pacific Northwest may well be balanced by drops in other critical locations.

My impression (from here in Oregon) is that the 1930s and 1940s were unusually wet (negative Pacific Decadal Oscillation, I think), followed by warmer drier positive PDO from the 1970s-2000s, with a recent return to the negative cycle. All this is superimposed on a longer term trend of warming.
 
Old 08-22-2013, 11:08 AM
 
Location: Wherabouts Unknown!
7,764 posts, read 16,838,766 times
Reputation: 9316
McGowdog wrote: I think the 5-7 day forecasts have become very accurate. You can rely upon them.

My reliance on 5 day forecasts has gotten me soaked on many a hike and/or camping trip in Colorado, when the chance of rain was 10 or 20% a day or two ahead. Relying upon a forecast of more than 24hrs in advance is still risky business in the Colorado mountains. If you live in LA or San Diego trusting the 5 day forecast is far less risky.
 
Old 08-22-2013, 11:08 AM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,174 posts, read 20,959,783 times
Reputation: 4258
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicWizard View Post

Seems like a worthy AND achievable goal. At least a half dozen homes in my Grand Junction neighborhood of 45 homes have installed solar panels on their roofs in the past year alone. Solar is catching on. The homes with solar panels are still in the minority, but that is changing quite rapidly. Soon, those without solar panels will be the oddballs.
And soon we won't even see the solar panels as they will be the size of dimes. Most people don't realize how fast information technology is advancing and the impact that is having on things like the climate. Less then a decade ago we did not have smart phones and now we have Google glasses and soon will have contacts lenses with computers in them that will make smart phones obsolete. We live in a amazing time and with how technology is advancing I am not worried about climate change and how it will impact the state of Colorado.
 
Old 08-22-2013, 12:15 PM
 
Location: Vernon, British Columbia
3,019 posts, read 2,680,735 times
Reputation: 2126
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicWizard View Post
Josseppie wrote: my personal goal is to be completely off the electrical grid and on solar by 2020. That goes for my house and the business I own in Pueblo.

Seems like a worthy AND achievable goal. At least a half dozen homes in my Grand Junction neighborhood of 45 homes have installed solar panels on their roofs in the past year alone. Solar is catching on. The homes with solar panels are still in the minority, but that is changing quite rapidly. Soon, those without solar panels will be the oddballs.
I know a lot of people who are off-grid with solar panels (including my mother), but if you already have power into your place, it is almost always better for the environment and more cost effective to implement a net metering system whereby you sell your solar power to the grid in the day and buy it back at night (the difference is generally settled once a year). You are essentially using the grid as your battery. Batteries are expensive and inefficient in addition to their environmental concerns.
 
Old 08-23-2013, 12:40 AM
 
Location: CO/UT/AZ/NM Catch me if you can!
4,697 posts, read 4,333,575 times
Reputation: 10278
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanneroo View Post
They can't even predict the weather right 5 days out so to say they can predict it in 2100 is laughable. I first remember hearing back in 1986 when I was in elementary school about Global Warming. Our local TV meteorologist was a big believer and I can still remember the charts and graphs he showed us that by 2000 and 2010 we would all be burning alive, coastal cities would be flooded and under the ocean and chaos would reign. He did a number of "special reports" on the TV channel too.
Thank you for providing yet another excellent example as to why people don't belive in global warming - media hype. "Your" TV meteorologist may actually have studied meteorology, but he was just as likely to have studied broadcast journalism as anything else. Heck for all we viewers know the guy giving the weather report could have been some drunk scraped up off the street. I can give you and educated guess which is actually closer to being a certainty: The dude was no climatologist. Climatology is an exacting science which is not offered as an undergraduate major, the way meteorology is. Frankly, you don't have to be all that bright to report the weather on TV.

Broadcast stations sure like to get high viewer ratings, however. And what better way to get high ratings than to predict the end of the world? For whatever reason: The Mayan Calender; Y2K; Jim Jones and his kool aide, Stephen King movies and mini-series, etc., etc. After a while we all become jaded by this constant barrage of imaginary hysteria, and we tune it out.

That's why I'm asking folks around here to keep an open and critical mind. Look around your own cities and towns. Look around the forests the next time you go on a hike. Believe what your eyes tell you, especially if you keep seeing the same things only worse. A couple of beetle killed trees doesn't mean anything. 2,000 beetle killed trees means maybe there's something going on

Quote:
Being a book worm and frequent visitor to the library I hit the books and started reading and even then figured that we were merely in a cycle of hot and drier weather based on a study of meteorology books and history. As big as the earth was I had enough common sense to know the earth balanced itself, plants ate CO2 and if anything plant growth would be stimulated if there was more CO2 in the atmosphere. And none of what that guy predicted came to pass. 2000 and 2010 came and went without New York City being underwater and we still got snow.
You are correct in your statement that CO2 encourages plant growth (plants don't exactly "eat" CO2 - but close enough). If CO2 was all that's needed to grow plants, medical marijuana growers would be in heaven. However CO2 alone won't grow so much as a single plant cell, never mind a jungle. Plants need the same things every other living being needs - nutrients, the right amount of daylight, and the right amount of water to name a few. In addition different plants are adapted to different environments. You can't just plop a coconut tree in your yard in Denver and do nothing else to it because all that extra CO2 is going to make it grow. If you try such an experiment, you are going to be sorely disappointed come Colorado's first frost if not sooner.

Even human beings are no different that plants in this regard. I can come across a herd of 100 cattle that a rancher gives away to me. I come home and exclaim to you, "Look all the steak we could ever want to eat! Then I lock you in a very warm room, and give you a half or a quarter of the amount of water that the human body needs to intake daily for survival. I do shove 20 nice sized steaks under the door for you every day, though. If we carry out this experiment for 60 days, what shape do you think you'll be in at the end of the 60 days? Dead, of course - just like the trees up in the forests which have gotten plenty of CO2 but not enough water and are living in warm temperatures they were never adapted to.

Quote:
Sadly Climategate 1 and 2 busted these scientists as frauds with a political agenda and by continuing the conspiracy and drama they could keep the funding going.
I'm curious to know just what political agenda you believe climatologists and the rest of the scientific world has? Every legitimate organization for every field of science has come out expressing concern over climate change. According to you they are all lying, and I'm lying myself since I was trained in the Sciences.

The biologists, the chemists, the ecologists, the zoologists, the botanists, the physicists, the mathematicians, the climatologists, and the rest - liars, every last one.

It's like the story line in every conservative's favorite book (well, the ones who know how to read, anyway), Atlas Shrugged. Except instead of that captain of industry and well known,sociopath, John Galt and all his friends going into hiding; it's the scientists who have decided to leave society behind. Because science is all about the truth - not lies. The word "science" came from the Latin word for knowledge: scientia. That's one huge conspiracy theory you got going on there. I'll give you that. Yeah, everyone who got accepted to study a scientific discipline at CU had to sign a statement in their own blood that from now on, they would tell nothing but lies. I remember thinking at the time how cool it was that I didn't have to study calculus anymore - wouldn't want to forget anf accidently get a right answer, that I never again had to disect a frog or collect 500 flowering plants mount them on herbarium sheets; no more chemistry lab, no physics - nothing. It was the easiest degree I ever got and I wish we'd all made the decision to just lie about everything sooner. The world according to wanneroo. Yes...

Now that wanneroo has fallen asleep in the corner over there in the 5th parallel universe over. Let's address his next scientific finding:

Quote:
The pine beetle issue is well documented. For 70-80 years they have not let forest fires burn so they could regenerate the forests, so nature found another way. Man's desire for "conservation" has killed these forests. However when these forests do burn, there will be new growth and new trees.
As Tonto would say, well documented by who, white boy? I think you must have studied forest ecology with one of those groups of forest ecologists who read too much Ayn Rand in the 5th parallel universe over. Try reading something, ANYTHING that is not tea party propaganda. For example, here's an excerpt from that well know pack of scientific liars at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Science:

[I]Across western North America, from Mexico to Alaska, forest die-off is occurring on an extraordinary scale, unprecedented in at least the last century-and-a-half — and perhaps much longer. All told, the Rocky Mountains in Canada and the United States have seen nearly 70,000 square miles of forest — an area the size of Washington state — die since 2000. For the most part, this massive die-off is being caused by outbreaks of tree-killing insects, from the ips beetle in the Southwest that has killed pinyon pine, to the spruce beetle, fir beetle, and the major pest — the mountain pine beetle — that has hammered forests in the north.

These large-scale forest deaths from beetle infestations are likely a symptom of a bigger problem, according to scientists: warming temperatures and increased stress, due to a changing climate. Although western North America has been hardest hit by insect infestations, sizeable areas of forest in Australia, Russia, France, and other countries have experienced die-offs, most of which appears to have been caused by drought, high temperatures, or both.[/i]

from What’s Killing the Great Forests of the American West?

by jim robbins
 
Old 08-24-2013, 09:54 AM
 
147 posts, read 187,674 times
Reputation: 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanneroo View Post
They can't even predict the weather right 5 days out so to say they can predict it in 2100 is laughable. I first remember hearing back in 1986 when I was in elementary school about Global Warming. Our local TV meteorologist was a big believer........
1986? Young people. There's just no learnin' 'em. I remember back in 70s (tongue in cheek) when all the great scientists of the earth unanimously declared that by Y2k, the earth would be 10 degrees cooler due to pollution, factories, pickup trucks, and pretty much everything else they hated. The glaciers had ceased their retreat and were now moving forward again. They called it "expansive glaciation" to make it sound sophisticated. By mid 21st century, we would be irreversibly headed into a new ice age caused purely by the activities of humans. This was taught to us in high school ecology class as fact. My teacher was adamant about the truth of this, constantly reminding us how world scientists were in complete agreement about this. As a budding scientist, I believed every bit of it.

I'd really like to know what the actual forest cover was in western states back in the 18th century. No one really knows, but I'll bet there were a lot less trees back when we didn't put out fires. And not as many old trees. Today's tree cover is completely unnatural, so nature is just returning balance.

Remember the Yellowstone fires in the 80s? Congressional hearings, scientists declared it a catastrophe, told congress it would take centuries to recover. 10 years later, scientific surveys found recovery advancing at an unprecedented rate (meaning we scientists blew it again). New species returning to the area, deer populations exploding due to new food sources cropping up, blah, blah, blah.

Climate alarmism, and environmentalism in general, have become nothing more than another fanatical religion. Complete with sects, rituals, and holidays. And the most important characteristic of any religion - making up mystical stories for things they cannot explain with reason (see flat earth).
 
Old 08-24-2013, 11:23 AM
 
Location: Fort Collins, USA
1,448 posts, read 2,355,834 times
Reputation: 1775
Quote:
Originally Posted by freewest View Post
Remember the Yellowstone fires in the 80s? Congressional hearings, scientists declared it a catastrophe, told congress it would take centuries to recover. 10 years later, scientific surveys found recovery advancing at an unprecedented rate (meaning we scientists blew it again). New species returning to the area, deer populations exploding due to new food sources cropping up, blah, blah, blah.
That's not what I remember. Scientists who study those types of things realized that the fires would ultimately be very beneficial to the ecosystem. The media, many in Congress, and the people who believe that the highest goal of environmentalism should be protecting wildlife, were the ones who played the whole thing up as a horrible tragedy.

Last edited by xeric; 08-24-2013 at 11:32 AM..
 
Old 08-24-2013, 11:47 AM
 
9,830 posts, read 19,529,511 times
Reputation: 7602
Quote:
Originally Posted by freewest View Post
1986? Young people. There's just no learnin' 'em. I remember back in 70s (tongue in cheek) when all the great scientists of the earth unanimously declared that by Y2k, the earth would be 10 degrees cooler due to pollution, factories, pickup trucks, and pretty much everything else they hated. The glaciers had ceased their retreat and were now moving forward again. They called it "expansive glaciation" to make it sound sophisticated. By mid 21st century, we would be irreversibly headed into a new ice age caused purely by the activities of humans. This was taught to us in high school ecology class as fact. My teacher was adamant about the truth of this, constantly reminding us how world scientists were in complete agreement about this. As a budding scientist, I believed every bit of it.

I'd really like to know what the actual forest cover was in western states back in the 18th century. No one really knows, but I'll bet there were a lot less trees back when we didn't put out fires. And not as many old trees. Today's tree cover is completely unnatural, so nature is just returning balance.

Remember the Yellowstone fires in the 80s? Congressional hearings, scientists declared it a catastrophe, told congress it would take centuries to recover. 10 years later, scientific surveys found recovery advancing at an unprecedented rate (meaning we scientists blew it again). New species returning to the area, deer populations exploding due to new food sources cropping up, blah, blah, blah.

Climate alarmism, and environmentalism in general, have become nothing more than another fanatical religion. Complete with sects, rituals, and holidays. And the most important characteristic of any religion - making up mystical stories for things they cannot explain with reason (see flat earth).
Yes if one goes back and looks at Newsweek, Time, National Geographic from the mid 1970's, the great panic was Global Cooling and if we did not Act Now! we would all be buried under a glacier.

I went through the same thing in my career in school from junior high to university, with global warming now being the "consensus" and that we'd have radical temperature climbs by 2010 and cities would sink into the ocean and none of it happened.

It is said that the USA has more trees now than it did in 1600.

I think you are right the forests we see today in the west are artificial. Most likely if we let nature take it's course the forests overall would be much younger and healthier than the mess today.

I believe all of the environMENTALism movement is a vehicle for the statists to push a totalitarian collective agenda. By shaming everyone into thinking this and that will cause the world to die, they can de industrialize the USA and control the populace. The end game is a state like North Korea or the USSR with an enlightened class of people with all the goodies just like eco warriors that jet around in their private planes to save the world and a peasant class that toils under a totalitarian yoke.

In order to achieve that utopian state they have to destroy, minimize and attack the individual and the human desire to improve their lives. Concocting fantasies like global warming is a great way to do it.
 
Old 08-24-2013, 11:59 AM
 
Location: Bend, OR
3,296 posts, read 8,423,223 times
Reputation: 3321
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanneroo View Post

I think you are right the forests we see today in the west are artificial. Most likely if we let nature take it's course the forests overall would be much younger and healthier than the mess today.
Actually, if we were to leave the forests in the west to their own devices, there would be much less homogenous stands of Ponderosa pine and spruce/fir (in Colorado). There would be many large diameter, healthy P. pine, because fire would clean out the understory and only the stronger of the youngest trees would survive. There would be large meadows open in spruce/fir forests and once the oldest of those trees died, they would fall, allowing light to reach the forest floor and creating a place for new seedlings to take root. The lodgepole pine and aspen forests would still be thick, but fire would replace entire stands and allow the new trees to emerge.

So, yes, they would be healthier, but they wouldn't necessarily be younger.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:32 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top