you realize that under that definition almost all water that isnt pumped out of the ground or reclaimed is "green water", right? that's a useless definition.
it takes 500 gallons of water for every pound of beef. its another facet of the notion that in order to get a pound of beef, and the calories it contains, that cow must be fed many magnitudes more calories/pounds of feed. its an extremely inefficient transaction.
your contention that you would need to quantity how much water it takes to grow plants in the cows place is pure BS when you consider that you have to grow the plants in the first place to feed the cow. in the plant > cow > human chain, elimination the middle-cow dramatically increases how many people can be fed, and reduces the water consumption needed to get there.
a majority of California farms also still use flood irrigation. still. during the current record drought.
people like to complain that the state is controlled by enviro lefties...but if they simply visited more than just the coastal cities they'd learn they really have no clue what they're talking about. big business, particularly big ag, is what really controls the state.
the recent harsh water restrictions? they don't apply to agriculture. which is pathetically stupid.
like taking time to put a bandaid on a paper cut, while bleeding out from a severed leg.
its only a fantasy if you don't know what you're talking about, as evidenced by referring to "billions of turbines", or mountain ranges of batteries. More solar energy lands on the earth in 40 minutes than the entirety of humanity uses in a year. The solar array needed to power the planet is only ~130 miles on a side. ( http://www.iflscience.com/envi... links to one of several papers on it)
Several (5-8) spaced around the globe. Added in storage method (pick one, there's dozens). Add in smart grids (something we need anyway). Profit.
Merely putting solar on every residential roof in the US would already provide 25% of the needed area to power the world. Adding in commercial rooftops, 50%. Add the EU, 100%. That's just the US And the EU. If you were to consider -just- powering hte US or just the EU, it'd be far in excess of requirements.
Your problem is its too big for you to conceptualize, so you insist it cannot be done. But advancements and achievements like the pyramids, the internet, flight, or any of the other of thousands of things humanity has accomplished we never done by naysayers like you. You quit before you've even started.
You think you're smarter than the world's top engineers and scientists? Ok. Prove em wrong then, with whatever qualifications you think you have to disprove people in the top of their fields. It's an actively on going project of research and thought.
Because people a lot more experienced and smarter than you are working on it now. Today.
b>Because it IS doable in our lifetime with current technology, let alone the refinements and advancments that would occur during or as a result of the project.
the graph of arctic ice extent is your counterpoint? news flash buddy, it neither supports your argument, nor refutes mine. talk about brains not able to process....
also, you should try reading before replying on a topic you claim, contrary to evidence, to know anything about.
Arctic sea ice was first deemed "almost seasonally ice free" in summer 2010 by professor David Barber. Barber is professor of environment and geography, Canada's research chair in Arctic system science and director of the Centre for Earth Observation Science (CEOS) at the University of Manitoba, in Winnipeg.
Dr. Barber has been searching for 20-foot thick multiyear Arctic sea ice in the Beaufort Sea, an area of the Arctic Ocean that stretches for almost 1,000 miles along the coasts of Alaska and Canada.
For his research in summer 2010, he cruised through the Beaufort Sea in the ice breaker Amundsen and never did find that multiyear ice. What Barber's team did find was vastly different from what the satellites were telling them was there. They thought they would find 20- to 30-foot thick multiyear ice covering 7 percent to 9 percent of the Beaufort Sea.
Instead, they found 25 percent open water and very small remnant multiyear and first-year floes interspersed with thin new ice in between. Unfortunately, these satellite errors are not in our favor. The problem is because these conditions are new. They simply have not existed before, so there was no way to test for them and know that this sea icescape looks, to the eye of the satellite, exactly like a sea icescape that is thick and solid.7
The ice the Amundsen encountered was so rotten that it did not impede the forward progress of the ship. What they found was hundreds of miles of what Barber called "rotten ice." This was 20-inch layers of fresh ice covering small chunks of older ice.8 This discovery came as a great surprise to this researcher as he cruised through the rotten ice of the Beaufort Sea at 14 miles per hour (the top speed of his vessel in open water is 15 miles per hour). The Amundsen was designed to break 1-meter thick sea ice (3.3 feet) at 3.4 miles per hour. The ice they found was so rotten that the Amundsen could break 19 to 26 feet of rotten multiyear ice at 5.7 miles per hour.9
This fascinating tale was from summer 2010, remember. Carbon dioxide continues to accumulate; physics marches on. Northwest Passage exploration of this new millennia has left us with these quotes from Barber attesting to this brave new world we have created for ourselves:
"Ship navigation across the pole is imminent as the type of ice which resides there is no longer a barrier to [normal] ships in the late summer and fall,"10
"If you want to ship across the pole, you're concerned about multiyear sea ice. You're not concerned about this rotten stuff we we're doing 13 knots through. It's easy to navigate through. I would argue that we almost have a seasonally ice-free Arctic now, because multiyear sea ice is the barrier to the use and development of the Arctic."11
The recent record-breaking Arctic sea ice melt season has even greater significance if a few more details are understood. The 2007 record, which broke the recently set 2005 record by 22 percent, was considered a freak weather occurrence in the popular literature. This was because an unusual (for our old climate) weather system set up over the Arctic in summer 2007. Warmer-than normal-temperatures and high winds combined to reduce sea ice that year. The winds pushed ice up against Canada and out of the Arctic into the North Atlantic and down the Fram Straight to the east of Greenland. This weather system may or may not be unusual in our new climate.
However, the 2012 record is a different story. The 2012 record shattering comes after an "average" summer and the Barents and Kara Seas north of Russia were cooler than normal.
The past nine years have seen the lowest nine years of sea ice volume and extents ever re
ya...doesnt work that way. truth hurts bitch. this is the FCC doing its job: regulating communication in the public interest.
you have never posted a true word on net neutrality. you have been shown countless examples of times it would have prevented bad behavior. yet you continue to maintain that its both not needed, and that there are no examples. you are a liar, and shill.
Crikey. It's the shill in his natural habitat. This particular specimen is drawn to net neutrality threats like an ignorant moth to a flame. Note how he repeats the same myths even though he's been corrected several dozen times before. Biologists are yet unsure whether this means his species is completely unable or willing to learn, or just that dedicated to his job.
You really think they get to look at it once, correct it once, and then say "ok, done, we never need to adjust it again, we'll never ever learn about some new factor not yet accounted for, or a better way to account for it" ??
was your thermometer in the sun or shade? top of a hill or bottom of a valley? near a reflective surface or body of water? at what elevation? is in consistently windy? was it abnormally NOT windy that day?
seriously, this is explained every time it comes up. your ignorant inability to comprehend it does not disprove it.
note that claims about WWI, Civil War, and Revolutionary War debt all basically get the same refutation. the war used changes, but the reasoning is the same yet rooted in the same ignorance. thus the refutation is the same.
If the other 115 million homes in the country each also got a "free" $34000 in money for the same purpose... the government would have to borrow 3.9 TRILLION dollars (about 25% of the current federal debt).. luckily so far out great great great grandchildren only have to pay for a few greedy selfish fucks.
You appear to have no idea precisely how large the economy is, or how such a thing would be spaced out over time. Nor do you seem aware of the other savings that would result from such an expenditure. You're simply looking at one number out of context and without any other background, and then based on that ignorance saying "no". The health savings alone from eliminating a tremendous amount of fossil fuel use would more than compensate.
So once again, you prove your ignorant and or shill nature.
Oh JFC. it's even called at the top of the section THE BARE ROCK MODEL, and concludes with the sentence "Our simple model is too cold because it lacks the greenhouse effect. We had no atmosphere on our planet; what we calculated was the temperature of a bare rock in space, like the moon."
Even broken down Barney style for simpletons to create a basic starting point, you still fail to understand what it is they are doing and saying.
actually everything you said has been disproven, as everything you said is based upon the unrepressed ignorance represented by WUWT and Goddard, who continually misunderstand or misrepresent the data.
The thing about NASA's surface measurements is that they come from sparse temperature stations that are badly compromised by encroached urban heat islands
that is incorrect sir. not only are they not sparse, but the heat island effect is well known and is one of the very things corrected for.
Further, the stations that could potentially be affect by the HI effect can be removed entirely from the data sets, and the trend is not changed. instead the warming is still present in the data, even using rural only data: http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Speaking of bull ****, do you need a breath mint after spewing that pile?
No one has EVER advocated reducing the world to 3rd world conditions, or serfdom, in order to stop global warming. You can keep saying, indeed you say it often, but that doesn't make it true.
And no, sorry, the geological record in fact does not indicate that a warmer planet than we currently will be good for us or the rest of the biosphere.
you don't understand the difference between the two scenarios you posit.
you're comparing a single snowstorm in a single city, in winter, with a mountain that has a long term trend of decreasing snow levels.
the only one who thinks they are directly comparable, and therefore equivalent, is YOU. to be comparable you'd either have to look at the long term trends in Boston snowstorms (duration, frequency, begin date, end date), OR look at a single day's weather on the mountain.
really, how do you not grasp that the long term trend in snow cover on a mountain is different from a single snowstorm event during a season hen you expect snow storms?
[W]e havent measured any effects, except that the temperatures have slightly warmed over a century.
Actually we have a lot more than just thermometers reading higher numbers. There are many lines of evidence, all interlocking and leading to the same conclusion.
And you also stated pretty much the exact opposite of what the real science and observed data suggests. And that my friend is the literal definition of "denial".
ive already done and shown the analysis, as well linked to analysis by other engineers and scientists even more adept than myself, to how we can do solar and wind now, today, with current technology, and replace the entire energy needs of the planet. the idea that we can only do it for a minority of the planet only shows your own ignorance on the subject.
Speaking of bull****, do you need a breath mint after spewing that pile?
No one has EVER advocated reducing the world to 3rd world conditions, or serfdom, in order to stop global warming. You can keep saying, indeed you say it often, but that doesn't make it true.
And no, sorry, the geological record in fact does not indicate that a warmer planet than we currently will be good for us or the rest of the biosphere.
if they gave you the unadjusted data you would think global warming was 20% worse (warmer) than it is, because the overall effect of the adjustments has been to reduce the apparent warming shown in the data.
and again the whole "just give us the data" argument seems silly. I mean, sure, they could give it to you (indeed if you dig the data is out there).
but based on what precise qualifications will you be basing your second guessing ?
Slashdot Mirror
you realize that under that definition almost all water that isnt pumped out of the ground or reclaimed is "green water", right?
that's a useless definition.
it takes 500 gallons of water for every pound of beef. its another facet of the notion that in order to get a pound of beef, and the calories it contains, that cow must be fed many magnitudes more calories/pounds of feed. its an extremely inefficient transaction.
your contention that you would need to quantity how much water it takes to grow plants in the cows place is pure BS when you consider that you have to grow the plants in the first place to feed the cow. in the plant > cow > human chain, elimination the middle-cow dramatically increases how many people can be fed, and reduces the water consumption needed to get there.
a majority of California farms also still use flood irrigation.
still.
during the current record drought.
people like to complain that the state is controlled by enviro lefties...but if they simply visited more than just the coastal cities they'd learn they really have no clue what they're talking about. big business, particularly big ag, is what really controls the state.
the recent harsh water restrictions?
they don't apply to agriculture.
which is pathetically stupid.
like taking time to put a bandaid on a paper cut, while bleeding out from a severed leg.
its only a fantasy if you don't know what you're talking about, as evidenced by referring to "billions of turbines", or mountain ranges of batteries. More solar energy lands on the earth in 40 minutes than the entirety of humanity uses in a year. The solar array needed to power the planet is only ~130 miles on a side. ( http://www.iflscience.com/envi... links to one of several papers on it)
Several (5-8) spaced around the globe.
Added in storage method (pick one, there's dozens).
Add in smart grids (something we need anyway).
Profit.
Merely putting solar on every residential roof in the US would already provide 25% of the needed area to power the world. Adding in commercial rooftops, 50%. Add the EU, 100%. That's just the US And the EU. If you were to consider -just- powering hte US or just the EU, it'd be far in excess of requirements.
Your problem is its too big for you to conceptualize, so you insist it cannot be done. But advancements and achievements like the pyramids, the internet, flight, or any of the other of thousands of things humanity has accomplished we never done by naysayers like you. You quit before you've even started.
You think you're smarter than the world's top engineers and scientists? Ok. Prove em wrong then, with whatever qualifications you think you have to disprove people in the top of their fields. It's an actively on going project of research and thought.
Because people a lot more experienced and smarter than you are working on it now.
Today.
b>Because it IS doable in our lifetime with current technology, let alone the refinements and advancments that would occur during or as a result of the project.
the graph of arctic ice extent is your counterpoint? news flash buddy, it neither supports your argument, nor refutes mine. talk about brains not able to process....
also, you should try reading before replying on a topic you claim, contrary to evidence, to know anything about.
Arctic sea ice was first deemed "almost seasonally ice free" in summer 2010 by professor David Barber. Barber is professor of environment and geography, Canada's research chair in Arctic system science and director of the Centre for Earth Observation Science (CEOS) at the University of Manitoba, in Winnipeg.
Dr. Barber has been searching for 20-foot thick multiyear Arctic sea ice in the Beaufort Sea, an area of the Arctic Ocean that stretches for almost 1,000 miles along the coasts of Alaska and Canada.
For his research in summer 2010, he cruised through the Beaufort Sea in the ice breaker Amundsen and never did find that multiyear ice. What Barber's team did find was vastly different from what the satellites were telling them was there. They thought they would find 20- to 30-foot thick multiyear ice covering 7 percent to 9 percent of the Beaufort Sea.
Instead, they found 25 percent open water and very small remnant multiyear and first-year floes interspersed with thin new ice in between. Unfortunately, these satellite errors are not in our favor. The problem is because these conditions are new. They simply have not existed before, so there was no way to test for them and know that this sea icescape looks, to the eye of the satellite, exactly like a sea icescape that is thick and solid.7
The ice the Amundsen encountered was so rotten that it did not impede the forward progress of the ship. What they found was hundreds of miles of what Barber called "rotten ice." This was 20-inch layers of fresh ice covering small chunks of older ice.8 This discovery came as a great surprise to this researcher as he cruised through the rotten ice of the Beaufort Sea at 14 miles per hour (the top speed of his vessel in open water is 15 miles per hour). The Amundsen was designed to break 1-meter thick sea ice (3.3 feet) at 3.4 miles per hour. The ice they found was so rotten that the Amundsen could break 19 to 26 feet of rotten multiyear ice at 5.7 miles per hour.9
This fascinating tale was from summer 2010, remember. Carbon dioxide continues to accumulate; physics marches on. Northwest Passage exploration of this new millennia has left us with these quotes from Barber attesting to this brave new world we have created for ourselves:
"Ship navigation across the pole is imminent as the type of ice which resides there is no longer a barrier to [normal] ships in the late summer and fall,"10
"If you want to ship across the pole, you're concerned about multiyear sea ice. You're not concerned about this rotten stuff we we're doing 13 knots through. It's easy to navigate through. I would argue that we almost have a seasonally ice-free Arctic now, because multiyear sea ice is the barrier to the use and development of the Arctic."11
The recent record-breaking Arctic sea ice melt season has even greater significance if a few more details are understood. The 2007 record, which broke the recently set 2005 record by 22 percent, was considered a freak weather occurrence in the popular literature. This was because an unusual (for our old climate) weather system set up over the Arctic in summer 2007. Warmer-than normal-temperatures and high winds combined to reduce sea ice that year. The winds pushed ice up against Canada and out of the Arctic into the North Atlantic and down the Fram Straight to the east of Greenland. This weather system may or may not be unusual in our new climate.
However, the 2012 record is a different story. The 2012 record shattering comes after an "average" summer and the Barents and Kara Seas north of Russia were cooler than normal.
The past nine years have seen the lowest nine years of sea ice volume and extents ever re
ya...doesnt work that way.
truth hurts bitch.
this is the FCC doing its job: regulating communication in the public interest.
you have never posted a true word on net neutrality.
you have been shown countless examples of times it would have prevented bad behavior.
yet you continue to maintain that its both not needed, and that there are no examples.
you are a liar, and shill.
Crikey.
It's the shill in his natural habitat.
This particular specimen is drawn to net neutrality threats like an ignorant moth to a flame.
Note how he repeats the same myths even though he's been corrected several dozen times before.
Biologists are yet unsure whether this means his species is completely unable or willing to learn, or just that dedicated to his job.
You really think they get to look at it once, correct it once, and then say "ok, done, we never need to adjust it again, we'll never ever learn about some new factor not yet accounted for, or a better way to account for it" ??
Idiot.
was your thermometer in the sun or shade?
top of a hill or bottom of a valley?
near a reflective surface or body of water?
at what elevation?
is in consistently windy?
was it abnormally NOT windy that day?
seriously, this is explained every time it comes up.
your ignorant inability to comprehend it does not disprove it.
note that claims about WWI, Civil War, and Revolutionary War debt all basically get the same refutation. the war used changes, but the reasoning is the same yet rooted in the same ignorance. thus the refutation is the same.
Why? Americans are still paying interest on the debt accrued for the civil war.
Nope
If the other 115 million homes in the country each also got a "free" $34000 in money for the same purpose ... the government would have to borrow 3.9 TRILLION dollars (about 25% of the current federal debt) .. luckily so far out great great great grandchildren only have to pay for a few greedy selfish fucks.
You appear to have no idea precisely how large the economy is, or how such a thing would be spaced out over time. Nor do you seem aware of the other savings that would result from such an expenditure. You're simply looking at one number out of context and without any other background, and then based on that ignorance saying "no". The health savings alone from eliminating a tremendous amount of fossil fuel use would more than compensate.
So once again, you prove your ignorant and or shill nature.
the person who brought up Libertarians was you.
to be fair, nothing really stops them, unless it's named Adelson, Koch, or some such.
Dear God, save us from the marketing department.
Oh JFC.
it's even called at the top of the section THE BARE ROCK MODEL , and concludes with the sentence "Our simple model is too cold because it lacks the greenhouse effect. We had no atmosphere on our planet; what we calculated was the temperature of a bare rock in space, like the moon."
Even broken down Barney style for simpletons to create a basic starting point, you still fail to understand what it is they are doing and saying.
actually everything you said has been disproven, as everything you said is based upon the unrepressed ignorance represented by WUWT and Goddard, who continually misunderstand or misrepresent the data.
The thing about NASA's surface measurements is that they come from sparse temperature stations that are badly compromised by encroached urban heat islands
that is incorrect sir.
not only are they not sparse, but the heat island effect is well known and is one of the very things corrected for.
Further, the stations that could potentially be affect by the HI effect can be removed entirely from the data sets, and the trend is not changed. instead the warming is still present in the data, even using rural only data: http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Speaking of bull ****, do you need a breath mint after spewing that pile?
No one has EVER advocated reducing the world to 3rd world conditions, or serfdom, in order to stop global warming.
You can keep saying, indeed you say it often, but that doesn't make it true.
And no, sorry, the geological record in fact does not indicate that a warmer planet than we currently will be good for us or the rest of the biosphere.
http://www.truth-out.org/opini...
Scientists actually already did declare the Arctic functionally ice free in summer.... in 2010.
you don't understand the difference between the two scenarios you posit.
you're comparing a single snowstorm in a single city, in winter, with a mountain that has a long term trend of decreasing snow levels.
the only one who thinks they are directly comparable, and therefore equivalent, is YOU. to be comparable you'd either have to look at the long term trends in Boston snowstorms (duration, frequency, begin date, end date), OR look at a single day's weather on the mountain.
really, how do you not grasp that the long term trend in snow cover on a mountain is different from a single snowstorm event during a season hen you expect snow storms?
[W]e havent measured any effects, except that the temperatures have slightly warmed over a century.
Actually we have a lot more than just thermometers reading higher numbers.
There are many lines of evidence, all interlocking and leading to the same conclusion.
A single image with most of those lines of evidence:
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
And you also stated pretty much the exact opposite of what the real science and observed data suggests.
And that my friend is the literal definition of "denial".
ive already done and shown the analysis, as well linked to analysis by other engineers and scientists even more adept than myself, to how we can do solar and wind now, today, with current technology, and replace the entire energy needs of the planet. the idea that we can only do it for a minority of the planet only shows your own ignorance on the subject.
Speaking of bull****, do you need a breath mint after spewing that pile?
No one has EVER advocated reducing the world to 3rd world conditions, or serfdom, in order to stop global warming.
You can keep saying, indeed you say it often, but that doesn't make it true.
And no, sorry, the geological record in fact does not indicate that a warmer planet than we currently will be good for us or the rest of the biosphere.
if they gave you the unadjusted data you would think global warming was 20% worse (warmer) than it is, because the overall effect of the adjustments has been to reduce the apparent warming shown in the data.
and again the whole "just give us the data" argument seems silly. I mean, sure, they could give it to you (indeed if you dig the data is out there).
but based on what precise qualifications will you be basing your second guessing ?
standard generational assimilation profile:
1st generation (immigrant): speaks mother tongue
2nd generation: bilingual
3rd generation: speaks major language of country
but looking through your post history, your grasp of facts or history isnt as strong as your racism, so you may struggle to understand this.
Anybody who utters the word 'racist' is by definition 'racist.'
bull and shit