Re: Global warming blamed for tree death in West

"Tree mortality rates have doubled in old-growth forests across the Sierra Nevada and western United States because of rising temperatures associated with climate change, a new study has found."


http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1567101.html



Post Edited (01-23-09 09:53)

---

The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

You falling for that line of crap?

Temperatures have been falling since 1998.

Ice cap in Arctic is at 1979 level.

Evidence all points at one culprit: THE SUN.

There might be some real argument here but the entire notion has become political. Not that I'm against that or anything...

Isn't everything political?

At least Bush can have all the trees cut down now and make some
mountain bike trails. O, wait, he's gone... not his problem anymore...

A good one I heard about ice melting, etc...

"Time to grow fins, go back in the water again"

VINCE: >>You falling for that line of crap?<<

Hmm..."crap" being a very generic term (that I use quite often), I am left to assume that you are referring to the opening line:

"Tree mortality rates have doubled in old-growth forests across the Sierra Nevada and western United States because of rising temperatures associated with climate change, a new study has found."

As a Horticulturist (formerly a chemist) working at the base of the Sierra Foothills, I will tell you what I SEE, regardless what the politicians, advocates, or media proports. I see that Bark Beetles and Bores are knocking down conifers at an alarming rate to the point where the industry is banning the use of certain varieties in urban settings (we used to lose these specimens to overwatering in artificial settings). I see that once again, the buds are breaking almost a month early, which means a potential lousy year (again) for the stone fruits, and I regret to report that some of my friends who are dry land farmers (use no irrigation) are going out of business.

Is it global warming? Is it normal periodic drought cycles? Is it the revenge of the Bush administration? Who knows -- but as long as there are signs of the reduction of species and the diminishing of quality of life in nature on this planet (such as the shrinking glaciers in our own Yosemite and the melting of the Polar cap in general) I welcome ANY studies on the matter, in hopes that SOMEbody will set down his/her IPod for just a moment and THINK about the future of this planet.

B

---

The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

>>Temperatures have been falling since 1998.

Ice cap in Arctic is at 1979 level.<<

Hey Vince -- where did you get your numbers?

It's all over the net, pal. Look it up.

As far as early blooms, I have scheduled a trip down Highway 88 to Daffodil Hill on March 8.

NASA satellite photos of the 1979 and 2003 polar ice cap side by side. 1979 is the top(larger) mass. The internet is one of resources where folks can find most anything they are looking for, so I would be very interested in seeing the same types of comparisons showing the equal polar mass in 1979 as 2003 or more recent. (I was looking for the photos mytself, but I did not find them)


http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html

1979:



2003:

I'll give credit to Bee for using the term "global warming" in the topic title. Most of the political hucksters (I'm not saying Bee is one) have gone on to the much safer "climate change." That way they don't have to explain why the Earth has cooled every year for at least the last ten. Global Warming only gave them a 50% chance of being right. "Climate Change" means they can never be wrong.

If we have an unusually hot or cold summer - climate change.
If we have an unusually hot or cold winter - climate change.
Too much rain or too little rain, climate change still makes them a genius.

With the term "Climate Change" Al Gore and the people who want to control every freaking thing we do (and tax us to do it) can never be wrong.

On my first trip to Yosemite in 1980 a Park Ranger stated to a group of us that because of some bark insect there would be no trees in Yosemite by the turn of the century. Well 9 years after the turn of the century, I still see a lot of trees in Yosemite.

The most egregious thing I've seen to scare us is the current National Geographic film "Six Degrees That Could Change the World." A 6-degree temperature rise does not sound like much so the alarm bells go off to the average American that we must do something. And fast! Only inside the film do you learn they are talking about 6 degrees Celsius. For National Geo's doomsday scenario to happen the planet would have to warm 42 degrees Fahrenheit! Had National Geo's film title been "42 Degrees That Could Change the World" no one would even bother to watch their propaganda. Even with man's best (or worst) efforts, I don't think we could warm the planet 42 degrees. Even if we needed to.

In the 1970s TIME and NEWSWEEK magazines had cover articles about The Coming Ice Age. 10 feet of glacial ice would cover Memphis, no crops would grow except along the equator, and we'd all be dead of starvation by now. Once those books were sold, the hucksters could only sell more books by doing a 180 degree turn. And they have.

I'll put my concern for the natural world up against anyone in the Sierra Club. A pristine Yosemite, Yellowstone, Glacier, etc. we all deserve. But all of us "deniers" don't have to believe that 20 or 30 years out of 5 billion represent a trend. We're too full of ourselves if we think that.

By the time the earth really starts to get cold again, Al Gore will be gone. But his descendants will still be cashing checks based upon the snake oil he has sold to most of the world. When not even Al will use the term Global Warming any longer, you know we've been had.

I can't predict the future any better than Al Gore. But I'd bet my money that the Earth will still be spinning long after mankind is gone. As horrendous as mankind can be to the planet, it eventually reclaims what we take and fixes what we break.

By the way, there are more trees in America today than on the day Columbus landed here over 500 years ago. So if the insects kill all the trees in Yosemite, we'll kill them, and then plant more.

"Global Warming?" Right. More like "How can we come up with some unprovable theory that we can use to control John Q. Public and tax the bejeesus out of him at the same time?" No thanks...I gave at the office.

"Man is only free where government is limited."

---

Bill

A couple comments from another chemist/physicist:

(1) In scientific circles, if someone asks for a reference, it is considered bad form to not provide one - preferably from a reputable, refereed scientific journal. (Vince?)

(2) A temperature DIFFERENTIAL of 6°C is approximately 11°F, not 42°F.
[Since the freezing point of water is 0°C = 32°F and the boiling point of water is 100°C = 212°F, the conversion factor between the two temperature scales is δ100°C = δ180°F (or δ1°C = δ1.8°F).] An absolute temperature of 6.0°C = 42.8°F. This is grade school science, Bill. Also, all scientific reporting uses either the Celsius/Centigrade scale or the Kelvin scale - even here in The States. We, and to a lesser extent the U.K., are the only major countries in the world that cling to the archaic Fahrenheit scale in reporting weather temperatures.



Post Edited (01-25-09 07:41)

---

THE YOSEMITE POST
Voice of the Rocky Marmot Empire

Oops....my grade school teacher always told me to double-check my math. Sorry about that. I was thinking in terms of specific temperatures instead of intervals. Thanks for catching my error. As you state, 55F would be about 66F if Celsius temperatures rose 6 degrees as National Geo premised.

A few points though:

1. Even an 11 degree (F) warming would be a 20% increase over current averages. Possible I suppose.

2. And, yes, 98% of the world uses the C scale. However, if you watch the film as I have several times, National Geo switches back and forth between Celsius and Fahrenheit as it best suited their case for Global Warming. If they talked about an unusually hot period, they always used Fahrenheit. It sounded much worse than had they used Celsius. A very dishonest practice. Use one scale throughout and you have more credibility. (Yeah, I know, maybe they didn't double-check their math either! I get it.)

3. I still think you, even as a reknowned scientist, miss the larger point. 10, 20, or 30 years (it's only been that long since your scientific colleagues were predicting the Coming Ice Age) is not a long enough period to reliably predict what the earth is going to be like in 50 or 100 years. I could make a snide comment about you guys not knowing what the temp will be tomorrow in Chicago, but I do know the difference between weather and climate. Nevertheless, your ability to predict climate isn't a whole lot better than your ability to predict weather.

Global Warming (sorry, I mean Climate Change) is a good scare tactic to round up billions of research dollars. Once all these scientists are gone, the next group will say this group was wrong and they'll be wanting funding for the next Ice Age.

The same people wanting to control the world's climate come from the same Ivy League and UK schools that are running our financial institutions. They've sure done a nice job with that.

I'm not a Flat Earther. But I do hope I live long enough to see the Global Warming charlatans admit it was all a scam. Of course, even if there is a glacier sittting on top of the Empire State Building, they will still say it was caused by Global Warmng. They will never admit they were just making it up to sell a few books and fund their research.

Certainly, I should and will check my math before posting in the future. Shame on me for that. But every time I look at my 401K, I'm reminded that the so-called experts aren't always so expert. To survive, we may just have to depend upon ourselves and add a large grain of salt to anything we're told. (Except for the temperature conversion thing...!)

---

Bill

wbmyosemite wrote:
> 1. Even an 11 degree (F) warming would be a 20% increase over
> current averages. Possible I suppose.

Actually, an 11°F warming would be a 2.1% increase over current averages, not a 20% increase (assuming 55°F as the present average).

On the Fahrenheit scale, absolute zero is -459.67°F. If you wish, you can think of this as the temperature toward which the earth would eventually cool if you took away the sun (not exactly, for various reasons, but accurate to within a few degrees Fahrenheit) and the earth had no internal source of heat (think radioactive decay). It is this absolute, thermodynamic temperature scale that you must use in your calculations, not one based on an arbitrary zero.

For Fahrenheit-scaled degree increments, this is known as the Rankine Scale and, of course, 0°R = -459.67°F. Rounding off to three significant digits, on this scale, 55°F = 515°R and 66°F = 526°R.

[For Celsius-scaled degree increments, the corresponding scale is the Kelvin Scale and 0K = -273.15°C. No degrees sign is used in denoting Kelvin temperatures; one says "zero Kelvin" and not "zero degrees Kelvin"]

Doing the calculation that you were attempting:
δT/T = (526-515)°R/515°R = 11/515 = 0.021 (i.e., 2.1%)

It is not:
δT/T = (66-55)°F/55°F = 11/55 = 0.20 (i.e., 20%)

Now, hold on here. You're going to have to type a bit slower to allow me to comprehend what you are saying.

You told me that a 6 degree increase in Celsius would translate into an 11 degree Fahrenheit increase. Okay, I agreed with that due to my previous math error.

But, if National Geo's premise, per your calculations, is that the average temperature will increase those 11 degrees - in this case from 55 to 66 degrees Fahrenheit - I think my math teacher would tell me that the temperature at 66 degrees is 20% higher than it was at 55 degrees.

I'm not disputing your 2%. But...

If today the temperature is 30F and tomorrow it is 60F, I'm going to tell my neighbor that the temp went up 100%. Would I be wrong to say that?

Or as in my example of specific temperatures - 55F to 66F - isn't that a 20% increase in the average temperature? Just asking...

---

Bill

wbmyosemite wrote:

>
> Or as in my example of specific temperatures - 55F to 66F -
> isn't that a 20% increase in the average temperature? Just
> asking...
>


To understand the concept of temperature, you must realize that it is a measure of certain types of energy stored in an object. If we add the right kind of energy to an object, we raise its temperature.

Analogy #1:
For a solid object, most of this energy is stored in the form of vibrational energy in the atomic lattice. Think of a three-dimensional array of balls connected together by springs. Add energy by hitting one of the balls with a hammer and the whole array will start vibrating. Keep hitting and the balls will vibrate with increasing amplitude. Stick your finger into the array and the “ouch factor “ is a measure of the energy present in the system; we commonly call this ouch factor the temperature. The initial state where the array is not vibrating is called its zero point energy – this a state analogous to the absolute zero of temperature that I referred to in my previous post (a temperature of –459.67°F). At our normal, comfort zone temperatures there is already a lot of energy stored in the object – it is atomically vibrating like a SOB.

I ‘ve gone through the preceeding paragraph to illustrate what temperature really is. Now I’ll use another analogy to answer your question.

Analogy #2:
Your real name is Bill Fahrenheit, you are an amateur sculpturer, you live on the 6th floor of a building, and your studio is on the ground floor. Each floor is 10 feet high. Having just finished your piece de resistance, a 50 pound bust of Voltaire, you wish to display it in your living quarters. It is delivered while you are not home. You also have a choice of two pedestals on which you can display it: one is 5 feet high and the other is 6 feet high. Because it will look more imposing, you decide to place it on the 6 foot high pedestal even though it will take 20% more energy to do so (300 ft-lbs vs. the 250 ft-lbs needed to lift it to the 5 foot high one). During the party that you have that night to show off your masterpiece, one of your guests points out that the bust is actually 56 feet above ground level; coincidentally, this fellow’s name is Rankine and he is the workman that carried that bust up the 5 flights of stairs to deposit on your doorstep (expending 2500 ft-lbs of energy in the process). In the dispute over exactly how much energy it actually took to place that bust on the 6 ft vs. 5 ft pedestal, Rankine grabs the bust and drops it out the window, totally demolishing your car in the process. Viewing the devastation below, you reconsider.

Bill: you realize, of course, that I had to amuse myself somewhat while constructing and typing out the above scenario; none of it is meant as condescending or disparaging. I much prefer discussing such things verbally since it is much more efficient timewise and allows for instant questions/feedback. Please, feel free to contact me by email (click on my name above, it is in my user profile) if you want to chat on the phone for any clarification. This invitation also applies to anyone else on this forum.

A quick search found the following Wikipedia article a useful read on the topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature
Ignore the barrage of equations at the end of the article – just read the text for the concepts.

Szalkowski: I feel only slightly disparaged and not condescended upon at all! I'm here to learn as much as give my opinions. Well, actually I'm here to learn more than anything else. That's why I appreciate this site so much. And I will contact you apart from this message board.

Frank Furter DID hurt my feelings by implying that I am a "DENIER" of Global Warming, Evolution, and The Holocaust too! Just for Frank's peace-of-mind I do believe in Evolution and that The Holocaust happened. I also believe the Earth orbits the sun and not the other way around. (I bet Frank Furter wondered about that, too, so I wanted to clear that up.)

Of course, there is overwhelming (and even pictorial) evidence that The Holocaust occurred. There is also abundant scientific evidence that Evolution is not just a theory.

But only when Frank Furter can explain to me why the great scientists of the 1970s were predicting an Ice Age by the turn of the century and now are telling us just the opposite - only then will I put all trust in their alarmist messages. A planet nearly 5 billion years old isn't easily known based upon a period of Al Gore's life.

Whether it's a new Ice Age, or indeed, Global Warming, I think every government and every person should do all we can to minimize our footprint. I do it when I'm in Yosemite and I do it in my own backyard. I don't think I really appreciated that need until I started visiting Yosemite. But once you've hiked on some of those trails where you see the bluest sky, green trees, crystal clear water, and un-touched granite walls, you become a conservationist in the TRUE meaning of the world.

Being a layman, I don't know exactly what the planet will be like in 50, 100 or 200 years. Neither does Al Gore or Michael Moore. But like Frank Furter, they just won't admit it. They call anyone who wants to debate the issue a "denier" or some un-educated rube. Whatever...Yosemite has given me strong legs and broad shoulders! I can take it.

Al Gore has stated that the debate is over. Oh, really? That's convenient for him because even if he is found to be wrong in 10 or 20 years, he'll have his millions in the bank. All I would ask Frank Furter and others who say the debate is over is to check out evidence that may run against their 100% certitude that man-made Global Warming exists.

The following was written by John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channer and I think it is good advice for all of us:

"Here is what I am suggesting you do. Campaign for your environmental goals on the basis of their own merit. Let go of the global warming frenzy before it leaves you discredited and embarrassed. Stop screaming, "The sky is falling." It is not.

Do your good work. Devote your lives to our environment. In many ways you will succeed. We are all grateful for your love of the planet. But, don't use scare tactics.

Most of all I urge you not to become extremists. And, may I encourage you to live your lives in a loving way, love your fellow human beings and our wonderful advanced standard of living and way of life as much as you love the Earth.


My very best regards,

John Coleman"

His entire letter is here and, I think, worth reading:
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/12661711.html

---

Bill

>
> A temperature DIFFERENTIAL of 6°C is approximately 11°F,
>


Rumor has it that if the U.S. Presidential Election had turned out differently, Sarah Palin was to be placed in charge of the U.S. effort for combating global warming.

Her "Secret Plan To End Global Warming" (does this remind anyone of 1972 and Vietnam?) supposedly entailed the use of the Alaska National Guard to instigate a supervolcano eruption to offset any temperature increase that approached the 6°C mark:
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2004/04_03_18.html



Post Edited (02-03-09 11:59)

---

THE YOSEMITE POST
Voice of the Rocky Marmot Empire

szalkowski: >>1) In scientific circles, if someone asks for a reference, it is considered bad form to not provide one - preferably from a reputable, refereed scientific journal. (Vince?)<<

Oh, you KNOW it; when I was a lab chemist, one would have his/her sources in the "ready" before opening ones mouth, otherwise the "STATE YOUR SOURCES!!" crowd would eat you alive.


wbmyosemite :>>I'll give credit to Bee for using the term "global warming"<<

Well, ummm...I must admit that alls I did was hijack(cut and paste) the title of the article as my subject title(!)(not very creative, eh?) PS I'm waaay too compartmentalised to be a "huckster" (friends and colleagues are snickering at the mere mention of the word as I type...

BTW, that "Six Degrees..." was timely IMO (and a good plot for a sci-fi movie, but thats what it takes to get JQP's attention these days)

I must agree that the whole "Global Warming" mantra has become a tiresome industry; however, whether or not the change is less or more severe than it has been in the past (really, I could do without any meteores or icebergs in my yard) There IS evidence that change is in the works, and i for one would like to make sure that we do everything we can to curb our contribution to anything potentially catastrophic.

B



Post Edited (01-24-09 23:58)

---

The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

Thanks, eeek, my computer skills on the technical level are somewhat lacking.

B

Bill:>>But I do hope I live long enough to see the Global Warming charlatans admit it was all a scam.<<

I, too, hope to see the experts proven wrong, and I wish that it came to pass that the photos above were doctored. And while I am logging in on hopes, I would add global peace, prosperity, and a 50% return on my investments (sans any connection to Madoff).

As I mentioned back, perhaps Global Warming IS a natural cycle that we had no hand in; however, I would still like to know that we are not needlessly accelerating a "natural cycle" that could mean End Game to some really exquisite species.

B

PS my math isn't so great either; we always left that chore to the physicists

>>It's all over the net<<

Vince: That's the best you can do?
Hey, everybody knows that every word on the net is true - NOT!!!

(excuse me for snickering in the background 'cause this is all very reminiscent of my days as a lab chemist. All of our work was VERY precise and it mostly involved using the Kelvin Scale, and I was continually reamed for being sloppy...)

Did I say anything about the Arctic Ice Pack of 2003?

To the best of my knowledge, the ice pack is smaller today than it was in 2003 (PLEASE pull up the evidence to prove me wrong -- I welcome such a finding). But if you will beg my pardon, the only direct comparison to 1979 that was available was 2003, thus, I was not trying to side-step or muddle the issue by providing an alternate year .

Look folks, it is not/was not my intention to be contentious, pretentious, hucksterish and/or just plain mean spirited by posting this article. Nor am I used to engaging in polemic exchange without a shred of evidence offered up by the opposition. On this level, its a waste of time. Originally, I thought that the topic was thought provoking, timely, and geographically relevent.

Perhaps I was wrong, and I believe at this point, I probably have nothing more to add to the discussion.

B



Post Edited (01-26-09 23:09)

---

The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

It appears so, since you will be attacked to no end on many levels. Until global warming/climate change/Hollywood is removed from politics, you have nothing but a slippery slope to stand on.

I guess we need to add "global warming" to the list of "deniable events":
1. evolution
2. holocaust
3.________

We know that people can go blind slowly in one eye and never be aware of the change in vision. In an analogous situation, although the frog in hot water scenario is ironically similar to the global warming denying behavior, unfortunately it is probably an urban legend.

Frank Furter
Keeping Cool

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

From BBC News "Earth Watch"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/
(in case you want to read all of the articles)

* Richard Black
* 13 Jan 09, 10:17 GMT

A previous thread here has generated highly divergent views about data on sea ice cover from the University of Illinois, and what it might mean.

I wondered whether the scientists involved could help clear up any confusion on how their data should be interpreted; so I emailed to ask them.

Here's the response from William Chapman of the Arctic Climate Research programme.

"On January 1, 2009, an article by Michael Asher entitled "Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979" appeared on the Daily Tech website. We have received many requests for confirmation and clarification on this article from media outlets and interested individuals regarding the current state of the cryosphere as it relates to climate change and/or global warming.

"One important detail about the article in the Daily Tech is that the author is comparing the global sea ice area from December 31, 2008 to same variable for December 31, 1979. In the context of climate change, global sea ice area may not be the most relevant indicator. Almost all global climate models project a decrease in the Northern Hemisphere sea ice area over the next several decades under increasing greenhouse gas scenarios. But, the same model responses of the Southern Hemisphere sea ice are less certain. In fact, there have been some recent studies suggesting the amount of sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere may initially increase as a response to atmospheric warming through increased evaporation and subsequent snowfall onto the sea ice.
Observed global sea ice area, defined here as a sum of N. Hemisphere and S. Hemisphere sea ice areas, is near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979, as noted in the Daily Tech article. However, observed N. Hemisphere sea ice area is almost one million sq. km below values seen in late 1979 and S. Hemisphere sea ice area is about 0.5 million sq. km above that seen in late 1979, partly offsetting the N. Hemisphere reduction.

"Global climate model projections suggest that the most significant response of the cryosphere to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will be seen in Northern Hemisphere summer sea ice extent. Recent decreases of N. Hemisphere summer sea ice extent are consistent with such projections.

"Arctic summer sea ice is only one potential indicator of climate change, however, and we urge interested parties to consider the many variables and resources available when considering observed and model-projected climate change. For example, the ice that is presently in the Arctic Ocean is younger and thinner than the ice of the 1980s and 1990s. So Arctic ice volume is now below its long-term average by an even greater amount than is ice extent or area."


Mike writing now:

I think one of the key points is in the last paragraph.

---

Old Dude

Assuming that Arctic ice is now "thinner," and the glaciers in Yosemite and Greenland are melting away, what happened to the rise in sea level? Isn't there a corresponding effect? How was North America populated to begin with? During an ice age, so the theory goes. An ice age that thawed out over 10,000 years ago (and continues to this day). What has been the rise in sea level since the beginning of the Industrial Age?

Oh these are questions already answered. Just Google them.

Dang!

And I thought the gun discussions were out of control...

I'm Melting... I'm Meeeeeltinggggg!



(dang! stupid picture of wicked witch of the west melting doesn't show up now)



Post Edited (01-27-09 17:35)

---

Everything I know I learned from

bill-e-q

This discussion is tame compared to a forever running forum on climate change at Astromart.com, a website for amatuer astronomers. On that one they routinely get downright nasty to the point where the administrator has to send them on "vacation" for awhile by freezing their access until they are willing to play nice. They also have forums on Politics and Religion which I steer clear of entirely. Those have attack dogs that are over the top.

By their standards the discussion here is entirely civil.

Jim

The original USGS press release:

http://www.spinics.net/lists/usgs/msg00192.html

Bill,

I was going to avoid this thread, but...your last post was so reasonable, that it seems a reasonable dialog can actually happen.

Going back to the original article about tree death, I heard an interview recently with one of the authors of the report. You might want to listen to it.

http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200901237

On this broadcast, there were a number of interesting comments, some of which may have been from one of the two other interviews on climate change during the same program:

http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200901236
http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200901238

One of the most interesting comments was that the scientific opposition to the climate change theory comes from meteorologists. The scientist who was being interviewed commented that meteorologists use short-term models and climatologists (who support the climate change theory) use long-term models. Obviously long-term models are going to be more valid, all else being equal.

---

One more comment. Quite often with these "hot button" controversies, I watch out for appeals to non-rational thinking. Naming controversial figures like Al Gore or Michael Moore seems to me to be an appeal to our dislike of these celebrities rather than a rational argument for or against.

Whenever I see that, I distrust the speaker's argument. It is an indication that the facts may not be sufficient to be convincing, so that an emotional appeal is made. I watch out for these tactics.

This was not coming from you Bill, it was done frequently on the websites that you mentioned. It seems to have had an impact on you since you mentioned the two personalities.

---

FWIW, I have an open mind to both possibilities, but I find the climatologists to be more convincing. So far.

RobE:>> Naming controversial figures like Al Gore or Michael Moore seems to me to be an appeal to our dislike of these celebrities rather than a rational argument for or against. Whenever I see that, I distrust the speaker's argument. It is an indication that the facts may not be sufficient to be convincing, so that an emotional appeal is made<<

Here, here. Well stated, indeed.

B

In my experience short range models are more reliable than long range models.

---

Old Dude

As any climatologist will admit, global climate change is both a normal function of our planet's evolution and extremely complicated. There is obviously much we still do not understand about this process. I also believe that the "warming" aspect of observed climate change has had a boost from human activity. By what percentage? Nobody truly knows the answer to that question. However, as humans capable of rational thought, we can not deny the millions of tons of carbon emissions we are guilty of spewing into the atmosphere and that these emissions can not be without effect on our environment. The old mantra that "the solution to pollution is dilution", whether it be air, water, or soil no longer works. It never really did. The pollution is still there. Even we as hikers filter our drinking water from seemingly crystal clear snow melt streams!

As an amateur astronomer I am keenly aware that despite the shear size of our planet, we survive under an atmosphere only a few miles deep. Many have difficulty breathing in the thin air only two miles up and aircraft cabins are pressurized so we can survive at higher altitudes. Next time you see a picture of the Earth take a look at the edge to see how relatively thin and fragile our atmosphere really is. Very few humans have an appreciation for the billions of events in our planet's evolution that had to occur over a given period of time in a particular sequence for life to evolve and be blessed with a breathable oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere complete with ozone layer and magnetosphere to protect us from the Sun.

As Carl Sagan said, "We need to cherish and protect the Pale Blue Dot, the only home we have ever known". Right now it appears we may be screwing around with it and don't know what we're doing. Those of us who deny this possibility are not helping. The "sky is falling" extremists are not helping the discussion either. We need a little common sense applied to our practice of carbon emissions as well as other forms of pollution. If we can be concientious enough to carry out our toilet paper while hiking we can apply this attitude to the atmosphere as well.

Jim

Well, I agree, bringing personalities into the issue is not good. But when Al Gore claims "the debate is over" and personally attacks others as "deniers" lumping them in with deniers of Evolution and The Holocaust (as did Frank Furter), I think that demands at least a tiny counter response.

As a small "c" conservative, I resent being labeled a "denier" just because I don't believe everything a politician, or our government tells me. Or even a scientist.

Thirty years ago the scientific community's consensus was that we were heading into another Ice Age. Now they've changed their collective mind to just the opposite of an Ice Age. Will they change again in another 30 years? Who knows?

I don't think any of us who question the premise of Global Warming minds being corrected, or even challenged about our assumptions. I certainly don't. But it would be nice if we weren't treated like, as Mr. Gore stated, the "missing-a-chromosone" people. 500 years ago we would have been labeled heretics I guess.

But life is good. Since I somewhat brought politics into eeek's fine forum on this thread, I will impose a temporary ban on my posts to this site. This is probably one of the most civil sites you will find on the net and I don't want to be a part of changing that.

---

Bill

I propose that eeek create a little virtual room with a bunch of corners, so that when we need a "time out" we can place our code names in a selected corner (so everyone will know that we didn't fall off half dome)

B

PS Don't be gone too long wbmyosemite, and in the future, I will try to refrain from starting anymore threads about Global Warming, Gun Control, Capital Punishment or Abortion!

yours truly,

"The Huckster"



Post Edited (01-30-09 09:57)

---

The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

Ok, so maybe we did do the nose.

Bill, it's funny you mentioned John Coleman, and this is the perfect place to put this quickie story.

I lived in the tiny little mountain community of Boulevard, CA for 15 years. Elevation at my particular little pad there is 3,840 ft.

On June 30, 1994, I was happily tending a garden complete with pretty much everything a vegetable gardner grows ~ lettuce (the good kind), radishes, tomatoes, peppers, Swiss chard, all that.

On the morning of July 1, 1994, the temperature dropped to 29 degrees.

I called John Coleman, who was and still is the weather guy at K-YOO-SI TV (and the founder of the Weather Channel). We had the usual nice chat. John is a great guy, has a clue, has lived a long life and has life, as far as I'm concerned, in perfect perspective.

He made my call the "question of the day" on the newscast. What was the coldest temperature in San Diego today? a) 43 b) 38 c) 29

This was July 1. In San Diego.

Of course there was a short discussion about my dead peppers and tomatoes after that.

Now fast forward to 2009, I live in Sparks, NV, at 4435 ft. elevation, and my friends back in Boulevard have had more snow this year than we have had up here, plus they had a nasty ice storm over Christmas that broke up the pine and oak trees pretty bad. Meanwhile up here, well let's just say a 4X4 hasn't been needed (yet).

Bee made a mention of visible phenomenon. What you see isn't necessarily what you get with this planet, but occasionally you can. Here in Truckee Meadows I would worry less about CO2 and more about that brown goo that covers the valley during inversions. A couple weeks ago the barometric pressure stayed above 30.70 for more than a week and you literally could not see across the valley, the smog is so bad. Plus your skin itches and you wind up smelling like cocoa butter.

When hiking to Sawtooth out of Mineral King, you see the same thing...late in the day the smog creeps up out of Bakersfield and the view west disappears. I haven't noticed smog so bad in Yosemite but it is there.

BTW, smog seems to make the Firefall a little better. Some good with the bad, I guess. Firefall is coming up as what little snow we have is melting quickly!

Here's a photo I have not previously put online. This is from the Yosemite Falls trail circa March 2005:

Hi Vince,

could you tell me what "Firefall" is? I have heard this name/term before and do not know what it is.

BTW, I see the same smog inversion traveling to and from thru Placerville, Ca.

B

Horsetail Fall when viewed from the east will be backlit by the setting sun and the misty fall will turn reddish. Horsetail is to the west of El Cap.


http://www.yosemitepark.com/horsetail-fall.aspx

---

Old Dude

The controversy on global warming seems to derive from the following observations:
1. the earth is a huge system and the change in CO2 has been miniscule (actually I think the third most common non-water gas in the atmosphere is still argon, not CO2)

2. many land masses on the earth were warmer than they are currently

3. Global warming, if it is occuring, is due to sunspot activity.

However consider the following suggestions that indicate the earth is a more fragile system than we might think:

1. Normal season changes from snow covered land in winter to temperatures up to 110 degrees during summer are common seasonal changes as a result of a few degrees of average temperature change, slightly different sunlight angle, and a few more hours of sunlight each day. It doesn't take much to make major changes to annual climate.

2.The prior temperature shifts of the earth occured over much larger time intervals than we have seen with the temperatures over the last 200 yrs. It this is sunspot activity, it is unlike any prior interval in the geologic past, apparently.

3. In Yellowstone Park (Wyoming) there is evidence in petrified trees that magnolia, maple, redwood and breadfruit trees grew where we now find high mountain desert conditons. In other words, Yellowstone was warmer. However, many millions of years ago, the continents were configued differently at different latitudes so that the prior conditions of interior North America or even California(consider prehistoric sequoia and redwood distributions) may not have reflected actual global temperature changes of the type we now have been experiencing, but rather, shifts of continents on the globe.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Frank,

This is an excerpt from the latest issue of Sky & Telescope magazine:

"Climate models do take into account the slight increase of solar output in the early 20th century. Models indicate that solar forcing can explain about .1 to .2 degree C of the warming in that period. Since the net trend (for the entire century) is close to 1 degree C, solar output increase can probably only explain about 20% of 20th century warming. If you don't put human impact in the models, and you just include solar and volcanic activity, you can't explain the 20th century warming; you get a slight cooling".

As for current sunspot activity, there has been almost nothing for half a year. We are currently at the low of an avearage 11-year sunspot cycle. In fact, it's run to 12 years and some astronomers suspect we may be in for an unusually long lull in activity. A recent study by National Solar Observatory scientists suggests that sunspots may be growing cooler and less magnetic since 1990, and they hypothesze that sunspots may soon disappear. There is much controversy surrounding this hypothesis but the central point here is that sunspot activity has significantly decreased from the peak activity cycles observed from 1950 to the late 1980's.

Jim

Looks pretty clear right now:



http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime-images.html

Or you can watch the movie:

Thanks, Mike, the pix are awesome!

I guess that I will have to fit in a little turn and burn trip(Up and back on the same day) in Feb.

Wonders never cease; it makes slogging thru all this Global Warming drudge worth picking up this valuable little tidbit.

Bee

I'll start a new thread as the Fire Fall event will garner some interest.

---

Old Dude

mrcondron wrote:

> I'll start a new thread as the Fire Fall event will garner some
> interest.
>


OH, NO!!!

THIS THREAD IS ONLY IN 5th PLACE!
I THOUGHT THAT WE WERE GOING FOR THE RECORD!

How about we suggest names for Vince's truck?




Higher Reply threads:
1. Tioga Road Plowing 2005 (06-21-05): 64
2. Telegraph Fire (08-06-08): 63
3. Fatality On The Cables (07-26-07): 48
4. Half Dome Hike Safety (09-11-08): 47

>
> How about we suggest names for Vince's truck?
>

Ok, I'll get it started.

Vince, how much gas does that thing eat?
(This actually ties in with the global warming theme - carbon footprint and all that.)

I'm thinking: DONNER.



Post Edited (01-31-09 20:05)

---

THE YOSEMITE POST
Voice of the Rocky Marmot Empire

szalkowski wrote:

> I'm thinking: DONNER.

Or Blitzen?

szalkowski:>>OH, NO!!!

THIS THREAD IS ONLY IN 5th PLACE!
I THOUGHT THAT WE WERE GOING FOR THE RECORD!<<

I never start gradually -- I go in for the big splash!!

(ive been on this board for about a month, now)

B

well, now, with Valentine's day on the way, let's just go for CUPID

B

OK cupid, here it is:

Stuck Bronco in 4 low

Did I post this Lee Vining Creek photo?

Well, it looks like COMET is definitely out of the running

B

Bee wrote:

> Well, it looks like COMET is definitely out of the running
>



It appears that Blitzen is also disqualified.

Of course, my original reference was to to the Donner Party, but I have no problem running with the reindeer thing. That being the case, Vince, you might want to consider investing in one of the two antler sets shown in this link:
http://www.taylorgifts.com/prodetail~itemNo~27068.asp

By the way, that’s a great video. Sooooo, is Zero MPG a good average?

Your truck looks like it may have found a spot where a pool of oil is located and decided to unearth it. You might want to add DIGGER to the list of possible names. (Several years ago, Ford was considering building a SUV that could carry, I think, eleven people. "Sierra" magazine suggested that they should incorporate an onboard oil drilling rig and call it the Ford Valdez.)

Along those lines, are you sure that is a Bronco? It looks more like a Ford BailOut (especially since the driver’s door is open).
[I had to throw that in: I’m hoping to entice Bill back into the thread. We just need a few more posts for Bee to claim the record.]



Post Edited (02-01-09 22:23)

---

THE YOSEMITE POST
Voice of the Rocky Marmot Empire

Can't say I've ever driven into a situation like that but I know someone that has.

---

Old Dude

Dad always used to carry kitty litter and two pieces of plywood during the snow season. I thought that it was real dumb until I saw how well it worked one day.

B

"Road Closed"? hahaha

Yeah, Mike...
All I remember is someone saying:
"try it again but go really fast this time"
if THAT is what you are talking about.

szalkowski :We just need a few more posts for Bee to claim the record.]

heh heh heh!!! my competitive nature spillith over

This is a whole lot more entertaining than the work that I am not getting done.

RE: the Sun pictures

At first glance, I thought that they were the MOON that I saw during those Mariposa fires (it looked red just like the sun pix)

B

PSS am I to understand that the YouTube video of the the hapless truck was made by Vince (I have a lot of catching up here; it reminds me of joining conversations in a third language and not understanding about a third of it)

If Bee wants the record I can put in some more Python video links.
Can't really think of any applicable (the "she's a witch" was a reference to
we are heretics comment)....
Sooo... I guess I'll just go with this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE

I'm gonna go ahead and give it a try. It now comes in pouches which
easily fit in your bear can. I'm a big fan of brining Tuna and some hot sauce
so maybe it'll be a small change-up.

bill-e-g wrote:

> If Bee wants the record I can put in some more Python video
> links. Sooo... I guess I'll just go with this one:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE
> I'm gonna go ahead and give it a try. It now comes in pouches
> which easily fit in your bear can. I'm a big fan of brining Tuna
> and some hot sauce so maybe it'll be a small change-up.



The “Spam Skit” reminds me why I avoid the Tuolumne Meadows Grill; even passing by the open door can expose one to a massive overdose of cholesterol.
(Are you SURE that skit wasn’t filmed there?)

Making this relevant to the global warming thread:
It is recommended that you cook Spam in the wilderness using a high thermal output stove in order to reduce cooking time and exposure to noxious gases; my personal choice would be any of the MSR expedition series stoves even though I have some older stoves (pre-pump Optimus 8R and Svea 123) that would be preferable from a throwaway standpoint should the stove become contaminated with “Spam Splatter.” Also, rumor has it that the EPA is currently formulating rules that require the use of a “Spam Scrubber” system on any “Spam Stove” operating in the atmosphere (for the foreseeable future, no regulations are anticipated for underwater use). I am presently developing a Shaped Charge Holy Hand Grenade which would tend to bypass these problems.

For those unfamiliar with the Holy Hand Grenade (HHG), I refer you to the following Monty Python excerpt:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9ksZR-4-aY

[Note: this video excerpt is longer than most dealing with the HHG, but I think that it is more appropriate in the context of this forum. Keep the following modern day scenario in mind as you watch the video: (1) Tourist Troupe (TT) arrives at Downtown Yosemite (DY), (2) TT meets Ranger Tim (RT) and is suitably awed by his pyrotechnic display – in actuality, those fireballs are spam vapor explosions from the various DY eateries, the daily sequence of which he has committed to memory in order to impress all arriving TTs, (3) perpetuating the myth, RT leads the TT to the supposed location of the Holy Grail – knowing full well that it is actually located in the backcountry, (4) TT confronts the dreaded killer marmot, and (5) normal overreaction of the TT to perceived dire threat – use of the HHG, Mk.1]



Post Edited (02-06-09 15:18)

---

THE YOSEMITE POST
Voice of the Rocky Marmot Empire

I can see that I will be sneaking around peeking at YouTube when i am supposed to be drafting designs for fancy yards!

I sort of stumbled onto one of my favorite topics "Hetch Hetchy" (no I'm not an ecco-terrorist!!) on the CCC thread. I brought it here because it poses a larger question (to me):

In the long run, is it the general consensus that trying to reverse "damage" -- be it natural or man-made -- out of the question. In otherwords, is the talk about "restoring" HH nonsense at this point, or does it fit in with all the green interest of the current time?

If you spend any time in Az and Grand Canyon, the sister discussion to HH is Glen Canyon dam.

Anyways, as i mentioned, I am a neophyte come lately to this site, so this might be old hat that no longer applies.

B

Bee wrote:

> In the long run, is it the general consensus that trying
> to reverse "damage" -- be it natural or man-made -- out of the
> question. In otherwords, is the talk about "restoring" HH
> nonsense at this point, or does it fit in with all the green
> interest of the current time?

It becomes a topic for serious discussion because of two things. The first is that even the most ardent backer of the O'Shaughnessy Dam would likely admit that it should never have been built in the first place given its location within a full National Park. The second is that the dam is approaching the end of its useful lifespan and that it's eventual replacement is likely. For the most part there's enough reservoir capacity along the Tuolemne to make up for any loss of the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, but the city of San Francisco isn't too keen to give up its control over the spigot and the power generation.

> If you spend any time in Az and Grand Canyon, the sister
> discussion to HH is Glen Canyon dam.

I thought the primary reason for the Glen Canyon Dam was to reduce sediments that clogged up the Hoover Dam.

At least Glen Canyon NRA is available for recreational use. The city of San Francisco is adamant that boating or fishing not be allowed in Hetch Hetchy.

y_p_w:>>I thought the primary reason for the Glen Canyon Dam was to reduce sediments that clogged up the Hoover Dam.<<

Yes, the sediment control was a large reason for GCD. I was being very general in my reference that its the same emotional talk about the loss of a pristine area in exchange for a dam.

>> End of useful lifespan(HH)<<

I am a bit ignorant on this aspect of the HH reservoir -- what is shortening the lifespan?

B

Bee wrote:

> y_p_w:>>I thought the primary reason for the Glen Canyon Dam
> was to reduce sediments that clogged up the Hoover Dam.<<
>
> Yes, the sediment control was a large reason for GCD. I was
> being very general in my reference that its the same emotional
> talk about the loss of a pristine area in exchange for a dam.

Well it does also give water storage as well as power generation. However - I don't think it would have been built if it weren't for the sediment control.

> >> End of useful lifespan(HH)<<
>
> I am a bit ignorant on this aspect of the HH reservoir -- what
> is shortening the lifespan?

Nothing is shortening its useful lifespan. However, it's generally accepted that the useful lifespan of a large concrete dam is approximately 100 years. Most concrete dams require a complete rebuild at end of life.

>it's generally accepted that the useful lifespan of a large concrete dam is approximately 100 years

???

I can't find anything about this. Thought maybe they would have something
on Hoover Dam... couldn't find anything with regards to expected lifespan

I heard somewhere that Hoover Dam could last several thousand years.

bill-e-g wrote:

> >it's generally accepted that the useful lifespan of a large
> concrete dam is approximately 100 years
>
> ???
>
> I can't find anything about this. Thought maybe they would
> have something
> on Hoover Dam... couldn't find anything with regards to
> expected lifespan

A good deal might have to do with actual construction and materials, but 100 years is what I've heard for a dam of that vintage. Certainly there have been claims that the O'Shaughnessy Dam is approaching the end of its useful lifespan.

One document I saw claimed an expected lifespan of 60 years for a particular concrete dam.

A quick websearch on Copernic (using the keywords: concrete dam lifetime) yielded the following items of interest re. dam lifetime and degradation/failure mechanisms:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/314n14g3552108l1/
http://www.expert-eyes.org/mulla1.html
http://nw-ialad.uibk.ac.at/Wp4/Tg3/

I'm not certain how we really justify this under the topic of global warming (maybe a subheading: human modification of the surface environment and its effect on global warming), but CONGRATULATIONS nontheless, we have established a new record.
[Obviously, I was trying to rejumpstart things earlier with the supervolcano cooling post.]



Post Edited (02-03-09 15:54)

---

THE YOSEMITE POST
Voice of the Rocky Marmot Empire

I got nothing from the links above.

>but 100 years is what I've heard for a dam of that vintage

Ok, Just for the record I'm just trying to learn something here. Not argue.

I was just looking for something to the effect that:
- massive silt accumulation causes a dam more than N years to become useless
- concrete errodes over the intense pressure blah blah

I just don't see it.. that's all... for O'Shaughnessy for sure there have been
alot of arguments that it is not needed and therefore that would
classify for some as it's lifespan is over (holds too little water).

Let me put this here also since it probably got lost where I put it on the CCC post:
Our complaint is that noone ever mentions Lake Eleanor!
Last time I checked it's in the Park too.

:
bill-e-g:>>Our complaint is that noone ever mentions Lake Eleanor!
Last time I checked it's in the Park too<<.

I have heard of the lake, but I know nothing about it (maybe i should! I am an avid kayaker...or perhaps i would have to hike it in...) Anyways, here is yer chance to inform: whats the specs on Lake Eleanor

B

(WOW -- the numbers have jumped on this thread!)

Eleanor is mentioned because it's in the park and it's also the result
of a dam. There used to be a smaller lake "under" the current one.
Along with Cherry Lake it is part of the Hetch Hetchy water system.
In order of completion:
- Eleanor Dam
- O'Shaughnessy
- Cherry Dam

Eleanor is very beautiful and has a nice waterful flowing into it.
When the gate over Cherry Dam is open (April 15-Sept 15) you can
drive all the way to Eleanor Dam (just above it).
Non-motorized boats are allowed on Eleanor.

I've paddled all over it in my trail boat. It does get quite choppy tho.

As with many resevoirs it loses it's beauty in the fall when it is allowed
to drain down and all the trees which were cut are visible... etc..

Anyway... my complaint is that Eleanor gets no mention of "restoration".
According to wiki it was put in in 1918 so I guess it has 10 more years left...

Maybe I'll stick a picture up of it later... get the post total to 100...

(It's just northwest (<4 mi.) of Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and is easily the 2nd largest
"lake" in the park (behind HH))



Post Edited (02-03-09 17:46)

---

Everything I know I learned from

bill-e-g:>>Maybe I'll stick a picture up of it later... get the post total to 100...<<

Please post the pic. The fact that you can drive to it really interests me because unfortunately, my kayak is too huge to port long distances (it does have a wheel contraption that allows short portage)

I DO recall mention of the enlarging of the lake as a result of the whole HH project.

>>As with many resevoirs it loses it's beauty in the fall when it is allowed
to drain down and all the trees which were cut are visible... etc..<<

I know the look; Folsom dam (30 min drive from house) is at 45% and it looks creepy with all the chopped trees and the old homesteads exposed.

B



Post Edited (02-03-09 18:44)

---

The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

Lake Eleanor:



I put some more here:
http://picasaweb.google.com/dale.dekeyser/Eleanor

I kinda wish I had a digital camera earlier. I only have these from a trip
to North Mountain. Probably been to Eleanor at least 10 times.

Nice pix; really gives me an idea of the size of the lake (you would not happen to have a guesstimation of the size, would you? It seems that lakes in the 1-2 mile (or less) lengths are perfect for carefree exploring)

The board pic did not show up (only as a red X) but that could be a product of my own computer issues.

The waterfalls are natural end points for the creek? Only in Yosemite would the lake be sure to have its own waterfall!

B

1/2 mile wide by 3 1/4 mile in length. Approx.
again: http://www.nps.gov/yose
click on "view map" and you can't miss Eleanor and the streams ...
Kibbie/Eleanor/Frog...

O’Shaugnessy Dam (July, 1987):
http://www.hetchhetchy.org/artistic_visions/crack_in_dam.html

(Don't you wish that you could do a nighttime rappel and paint at the same time?)



Post Edited (02-03-09 20:33)

---

THE YOSEMITE POST
Voice of the Rocky Marmot Empire

I love it "Free the Rivers"

I would love to know the background on how they pulled off the "tag".

The Eleanor pic came up on the board -- its the nicest shot of the group. I checked out the map; I really need to put this on my "lakes to bag" list. (two summers ago we did about twenty lakes -- whitecaps and all!)

Do you know if there are campgrounds in the vacinity?

B

>Do you know if there are campgrounds in the vacinity?

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/stanislaus/visitor/cherry.shtml

Just outside the park is Stanislaus National Forest.
You can camp there too. (there are a number of spots to camp on the
east side of the lake) (backpack)

There also is another TH b/t Cherry and Eleanor.
You can park there and its a WHALLOPING .6 miles to Eleanor.

More info on Stanislaus.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/stanislaus/maps/

Groveland Ranger Station on 120 gives out permits for Eleanor.
They may provide more info if you need it...

eeek said:
>I heard somewhere that Hoover Dam could last several thousand years.

Yup.

http://www.roadtripamerica.com/places/hoover.htm

Sucks that they don't give the 'Hard Hat' tour anymore...

bill-e-g: >>Groveland Ranger Station on 120 gives out permits for Eleanor.
They may provide more info if you need it...<<

GREAT -- we drive thru Groveland about once a month as soon as Glacier rd opens, so I will make it a point to stop in and do some investigating.


bill-e-g:>>Sucks that they don't give the 'Hard Hat' tour anymore...<<

I took the "PC" version of the Hoover tour this last May, and I was really disappointed how "accessible" they had made it (for all the fat tourists in Capris and sneakers). They took out anything that might cause anyone to have to start sucking down on those endless plastic water bottles that everyone seems to carry (when did we all run the risk of dying of thirst at every turn???!!) Anyways, they did say something about the 600 foot thick concrete being built to last to Y3K.

B

BACK FROM SELF-IMPOSED EXILE...!

Speaking of the Hoover Dam, I just saw a really interesting program on how they would build the dam today differently than they did in the 1930s. Very interesting. It was on the National Geo channel, but I watched it anyway! (Inside joke.)

It is called "Hoover Dam - Reinvented." I'm sure many of you have already seen it.

The first consideration was would they change the location if built today, up or down river? Answer, no. Apparently the dam was sited in a perfect location for a variety of reasons.

How high would they build it? 140 feet higher than its present height, increasing the capacity of Lake Mead by (I think) almost 90%. The additional height would also generate more electric power. Power = (Height of Dam) x (River Flow) x (Efficiency) / 11.8.

While they would build the dam taller, today's engineers determined that the 600 feet thickness at the base wasn't necessary.

I believe the NGC is re-airing the program on Thursday at 4pm eastern. If you haven't seen it, it's pretty interesting.

The first time I took the tour down to the base of the dam (mid 80s) I think I paid $1 for the tour and I parked on the Arizona side for free. Today, I think it costs $11 for adults, plus $7 for parking. I enjoyed the tour more when it was just $1.

Glad to be back to the best Yosemite forum anywhere...

---

Bill

Bee wrote:

They took out
> anything that might cause anyone to have to start sucking down
> on those endless plastic water bottles that everyone seems to
> carry (when did we all run the risk of dying of thirst at every
> turn???!!)

Thought that you might find this interesting/informative/humorous/sad/etc.:

Recipient of the 2004 Ig Nobel Prize in Chemistry:
The Coca-Cola Company of Great Britain, for using advanced technology to convert ordinary tap water into Dasani, a transparent form of water, which for precautionary reasons has been made unavailable to consumers.

Details available in this original story from The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2004/mar/20/medicineandhealth.lifeandhealth



Post Edited (02-05-09 10:10)

---

THE YOSEMITE POST
Voice of the Rocky Marmot Empire

Lucky you, wbmyosemite: youre the 80th post on this thread!!

If I remember correctly from last year's tour, didn't they raise the height of the dam from the initial building?

BTW -- the Az side is STILL cheaper (I parked there, too)

B

Thanks for the heads up on the article; I vaguely remember this fiasco when it occurred.

Closer to home, when I was a lab chemist, I was in charge of Atomic Analysis of oil samples for a large oil company. When no one else was in the lab, I used to smuggle in various bottled water samples and run them against tap water. While the tap water had much higher metal counts (especially iron, which was not a problem) the bottled water had more more chemical traces. Needless to say, I have never been a fan of bottled water

Those insidious plastic bottles are EVERYwhere, and as an avid kayaker, I am particulary sickened when I see them floating around in the wetlands...

B

Bee wrote:

> Thanks for the heads up on the article; I vaguely remember this
> fiasco when it occurred.
>
> Closer to home, when I was a lab chemist, I was in charge of
> Atomic Analysis of oil samples for a large oil company. When no
> one else was in the lab, I used to smuggle in various bottled
> water samples and run them against tap water. While the tap
> water had much higher metal counts (especially iron, which was
> not a problem) the bottled water had more more chemical traces.
> Needless to say, I have never been a fan of bottled water

Something like Dasani from Coca-Cola or Aquafina from Pepsi is just municipal water that's been run through reverse-osmosis, carbon filtration, UV, and ozone. I think Dasani is infused with one particular mineral for taste reasons. While Pepsi doesn't deny it's their product (the Pepsi name is prominent on the Aquafina website) I've noticed that their Aquafina bottles are usually labelled with some generic-sounding name of one of their local subsidiaries.

Most home or office water purification units probably don't go through all those steps. I've used a UV + particle filtration unit before.

Certainly an operation like Crystal Geyser actually bottles real mountain spring water and not just treated tap water. However - sometimes I find weird stuff. On a trip to China, I found that the only brand of bottled water sold on board some of their high speed trains is Evian (US$1.50 for 300 ml). I wonder if the average factory worker riding the train cares enough that it's French to spend that. Of course Evian spelled backwards is Naive. They did have hot water for free, but the one thing I found there is that water fountains pretty much don't exist because people don't trust their municipal water to be safe to drink without boiling. My understanding is that they have many municipal systems that have been upgraded to western standards for potability, but even people with safe drinking water boil by habit.

> Those insidious plastic bottles are EVERYwhere, and as an avid
> kayaker, I am particulary sickened when I see them floating
> around in the wetlands...

I have seen suggestions that reuse of PETE plastic water bottles is ideal because they weigh very little and it's a good way to extend their use. Some manufacturers have also been going to special lighter weight bottles. I brought a couple on my 2007 Yosemite backcountry trip. They looked a little ragged by the end of the trip, but they were all intact.

y_p_w :>>I have seen suggestions that reuse of PETE plastic water bottles is ideal because they weigh very little and it's a good way to extend their use. Some manufacturers have also been going to special lighter weight bottles.<<

Are these a special brand of water bottles, or bottled water? Somebody mentioned that several of the water bottles actually have a warning on them about NOT re-using them. I don't know if it was a bacterial risk, or some sort of gassing off of the plastic over a period of time. I have been re-using Gatorade bottles for YEARS, so I hope that THAT plastic doesnt cause brain damage...!

>>Something like Dasani from Coca-Cola or Aquafina from Pepsi is just municipal water that's been run through reverse-osmosis, carbon filtration, UV, and ozone.<<

Its all sort of Voodoo -- Expensive voodoo (when you can do a pretty good filtration at home). I believe that some of the companies add Calcium to sweeten the water, because I found traces of it present in some of the samples. Mostly, the bottled water was void of anything, particularly minerals.

B

Bee wrote:

> y_p_w :>>I have seen suggestions that reuse of PETE plastic
> water bottles is ideal because they weigh very little and it's
> a good way to extend their use. Some manufacturers have also
> been going to special lighter weight bottles.<<
>
> Are these a special brand of water bottles, or bottled water?
> Somebody mentioned that several of the water bottles actually
> have a warning on them about NOT re-using them. I don't know if
> it was a bacterial risk, or some sort of gassing off of the
> plastic over a period of time. I have been re-using Gatorade
> bottles for YEARS, so I hope that THAT plastic doesnt cause
> brain damage...!

I heard some rumors about possible plasticizers (pthalates) leaching, but from what I understand most PETE (recycling code 1) bottles don't require any. My Nalgene flask is a polycarbonate shell around a PETE inside bottle. Nalgene claims it's free of pthalates. There seems to be a huge misunderstanding about PETE, which almost never need pthalates.

http://www.vitalearth.org/Plastics_Which_Ones_Are_Dangerous.htm

The bottles I was referring to are the Eco-Shape design from Nestlé. They've used it for several brands including Arrowhead and Pure Life. They designed it with less plastic and a smaller label. They do have a noticeable thinness to the walls.

http://www.arrowheadwater.com/DoingOurPart/EcoShapeBottle.aspx
http://www.nestle-purelife.us/flavors/ecoshape.asp

> >>Something like Dasani from Coca-Cola or Aquafina from Pepsi
> is just municipal water that's been run through
> reverse-osmosis, carbon filtration, UV, and ozone.<<
>
> Its all sort of Voodoo -- Expensive voodoo (when you can do a
> pretty good filtration at home). I believe that some of the
> companies add Calcium to sweeten the water, because I found
> traces of it present in some of the samples. Mostly, the
> bottled water was void of anything, particularly minerals.

Coca-Cola adds small amounts of magnesium sulfate, potassium chloride, and sodium chloride to their Dasani brand. They say their water source is usually municipal but sometimes comes from their own groundwater. I understand that it's possible to do that, but I'm wondering what they would do with the crusty stuff left over. I used to live in Santa Clara, where the municipal water was mostly from city owned wells located in the city. The water got crusty on everything. I tried using an aquarium water test kit on it, and it was way off the charts for water hardness. It must have had at least 10 times as much magnesium/calcium content as EBMUD water.

YPW:>>They designed it with less plastic and a smaller label. They do have a noticeable thinness to the walls.<<

Ah, YES (I can be a bit obtuse at times) I had actually thought that the thinner, collapsable walls were a result of trying to cut back on production costs. I am pleased to read that it was a result of environmental pursuits.


>>The water got crusty on everything. I tried using an aquarium water test kit on it, and it was way off the charts for water hardness. It must have had at least 10 times as much magnesium/calcium content as EBMUD water.<<


This was a huge problem where I live; it was so bad that all of the sinks, tubs, etc., developed a reddish stain after awhile. There were so many complaints that the water district eventually built a whole new treatment facility (that we eventually paid for when our water rates doubled). It seemed to remove the magnesium, but the calcium still leaves a white residue everywhere.

B

Bee wrote:

> YPW:>>They designed it with less plastic and a smaller label.
> They do have a noticeable thinness to the walls.<<
>
> Ah, YES (I can be a bit obtuse at times) I had actually thought
> that the thinner, collapsable walls were a result of trying to
> cut back on production costs. I am pleased to read that it was
> a result of environmental pursuits.

I'm sure that the reduced cost of materials was a consideration.

And how's this for odd? I purchase bottled distilled water to mix with automotive coolant. Most seem to be from municipal water sources that have been distilled. Makes sense since it's supposed to remove everything. However - the oddest thing seems to be steam distilled spring water. What's the point? Steam distillation would seem to be something where the source isn't critical to achieving the final product.

Would we confuse it if we run away more?

>>this video excerpt is longer than most dealing with the HHG<<

I LOVE it!!!

On long drives to far flung places, we used to take on the MP roles and act out our favorite movies/skits. Invariably, it would always deteriorate into the SPAM song...

gawd, I forgot about all these great skits

Say, do you supposed that bears can smell SPAM thru the can even if it was vaccuum wrapped with one of those Seal-a-meal gadgets???

B

Bee wrote:

> Say, do you supposed that bears can smell SPAM thru the can
> even if it was vaccuum wrapped with one of those Seal-a-meal
> gadgets???


You might find the following link informative:
http://sectionhiker.com/2008/04/11/bears_sense_of_smell/

Personal Anecdote:

Date: circa 1971
Location: Marginally outside the northern boundary limits of Camp 4

Showing up around 10 PM after a backpacking trip in the high country and finding the campground full, my girlfriend and I ended up pitching our tent slightly illegally (I hope that the Statute of Limitations for prosecution of this transgression has expired) alongside some other criminal types. In the dark, one stuff sack was overlooked and lay unnoticed on the ground nearby. Its contents: 4 foil-lined packets of Lipton dry soup mixes (2 vegetable beef and 2 potato). Around 1:30 AM, we were awakened by snorting, slurping, et cetera. After our tent was jostled, went out to chase the critter away; turns out that we got jostled because the bear was intent on climbing an adjacent tree to reach a food sack that some other group had hung there. (Visualize bear sitting on sturdy tree limb across which the food sack was hanging, reaching down forward between its hind legs, and reeling up the food sack – I’m not making this up.) Chased him off and went back to sleep. Next morning, discovered the shredded stuff sack. The contents of the two vegetable beef packets were completely eaten (packets nicely licked clean), one of the potato packet contents was partially eaten, the other packet was unopened. He could smell what was inside the still-sealed packet and definitely did not want any more of that concoction. I leave it to your imagination what dry potato soup mix tastes like. This is the only instance known to me where a bear has refused to eat something that it has appropriated.



Post Edited (02-07-09 12:50)

---

THE YOSEMITE POST
Voice of the Rocky Marmot Empire

szalkowski wrote:


> Personal Anecdote:
>
> Date: circa 1971
> Location: Marginally outside the northern boundary limits of
> Camp 4
>
> Showing up around 10 PM after a backpacking trip in the high
> country and finding the campground full, my girlfriend and I
> ended up pitching our tent slightly illegally (I hope that the
> Statute of Limitations for prosecution of this transgression
> has expired) alongside some other criminal types.



Just finished watching the film "Bound for Glory" and thought that the following verse from Guthrie's "This Land Is Your Land" would be apropos to my preceding post:

As I went walking I saw a sign there
And on the sign it said "No Trespassing."
But on the other side it didn't say nothing,
That side was made for you and me.

szalkowski wrote:

> As I went walking I saw a sign there
> And on the sign it said "No Trespassing."
> But on the other side it didn't say nothing,
> That side was made for you and me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_HGDCj8hP0

eeek wrote:

>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_HGDCj8hP0
>


I've had a link to that particular video in my Favorites folder for some time alongside one with Woody's voice:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaI5IRuS2aE&feature=related

[Unfortunately, neither video has the "No Trespassing" sign verse in it. In fact, I don't recall ever hearing that particular verse until it caught my ear when it was sung at the end of the movie while the credits were being shown. Here is a link to the lyrics: http://www.woodyguthrie.org/Lyrics/This_Land.htm]



Post Edited (02-10-09 07:43)

---

THE YOSEMITE POST
Voice of the Rocky Marmot Empire

szalkowski wrote:


> [Unfortunately, neither video has the "No Trespassing" sign
> verse in it. In fact, I don't recall ever hearing that
> particular verse until it caught my ear when it was sung at the
> end of the movie while the credits were being shown.

I've certainly heard Arlo sing it.

Len,

Congratulations. You are the 100th poster to the Global Warming thread. You get a free 1-year membership to http://yosemitenews.info .

Jim

Dasani is the most disgusting bottled water on the planet. Not even heavy doses of Monty Python helps.

Just for you Vince:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo

Soooooo close to 100.

bill-e-g :>>Soooooo close to 100.<<

Go-Go-GO!!

Actually, I had a great time looking at the Monty Python YouTube collection last night. i had no idea that they that sort of archive.

B

szalkowski :>This is the only instance known to me where a bear has refused to eat something that it has appropriated.<<

say it isnt so; i did not think such a thing possible!!!


"A bear’s sense of smell is 7 times better than a blood hound’s or 2,100 times better than a human."

WOW -- a great article, btw.

B

szalkowski:>>As I went walking I saw a sign there
And on the sign it said "No Trespassing."
But on the other side it didn't say nothing,
That side was made for you and me.<<


Funny, every time I do something like "illegal camping" I always think of that song "Signs, signs" (everywhere signs...)

B

>>Len,

Congratulations. You are the 100th poster to the Global Warming thread. You get a free 1-year membership to http://yosemitenews.info .<<


#$%#$@#!! I was really vying for that prize

B

It's time to retire this thread.

---

Old Dude

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno

Allright, we'll call it a draw...