|
No, this can't be true, the hard core righties say they don't work!
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 11:23:36 -0500, wrote: The same is true now in the central valley of California right now. We were there a few years ago and there were miles of brown fields next to some green ones, simply because of water rationing. === Stop me if I'm wrong but I believe the central valley depends on snow melt for their irrigation water, which in turn is influenced by cyclical ocean temperature patterns in the Pacific. This is the same issue which is causing low water in the Colorado River reservoirs which in the case of Lake Powell and Lake Mead, are down about 60 feet from their maximum levels. The problem is we have allocated more water than is available. The Central Valley farmers get subsidized water and lots are reselling those water rights they got for 40 years from the Federal Government for huge profits. They pay from $6-9 an acre foot and resell it to Los Angeles for $200+. More profit than growing crops. Plus the biggest user in the valley is growing subsidized cotton, which is a huge water hog. As the book said the "Cadillac Dessert". One cotton Farmer in Kern County sold water to the city of Mojave for $1500 an acre foot. Nice profit. http://stopcanal.org/node/71 The Colorado river is about 140% of normal water flow allocated. There is not enough flow to meet the contracts on average. We have farmers here who are on State Water and on Federal Water. All comes from the same place, but the Federal water users get to resell the water they do not use in agricuture, where as those getting State Water (Delta Mendota Canal) can not resell. |
No, this can't be true, the hard core righties say they don't work!
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 20:11:21 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 13:22:14 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 11:23:36 -0500, wrote: The same is true now in the central valley of California right now. We were there a few years ago and there were miles of brown fields next to some green ones, simply because of water rationing. === Stop me if I'm wrong but I believe the central valley depends on snow melt for their irrigation water, which in turn is influenced by cyclical ocean temperature patterns in the Pacific. This is the same issue which is causing low water in the Colorado River reservoirs which in the case of Lake Powell and Lake Mead, are down about 60 feet from their maximum levels. Yes but the open question is how fast are they using that water. It is still a finite resource and consumption goes up every year. Actually I think the dams are lower than that unless they are up from when we were there. I am not sure if I have any pictures of the "ring around the tub" but it was striking and more than 60 feet high when we were there. It was certainly a long walk from the marina buildings down to the docks. === The marina buildings are now on floating docks which can be moved in and out (mostly out at this time). The launch ramps are incredibly long, probably close to 1/4 mile. 60 feet is my estimate, might be more. According to this web site lake Powell is almost 81 feet below full pool. http://lakepowell.water-data.com/ All it takes is 3 to 5 years of above average snow fall to bring it all back. One of the issues is that we guarantee Mexico a certain minimum amount of water every year, something like 1.5 million acre feet if my memory is correct. Would take consistant above average water input to even keep up with allocations. Yes we allocate water to Mexico. They were using the Colorado River for years in their farming as the river does go into Mexico. But what actually gets to the Sea of Cortez is highly polluted. Look at all those fountains and golf courses in the desert and you will see where millions of gallons are wasted. |
No, this can't be true, the hard core righties say they don't work!
wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 11:21:47 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... Almost every invention when first developed was too expensive, unreliable, etc. And an alarming number remain that way until they fade away. Go find a stack of popular mechanics magazines from the 50s and 60s and you will see that far more than half of their "wonderful inventions" are not with us today. As Tim Wilson says "where the **** is my jet pack?" http://forum.grasscity.com/music-gen...im-wilson.html Yeah, the car, the bike, the lawnmower, the electric light, the outboard motor, the refrigerator, the air conditioner, the cotton gin, the steam engine, the rifle, and on and on...... All too expensive and unreliable when first brought out...... An alarming number of failed designs in all of those products were hyped to the max and then discarded. Where is the turbine car? The Wankel? The gyrojet rifle? The Lisa? The Betamax? the 8 track? The point is that just because someone comes out with a product that seems to be better (like Beta and the 8 track), time and the market will decide if it really succeeds. How many of those products were government subsidized like a Tesla car? |
No, this can't be true, the hard core righties say they don't work!
In article ,
says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article om, says... On 11/5/2012 1:25 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article om, says... On 11/5/2012 11:35 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 21:42:35 -0500, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:41:01 -0500, BAR wrote: The leftists want us to stop using all fossil fuel which is not practicable. === Not yet practicable. Someday it will be a necessity for one reason or another, might as well prepare now to the extent possible. Our problem is that we use fossil fuel all of our packaging and it is critical to manufacturing. It doesn't matter, sooner or later, there will be no fossil fuel available at any price. You'll have to switch to some sort of bio-based packaging.. P.S.. The difference between living cells and thermally cracked ones(fossil fuels) is not that much of difference. (Need extra energy inputs to grow, collect bio-matter, and then crack them via pyrolysis. ). Eventually EROEI on fossil fuels will drop so low, It won't even be worth looking for them. But, before that happens the extra CO2 we've put into the atmosphere will drive Earth's Biosphere into the major 6th extinction level event. You can't explain science to people who get all of their information from FOX..... I rarely catch Fox news. Go ahead and explain science to me, nimrod. The 6th extinction follows the 5th. Also, as I've tried to tell the hard core right wingers here (and they don't get it) fossil fuel is a finite resource. As suspected. You can't explain what science is. Oh, I didn't realize that you didn't know what "science" as a whole is. Okay, so science is the the knowledge of dealing with facts in a systematic arrangement showing the operation of the laws of the physical or material world. -------------------------- That is not science. Science is studying and finding out the facts. Not knowing all the facts. From Merriam-Webster: Definition of SCIENCE 1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding 2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study the science of theology b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge have it down to a science 3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science 4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws cooking is both a science and an art BS. If science is knowing, then why do we have scientist studying the unknown? Right, so the dictionary is wrong... got it!!! |
No, this can't be true, the hard core righties say they don't work!
In article ,
says... wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 11:21:47 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... Almost every invention when first developed was too expensive, unreliable, etc. And an alarming number remain that way until they fade away. Go find a stack of popular mechanics magazines from the 50s and 60s and you will see that far more than half of their "wonderful inventions" are not with us today. As Tim Wilson says "where the **** is my jet pack?" http://forum.grasscity.com/music-gen...im-wilson.html Yeah, the car, the bike, the lawnmower, the electric light, the outboard motor, the refrigerator, the air conditioner, the cotton gin, the steam engine, the rifle, and on and on...... All too expensive and unreliable when first brought out...... An alarming number of failed designs in all of those products were hyped to the max and then discarded. Where is the turbine car? The Wankel? The gyrojet rifle? The Lisa? The Betamax? the 8 track? The point is that just because someone comes out with a product that seems to be better (like Beta and the 8 track), time and the market will decide if it really succeeds. How many of those products were government subsidized like a Tesla car? Actually, through various grants and subsidies, quite a lot of them. |
No, this can't be true, the hard core righties say they don't work!
"iBoaterer" wrote in message
... In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article om, says... On 11/5/2012 1:25 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article om, says... On 11/5/2012 11:35 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 21:42:35 -0500, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:41:01 -0500, BAR wrote: The leftists want us to stop using all fossil fuel which is not practicable. === Not yet practicable. Someday it will be a necessity for one reason or another, might as well prepare now to the extent possible. Our problem is that we use fossil fuel all of our packaging and it is critical to manufacturing. It doesn't matter, sooner or later, there will be no fossil fuel available at any price. You'll have to switch to some sort of bio-based packaging.. P.S.. The difference between living cells and thermally cracked ones(fossil fuels) is not that much of difference. (Need extra energy inputs to grow, collect bio-matter, and then crack them via pyrolysis. ). Eventually EROEI on fossil fuels will drop so low, It won't even be worth looking for them. But, before that happens the extra CO2 we've put into the atmosphere will drive Earth's Biosphere into the major 6th extinction level event. You can't explain science to people who get all of their information from FOX..... I rarely catch Fox news. Go ahead and explain science to me, nimrod. The 6th extinction follows the 5th. Also, as I've tried to tell the hard core right wingers here (and they don't get it) fossil fuel is a finite resource. As suspected. You can't explain what science is. Oh, I didn't realize that you didn't know what "science" as a whole is. Okay, so science is the the knowledge of dealing with facts in a systematic arrangement showing the operation of the laws of the physical or material world. -------------------------- That is not science. Science is studying and finding out the facts. Not knowing all the facts. From Merriam-Webster: Definition of SCIENCE 1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding 2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study the science of theology b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge have it down to a science 3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science 4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws cooking is both a science and an art BS. If science is knowing, then why do we have scientist studying the unknown? Right, so the dictionary is wrong... got it!!! --------------------- You use a very limited definition. |
No, this can't be true, the hard core righties say they don't work!
"iBoaterer" wrote in message
... In article , says... wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 11:21:47 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... Almost every invention when first developed was too expensive, unreliable, etc. And an alarming number remain that way until they fade away. Go find a stack of popular mechanics magazines from the 50s and 60s and you will see that far more than half of their "wonderful inventions" are not with us today. As Tim Wilson says "where the **** is my jet pack?" http://forum.grasscity.com/music-gen...im-wilson.html Yeah, the car, the bike, the lawnmower, the electric light, the outboard motor, the refrigerator, the air conditioner, the cotton gin, the steam engine, the rifle, and on and on...... All too expensive and unreliable when first brought out...... An alarming number of failed designs in all of those products were hyped to the max and then discarded. Where is the turbine car? The Wankel? The gyrojet rifle? The Lisa? The Betamax? the 8 track? The point is that just because someone comes out with a product that seems to be better (like Beta and the 8 track), time and the market will decide if it really succeeds. How many of those products were government subsidized like a Tesla car? Actually, through various grants and subsidies, quite a lot of them. ------------------------------------ Mostly other than university grants, little subsidation. |
No, this can't be true, the hard core righties say they don't work!
In article ,
says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 11:21:47 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... Almost every invention when first developed was too expensive, unreliable, etc. And an alarming number remain that way until they fade away. Go find a stack of popular mechanics magazines from the 50s and 60s and you will see that far more than half of their "wonderful inventions" are not with us today. As Tim Wilson says "where the **** is my jet pack?" http://forum.grasscity.com/music-gen...im-wilson.html Yeah, the car, the bike, the lawnmower, the electric light, the outboard motor, the refrigerator, the air conditioner, the cotton gin, the steam engine, the rifle, and on and on...... All too expensive and unreliable when first brought out...... An alarming number of failed designs in all of those products were hyped to the max and then discarded. Where is the turbine car? The Wankel? The gyrojet rifle? The Lisa? The Betamax? the 8 track? The point is that just because someone comes out with a product that seems to be better (like Beta and the 8 track), time and the market will decide if it really succeeds. How many of those products were government subsidized like a Tesla car? Actually, through various grants and subsidies, quite a lot of them. ------------------------------------ Mostly other than university grants, little subsidation. Nope. Check out the REA for one. Then check out oil and gas subsidies. Here, I'll help. http://cen.acs.org/articles/89/i51/L...Subsidies.html And especially this one! http://tinyurl.com/ah9gxaf |
No, this can't be true, the hard core righties say they don't work!
In article ,
says... On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 08:40:30 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 11:21:47 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... Almost every invention when first developed was too expensive, unreliable, etc. And an alarming number remain that way until they fade away. Go find a stack of popular mechanics magazines from the 50s and 60s and you will see that far more than half of their "wonderful inventions" are not with us today. As Tim Wilson says "where the **** is my jet pack?" http://forum.grasscity.com/music-gen...im-wilson.html Yeah, the car, the bike, the lawnmower, the electric light, the outboard motor, the refrigerator, the air conditioner, the cotton gin, the steam engine, the rifle, and on and on...... All too expensive and unreliable when first brought out...... An alarming number of failed designs in all of those products were hyped to the max and then discarded. Where is the turbine car? The Wankel? The gyrojet rifle? The Lisa? The Betamax? the 8 track? The point is that just because someone comes out with a product that seems to be better (like Beta and the 8 track), time and the market will decide if it really succeeds. How many of those products were government subsidized like a Tesla car? Actually, through various grants and subsidies, quite a lot of them. Yeah, the government has a long rich history of backing losers. Solyendra is one example but you have things like GM and the space shuttle that we know are flawed but we keep throwing money at them until they crash and burn. GM still owes the government an amount equal to 100% of it's outstanding stock shares but the government only holds a third of them. The shuttle is a good metaphor for that. 40% vehicles that ever flew, ended their life in a crash with the loss of all hands. It also sucked most of the money out of NASA so there was no money left to design a better platform. It is a private company that has the only American path to space. http://tinyurl.com/ah9gxaf |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com