Gary says, "If their station close to me is so far off, they are probably screwed up around the globe."
That is an illogical statement, unfounded and not scientific at all. It's an invalid assumption.
Regardless, the evidence is elsewhere besides merely temps.
Arctic ice woes.
Heat waves killing thousands in Russia.
Don't have to measure temps down to the actual digit to know it's hot.
. . .
And remember" Global Warming PATTERNS do not mean that EVERY LOCALE, ALL DAY EVERY DAY, has to be above normal, or that every season in every locale has to be hotter than the last year.
When taken as a GLOBAL average, there is no logical, common-sense, reasonable way to deny that we are in a warming trend.
You always like to dismiss evidence that does not fit your agenda. Thousands are being killed by record low temps in a much larger portion of the World than is experiencing record heat. A record heat that only goes back a little over 100 years. A blip in time. We are so far from the high temps of the Medieval warming period we will not live long enough to see them. And many of the Northern countries will be very happy to be back into warm climate. Canada and Greenland will flourish as it once did. Even the Arctic was tropical at one time long before the first Hummer. By the way fires killing people do not count.
Gary, you seem to be saying that because the Earf has many times before heated up as a normal part of the global climate cycle, that we should just dismiss any talk of man contributing to this particular heatup?
My stance is what ever little man may contribute to CC, is not enough to spend $trillions to try and change. The truth is nothing will be changed and we make a few people in the Globalist community even more wealthy. AGW as presented by the IPCC UN report is a gigantic scam and should not be given the time of day let alone $billions promised by that idiot Hillary Clinton.
US bids to break Copenhagen deadlock with support for $100bn climate fund
Hillary Clinton pledges US support for a $100bn fund to help poor countries adapt to climate change providing their leaders sign up to a deal
Southern California's summer to end with a chill: It was the coldest in decades
Farewell summer, we hardly knew ye!
The last day of summer is Wednesday, but meteorologists say the season barely bothered to show up in the region this year. So cooler fall will make an almost noiseless entrance Thursday, hardly indistinguishable from the summer Southern Californians just experienced.
“Summer played hooky on us. It never really showed up,” said Bill Patzert, a climatologist for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Canada Flintridge. “We leaped from spring to fall.”
Patzert said a low-pressure trough that stalled along the West Coast from Alaska to southern Baja California kept the summer cooler than usual, with many overcast days. Monthly temperatures in downtown Los Angeles from April to now have averaged between one to three degrees cooler than normal.
We have averaged closer to 10 degrees below normal all summer. We had two warm weeks where the Temps made it close to 100 degrees. I have used my AC less than 10 days this year. Good thing as our CA GHG mandates to the power companies have sent our rates through the ceiling. The month I used the AC for 5 days jumped my bill nearly $100. The baseline is 370 KWH If you use 740 KWHs your rate per KWH triples. The Green Goons will push US back into the caves one way or another.
Let's let the SC decide what has been proven and what is hogwash.
SC - the Supreme Court? We're gonna judicially enact a more "normal" climate? These guys came out with a ruling a century ago declaring that tomatoes were vegetables, not fruits. I don't think much has changed and I wouldn't trust them too far with science issues. :shades:
Don't have to measure temps down to the actual digit to know it's hot.
The "heat" didn't directly kill any normal, healthy person in Russia. What killed the Russians was the combination of: a lot of Vodka, and swimming. Drowned drunks!
BTW - the other night, a summer night, the temperature was 34F where I live. It's not too hot in much of the world. I still don't need an AC; and many people around the world including in the tropics don't have AC's. The climate is not killing millions in the tropics who have no AC's. What you're repeating is a bunch of hogwash, intended to promote hogwash to the uninformed.
kernick says, "The climate is not killing millions in the tropics who have no AC's. "
No, it's not.
That's because "tropical" areas usually never go over 100F, and the people there have adapted to the tropical humidity.
But when areas which are typically "mild" in the summer, areas where people don't need to install air conditioners as a required appliance, have extreme heat waves, i.e. the Northeast USA and parts of Europe, HEAT WAVES KILL people.
kernick says, "The "heat" didn't directly kill any normal, healthy person in Russia. What killed the Russians was the combination of: a lot of Vodka, and swimming. Drowned drunks!"
The heat made them get in the water. So it WAS partly responsible, because had there not been a heat wave, they would not have been flocking to the water for relief from heat.
But actually, those young Ruskies probably would have been drinking the Wodka, heat wave or not, so...
So, you have to deduct the number of Russians that would die from Alcoholism in an average year. That leaves one person that died from the higher temps. We still have documented at least 175 deaths from the extreme cold in several So American countries. Not to mention 1000s of cattle dying and millions of fish that the people depend on to eat. Global cooling is a much bigger problem that GW. Do you think we would survive another Ice Age? It could be coming. Many credible scientists claim it is very possible.
“Watch out, Al Gore. The glaciers will get you!” With that appended note, my friend, retired field geologist Jack Sauers, forwarded to me a report that should have been a lead item in every newspaper in the world. It was the news that the best-measured glacier in North America, the Nisqually on Mount Rainier, has been growing since 1931.
The significance of the fact, immediately grasped by any competent climatologist, is that glacial advance is an early warning sign of Northern Hemisphere chilling of the sort that can bring on an Ice Age. The last Little Ice Age continued from about 1400 to 1850. It was followed by a period of slight warming. There are a growing number of signs that we may be descending into another Little Ice Age—all the mountains of “global warming” propaganda aside.
That quote is from the year 2000, BEFORE we had one of the hottest decades on record. De-Bunked.
Gary, you lived in Alaska for a few years, right?
So you are being disingenuous if you say (and believe) that people cannot adapt to colder, snowy, icy environments.
You know the people there have done it.
Oh, and this is a gas, here.
What's gonna happen to all the Conservative Blogs and Websites if an Ice Age REALLY starts, and then the Guvmint starts (ahem) "trying to CONTROL US WITH OUR POCKETBOOK" to avoid the Ice Age?
Are they going to "embrace" the Ice Age and support all the Guvmint programs to protect us?
Or, are they going to do an "about face" and say, "WHAT ICE AGE ?????" like they do with the current warming trend?
HHHHHHHMMMMMMMM..???????????????????
P.S. Politically, I consider myself a "moderate COMMON-SENSE-DRIVEN Conservative." Meaning, I don't just "tow the party line" on conservative issues - I use common sense to decide if a stance is the right one. Being "against Global Warming" JUST because you are a Conservative and that's the party line is just RIDICULOUS to me. That's all.
Chris Matthews to come in here and tell us that some people on this thread are just playing politics and don't really care at tall about GW? Tell me that isn't so!
Yes it was from 2000. That was the point. The doomsayers were saying we are going into an ice age, the sky is falling. Same as the chicken little bunch today saying GW, the sky is falling. It is all about the politics of FEAR. Politicians playing on the ignorance and fears of the masses.
There is plenty of evidence that it is NOT warming also. You can make data say what you want to push your agenda. Yours is man is a horrible polluter and must be stopped at any cost. I think we are doing plenty in this country to curb pollution of the air and water. It is not the cars that are the biggest polluters. My guess it is the main stream media.
And when NOAA gets their act together and puts out HONEST weather data, we may get some idea if it is getting warmer or colder across the globe. You are still clinging to debunked and discredited UN data.
Here is a 2008 report on glaciers growing.
9 Jul 08 – An AP article today written by Samantha Young admits that all seven glaciers on California’s Mount Shasta are growing. The article then goes on to rhapsodize about global warming.
The seven tongues of ice creeping down Mount Shasta's flanks “are the only known glaciers in the continental U.S. that are growing,” the article says.
How convenient. Let’s ignore Crater Glacier on Mount St. Helens, which is not only growing, but is now larger than it was prior to the 1980 eruption that entirely obliterated it.
How convenient. Let’s ignore the fact that the Nisqually Glacier on Mount Rainier is growing. Let’s ignore the most continuously monitored glacier in the northern hemisphere.
How convenient. Let’s limit our discussion to the continental U.S. That way we can ignore the glaciers in Alaska that are advancing a third of a mile per year.
Gary says, "You are still clinging to debunked and discredited UN data."
No, Sir.
Discredited by whom? A few "anti-global-warming" fanatics? Harrumph.
YOU are still clinging to the FALSEHOOD that any debunking actually occurred.
You tend to forget (conveniently for your stance) that FOUR different investigations cleared the supposedly debunked scientists from any wrongdoing involving the ACTUAL SCIENCE. Any wrongdoing of theirs was just some misplaced political jockeying.
Those scientists are NOT causing the arctic ice to melt.
And I don't think you REALLY want to get into whether or not glaciers are shrinking or growing globally. That will NOT enhance your argument, being that the argument does not have an icicle to stand on.
They are not causing glaciers to shrink GLOBALLY.
In answer to your glaciers issue:
Some Skeptics confuse these issues by cherry picking individual glaciers or by ignoring long term trends. Diversions such as these do not address the most important question of what is the real state of glaciers globally?
The answer is not only clear but it is definitive and based on the scientific literature. Globally glaciers are losing ice at an extensive rate (Figure 1). There are still situations in which glaciers gain or lose ice more than typical for one region or another but the long term trends are all the same.
It is also very important to understand that glacier changes are not only dictated by air temperature changes but also by precipitation. Therefore, there are scenarios in which warming can lead to increases in precipitation (and thus glacier ice accumulation) such as displayed in part of southwestern Norway during the 1990s (Nesje et al 2008).
The bottom line is that glacier variations can be dependent on localized conditions but that these variations are superimposed on a clear and evident long term global reduction in glacier volume which has accelerated rapidly since the 1970s.
So, the drought, brought on by the warming, is itself another factor in the shrinking of the glaciers. . . . You should really reconsider your stance on the "whether we are warming or not" issue, Gary. There is NO DOUBT that we are still warming. The only debatable issue at this point is the CAUSE.
Well after many months, of numerous people here explaining to you the substantial problems against substantial (we agree there's got to be a little) effect man makes on the climate, you still haven't moderated your view. There's a chance your experts aren't liars or fools. But from experience we know that our leaders are mostly liars and/or fools.
So when you listen to the news tonight and in the coming months and years, and you hear: how we're on the verge of winning the war in Afghanistan, or the economy isn't in recession, or the housing market is recovering, and the bailouts and stimulus are all worth it while sinking the U.S. into an abyss of debt (much more to come), then you will see that your experts are all a bunch of self-serving liars and fools. Your belief in government and science would have put you squarely on the side of invading Iraq to eliminate their WMD, which they said "we have tons of data, and indisputable scientific proof"! These were supposed to be the best and brightest scientists reviewing data for Bush and the CIA. Go back 8 years and look at the history! Recent and undeniable proof of them being liars and/or fools.
The names and faces have changed slightly, but it's the same mega-power-bureaucratic system promoted by the naieve media, that's telling you man is creating any warming, and picking and choosing the data they give you.
Enuf of my time talking to you about this. Believe your experts who say the "Titantic is Unsinkable". Stay on board and bail!
We all know that your tired old "show me proof of a negative" refrain is never going to happen to your satisfaction. Al Gore has taught you well.
Seriously, from some of your laughable arguments, I am beginning to think you must have some sort of personal stake in the GW issue. Are you hoarding carbon credits or something?
AGW make no sense. Even if man was 90% the culprits in changing the climate. How would spending $billions and now they say $trillions going to change anything? We have emerging economies all over the globe wanting what we the people in the USA have had for decades. Does anyone in their right mind think that China or India is going to send the people back into the caves over some data pumped up to generate tax dollars? Copenhagen should have shown anyone with a lick of sense that it was all about dictators in 3rd world countries getting US cash. Whatcha gonna gimme jimmy.
Let the free market build alternatives in good time. Get the FEDS out of our businesses.
PS ARCO was involved in Solar Energy long before it was the IN thing.
No matter how logical your stance is, some people choose to believe what they FEEL rather than what might or might not be the truth.
So if this were the Stone Age and your witch doctor village scientist told you there was a god in the volcano who needed a sacrifice, if I couldn't prove to you there was no god in the volcano, something modern man still can't do, you'd just go along sacrificing people. That's basically what you're saying.
And one of your other evidence issues, is that you need proof on this issue that it is a scam. When history shows time after time after time how politicians and other power-hungry-people have tried to control information and people. Is this similar to if I put my hand in 99 wild lions' cages that attacked, you would want proof that the next one will act similar?
It sure looks like more people prefer the warm weather than the cold. So maybe we'll just have to suffer through a few changes to get a nice warm Earth.
Of course we have known for years that people when they have a chance - like retiring, move somewhere warmer. Just imagine how nice most of the U.S. and Canada will be if it's 5-10F warmer! Larsb and the others may have to vacate Phoenix and the valley, but the other 95% of the people in North America will be happy.
Larsb and the others may have to vacate Phoenix and the valley
That would be good. The people have taken one of the healthiest climates in NA and destroyed it with all the trees and plants. What was once a haven for asthma sufferers is now a hell for anyone with breathing or allergy problems. Not to mention the huge dust clouds caused by uncontrolled building.
What's not to like? Just not likely to happen. They can pass all the laws they want. Just not ones that go against the laws of physics. They should have asked if they would want the 60 MPG if they were held to 50 MPH to achieve the mileage.
Gary says, "The people have taken one of the healthiest climates in NA and destroyed it with all the trees and plants. What was once a haven for asthma sufferers is now a hell for anyone with breathing or allergy problems. "
Phoenix WAS back in the Olden Days a haven because low humidity levels and low pollen counts brought many here in the early years that had allergies or other chronic ailments.
That could NEVER have been expected to LAST !! No reason to beat people up for that. It was inevitable progress. It could not have been prevented.
What did you expect, circle the city with a fence and man it with "Plant Police" or the "Pollen Police" and prevent people from bring in trees and plants? That's completely unreasonable to think that it could have happened any other way than it happened !! Get over it, Geez.
Gary says, "Not to mention the huge dust clouds caused by uncontrolled building."
Um, No. Not keeping up with current events there, are ya Big Fella?
The EPA and Maricopa County are CONSTANTLY monitoring air and fining companies who break the dust regulations::
The only time we have "huge dust clouds" is when we have a storm which blows in off the OPEN DESERT which SURROUNDS the Valley and brings dust clouds in advance of the storm.
THAT is not caused by "uncontrolled building" and in FACT, there is no such thing in Phoenix as "uncontrolled building." Anyone doing any construction has to have permits and is forced to use water trucks to water down any exposed dirt surfaces involved in their construction process.
Is PM-10 still a problem here? Sure it is. But it is because ALL construction takes place on open desert floor, with almost zero exceptions.
That could NEVER have been expected to LAST !! No reason to beat people up for that. It was inevitable progress. It could not have been prevented.
Well, glad to hear you do have limits to how clean the air should be. So keeping the air clean is not as important as progress. That has been my contention from day one. We are not willing to give up, our trees flowers and POLLEN as well as dust for a few unfortunate souls with Asthma.
Gary says, "So keeping the air clean is not as important as progress."
Back then, in the early 1900's NO, it wasn't. But ONLY because those people in those days had NO IDEA how bad the pollution was going to be unless they controlled it. It was merely an issue of education.
Like when we didn't think cigarettes were terrible and awful for the human body.
As we progress as a people and as a society, we do LEARN things.
No one can successfully argue that NOW, TODAY, progress is more important than clean air. . . Not so in the olden days. .
Phoenix WAS back in the Olden Days a haven because low humidity levels and low pollen counts brought many here in the early years that had allergies or other chronic ailments
My mom-in-law, a retired RN with allergies, might agree with you a bit on the low humidity being helpful, but it seems that it takes about five years for the local pollen to catch up with you when you move some place new. So if you have bad allergies, you may get relief simply by moving to different parts of the country when your body starts getting bothered by the local spores.
Downtown Los Angeles hits all-time high of 113 Associated Press Posted: 09/27/2010 01:22:32 PM PDT Updated: 09/27/2010 01:25:21 PM PDT
LOS ANGELES -- The National Weather Service says downtown Los Angeles has recorded an all-time record high of 113 degrees as a heat wave bakes California.
Weather forecaster Stuart Seto says the record high was reached about 15 minutes after noon Monday.
The old record was 112 degrees on June 26, 1990.
California has been in the grip of a heat wave since high pressure built over the West late last week.
Sounds like LA is going to Hell literally. We are near record warm today also. We hit 99 this afternoon. Record cold summer. Now we may get a warm fall. I doubt it. This is a freak Santa Ana condition. Usually happens in the winter and not quite this hot. This was the hottest day over the last 4 days of hot weather. The only day we had to turn on the AC as it did not cool below 79 last night.
Must be GW. But not from my SUV as it has been parked for weeks. I rarely drive it. It is not as good as my Suburban. It will only go about 4 weeks before the battery gets too low to start it.
My guess is the hot air is coming from the politicians campaigning to save their jobs.
Why Energy Efficiency Does not Decrease Energy Consumption
By Harry Saunders
I recently co-authored an article for the Journal of Physics ("Solid-state lighting: an energy-economics perspective" by Jeff Tsao, Harry Saunders, Randy Creighton, Mike Coltrin, Jerry Simmon, August 19, 2010) analyzing the increase in energy consumption that will likely result from new (and more efficient) solid-state lighting (SSL) technologies. The article triggered a round of commentaries and responses that have confused the debate over energy efficiency. What follows is my attempt to clarify the issue, and does not necessarily represent the views of my co-authors.
More Efficient Lighting Will Increase, Not Decrease, Energy Consumption
The implications of this research are important for those who care about global warming. In recent years, more efficient light bulbs have been widely viewed as an important step to reducing energy consumption and thus greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Moreover, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations and the International Energy Agency (IEA) have produced analyses that assume energy efficiency technologies will provide a substantial part of the remedy for climate change by reducing global energy consumption approximately 30 percent -- a reduction nearly sufficient to offset projected economic growth-driven energy consumption increases.
Many have come to believe that new, highly-efficient, solid-state lighting -- generally LED technology, like that used on the displays of stereo consoles, microwaves, and digital clocks -- will result in reduced energy consumption. We find the opposite is true, concluding "that there is a massive potential for growth in the consumption of light if new lighting technologies are developed with higher luminous efficacies and lower cost of light." The good news is that increased light consumption has historically been tied to higher productivity and quality of life. The bad news is that energy efficient lighting should not be relied upon as means of reducing aggregate energy consumption, and therefore emissions. We thus write: "These conclusions suggest a subtle but important shift in how one views the baseline consequence of the increased energy efficiency associated with SSL. The consequence is not a simple 'engineering' decrease in energy consumption with consumption of light fixed, but rather an increase in human productivity and quality of life due to an increase in consumption of light." This phenomenon has come to be known as the energy "rebound" effect.
Seems like another group of people trying to save incandescent bulbs from their deserved and impending doom.
What he seems to be saying about third-world countries is this:
"since they can't currently afford a 60 watt incandescent, they will in the future put 80 watts of LED lighting in their home."
Seems totally ridiculous. Why would people who can't afford proper lighting NOW, all of a sudden use "efficient lighting" but in the process burn more energy?
It would be interesting to see who funded that study.
In essence, they seem to be telling us "It's going to cost way too many resources to produce all this energy efficient lighting, so maybe it's a bad idea."
Ludicrous, and I don't mean Chris Bridges.
Now, it they want to just sound this warning:
"Don't use extra lighting just to be proud of having an LED-only house" then that is an acceptable warning.
But I think the group of people who would do that is relatively small.
Only a nut with more money than brains would buy LED lights at the current price. So SSL is still a future technology for the masses. We are going to be stuck with CFLs made in China for the foreseeable future. And they do not last very long as I have had to replace several over the last couple years. And we do not use them a lot. LEDs have even a worse warranty:
This LED Bulb’s 50,000 Hour rating is from the factory’s test and is in fact a factory rating under laboratory conditions. AQL only warranties this bulb for 30 days. The Rating is only the anticipated life expectancy of the LED Bulb and not a warranty period
Not so great of a warranty for bulbs that start at about $25 each and go over $100 each.
larsb, I'm with you on this. It's a pretty odd report and has a little whiff of "Here's the conclusion - go find the proof and wrap it up nicely" about it. Really would be interesting to hear who paid for it - as it would for all the GW/GHG/AGW etc stuff.
You can get semi-affordable LEDs at Sam's Club. That's where I got mine. I got a $14 (with tax) "track spotlight" LED that's working great in my kitchen. Had to at least try them.
I keep the packaging also for my CFLs. Though I got them for under a buck a piece. Not now. Last time I checked it was hard to find a CFL under $5. It is all part of the giant scam.
I actually thought of those LED Floods for the two we use most over the sink area. I would have to have more than a 30 Day warranty to spend $14. The 50,000 hours is meaningless. Unless Sam's will warranty for that period. Though not sure how they would figure it.
At $14 I may try a couple LED Floods. I would replace the two recessed lights that get used most in the house. They actually light up the whole kitchen. I hate turning on the nine recessed floods around the perimeter of the kitchen. We also have seven 24 inch fluorescent lights under the cabinets to light the counters. I never turn them on.
LED lights should last longer than incandescent. Just so expensive. I turned my LED Christmas lights around the house on and they all seem to be working after hanging all year.
Not because I believe in AGW. Because I am cheap and don't like big electric bills. If the price of electricity goes up too much it is back to reading by candle light. :shades:
We have had the coldest summer on record in So CA. Now Russia is bracing for the coldest Winter. I wish they would decide which it is going to be. One day it is park your SUV the next get out and drive it so we can get warmed up.
After the record heat wave this summer, Russia's weather seems to have acquired a taste for the extreme.
Forecasters say this winter could be the coldest Europe has seen in the last 1,000 years.
The change is reportedly connected with the speed of the Gulf Stream, which has shrunk in half in just the last couple of years. Polish scientists say that it means the stream will not be able to compensate for the cold from the Arctic winds. According to them, when the stream is completely stopped, a new Ice Age will begin in Europe.
So far, the results have been lower temperatures: for example, in Central Russia, they are a couple of degrees below the norm.
“Although the forecast for the next month is only 70 percent accurate, I find the cold winter scenario quite likely,” Vadim Zavodchenkov, a leading specialist at the Fobos weather center, told RT. “We will be able to judge with more certainty come November. As for last summer's heat, the statistical models that meteorologists use to draw up long-term forecasts aren't able to predict an anomaly like that.”
In order to meet the harsh winter head on, Moscow authorities are drawing up measures to help Muscovites survive the extreme cold.
You know those cloth grocery bags the ECO Nuts want US all to use?
In recent years, the environmentally friendly reusable grocery bags have become popular. However, these reusable grocery bags may not be too health friendly as they can serve as a ripe breeding ground for dangerous food borne bacteria E-coli and salmonella, that could cause a serious health risk. Every shop seems to sell reusable bags with their logo whether shopping in the local pharmacy or grocery store.
A recent study which was done by researchers from University of Arizona (UA) and Loma Linda University, found that reusable shopping bags can harbor potentially harmful bacteria if they aren’t cleaned and 97% of people surveyed said they had never washed theirs. However the study, conducted by the American Chemistry Council, also found that bacterial contamination can cut by more than 99% by washing the reusable bags either by hand or machine.
Charles Gerba, a UA professor and co-author of the study said, “A lot of people are not aware of the potential for the cross-contamination of food.”
We have about a dozen of them hanging by the door in the garage. We take them as the local stores give you a nickel off for each one you use. I think my wife tossed them all in the washing machine after she found the article. I have a lot of them that are new from my company in AK. We passed them out at our annual meetings starting in the late 1990s. We use them for everything on a daily basis. Very heavy duty, not like the cheapo ones they sell at the stores. We will remember to wash them on a regular basis though. Just one of those ill conceived ideas by the Eco nuts without a lot of thinking. AGW being the most ill conceived in my lifetime.
Gary, Gary, Gary, Gary, Gary. My amigo. SO misguided. Dang.
That's not a new story, by the way. It was out in the news a few months ago.
The solution? PUT YOUR REUSABLE BAGS IN THE WASHER EVERY COUPLE OF WEEKS WITH A LOAD YOU WERE GOING TO WASH ANYWAY.
I do that. All my reusable bags (I use one to carry food to work every single day of the week) get washed and their usage is rotated.
Gary says, "That is the plastic bags which are biodegradable. "
You have special, Ninja biodegradable plastic bags in California? Where do you get them? Because the ones they use in most states are the regular ones which take, oh, about, a HECK of a long time to decompose in a landfill.
The ingredient in plastic bags, polyethylene, is not biodegradable. Starting July 1, most large grocery stores in the state of California will be legally required to recycle plastic shopping bags. In Europe, even stricter anti-plastic measures are gaining traction. Retailers in Modbury, England, for example, recently committed to an outright plastic-bag ban. News reports have cited a statistic that the ubiquitous receptacles take 500 years to break down in landfills. How do we know?
Actually, we don't. Plastic bags have only been around for about 50 years, so there's no firsthand evidence of their decomposition rate. To make long-term estimates of this sort, scientists often use respirometry tests. The experimenters place a solid waste sample—like a newspaper, banana peel, or plastic bag—in a vessel containing microbe-rich compost, then aerate the mixture. Over the course of several days, microorganisms assimilate the sample bit by bit and produce carbon dioxide; the resultant CO2 level serves as an indicator of degradation.
Respirometry tests work perfectly for newspapers and banana peels. (Newspapers take two to five months to biodegrade in a compost heap; banana peels take several days.) But when scientists test generic plastic bags, nothing happens—there's no CO2 production and no decomposition. Why? The most common type of plastic shopping bag—the kind you get at supermarkets—is made of polyethylene, a man-made polymer that microorganisms don't recognize as food.
So, where does the 500-year statistic come from? Although standard polyethylene bags don't biodegrade, they do photodegrade. When exposed to ultraviolet radiation from sunlight, polyethylene's polymer chains become brittle and start to crack. This suggests that plastic bags will eventually fragment into microscopic granules. As of yet, however, scientists aren't sure how many centuries it takes for the sun to work its magic. That's why certain news sources cite a 500-year estimate while others prefer a more conservative 1,000-year lifespan. According to some plastics experts, all these figures are just another way of saying "a really, really long time."
Sometimes, even banana peels don't decompose once they reach the landfill. For sanitary reasons, modern landfills are lined on the bottom with clay and plastic to keep waste from escaping into the soil and are covered daily with a layer of earth to reduce odor. The landfill, then, acts like a trash tomb—the garbage within receives little air, water, or sunlight. This means that even readily degradable waste objects, including paper and food scraps, are more likely to mummify than decompose.
Just because you have to wash them makes it ill-conceived?
Because that also wastes water that is very expensive and precious in CA. Plus the soap it dumps into the water table is hardly inert. The last article I read on plastic grocery bags was 6 months they are consumed by the earth in the land fills. Not so with disposable diapers. Now there is something that should be legislated. You know why it is not. They make BILLIONS of dollars on disposable diapers. Plastic grocery bags are an expense the retailers would like to get away from. Follow the money amigo and you will learn more about environmentalism than you really want to know.
I wonder if a cold water wash actually will kill the bacteria in the bags? I don't see anything on the HE soap required for our washing machine, that would indicate it is anti-bacterial. I wonder what it actually costs to wash those bags. Is it costing me more than the nickel I get for using them?
Following a reasonably benign winter, the Southland region of New Zealand (NZ) has in the past week been hit by “the worst spring storm in living memory” according to the NZ Herald.
Six days of blizzards have caused deaths among new lambs numbering in the hundreds of thousands, and raised concern over the welfare of ewes yet to lamb.
Besides the effect of the cold weather itself, the continued snowfall has not allowed snow on the ground to thaw, making it much harder for stock to feed.
This makes ewes about to lamb particularly susceptible to metabolic illnesses from a lack of nutrients.
Reportedly, lamb mortality in the area may be as high as 15% for some farmers. With average prices for lambs expected to be around NZ$80/head this season (NZ Herald), the financial loss to NZ producers will be significant, estimated to exceed NZ$50 million (NZ Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry).
We are back to well below normal in San Diego. We barely hit 60 degrees yesterday. Our normal is 84 for that day in past years. Al and the AGW cult need a new scam. This one is freezing up on them. Predictions of another ice age would be more believable.
Comments
That is an illogical statement, unfounded and not scientific at all. It's an invalid assumption.
Regardless, the evidence is elsewhere besides merely temps.
Arctic ice woes.
Heat waves killing thousands in Russia.
Don't have to measure temps down to the actual digit to know it's hot.
.
.
.
And remember" Global Warming PATTERNS do not mean that EVERY LOCALE, ALL DAY EVERY DAY, has to be above normal, or that every season in every locale has to be hotter than the last year.
When taken as a GLOBAL average, there is no logical, common-sense, reasonable way to deny that we are in a warming trend.
The only LOGICAL argument left is the CAUSE.
You always like to dismiss evidence that does not fit your agenda. Thousands are being killed by record low temps in a much larger portion of the World than is experiencing record heat. A record heat that only goes back a little over 100 years. A blip in time. We are so far from the high temps of the Medieval warming period we will not live long enough to see them. And many of the Northern countries will be very happy to be back into warm climate. Canada and Greenland will flourish as it once did. Even the Arctic was tropical at one time long before the first Hummer. By the way fires killing people do not count.
Is that your stance?
US bids to break Copenhagen deadlock with support for $100bn climate fund
Hillary Clinton pledges US support for a $100bn fund to help poor countries adapt to climate change providing their leaders sign up to a deal
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/17/us-copenhagen-100bn-climate-fu- nd
Farewell summer, we hardly knew ye!
The last day of summer is Wednesday, but meteorologists say the season barely bothered to show up in the region this year. So cooler fall will make an almost noiseless entrance Thursday, hardly indistinguishable from the summer Southern Californians just experienced.
“Summer played hooky on us. It never really showed up,” said Bill Patzert, a climatologist for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Canada Flintridge. “We leaped from spring to fall.”
Patzert said a low-pressure trough that stalled along the West Coast from Alaska to southern Baja California kept the summer cooler than usual, with many overcast days. Monthly temperatures in downtown Los Angeles from April to now have averaged between one to three degrees cooler than normal.
We have averaged closer to 10 degrees below normal all summer. We had two warm weeks where the Temps made it close to 100 degrees. I have used my AC less than 10 days this year. Good thing as our CA GHG mandates to the power companies have sent our rates through the ceiling. The month I used the AC for 5 days jumped my bill nearly $100. The baseline is 370 KWH If you use 740 KWHs your rate per KWH triples. The Green Goons will push US back into the caves one way or another.
Um, yeah, that's called "AN INCENTIVE."
Keep your usage low, you pay less.
Completely logical.
SC - the Supreme Court? We're gonna judicially enact a more "normal" climate? These guys came out with a ruling a century ago declaring that tomatoes were vegetables, not fruits. I don't think much has changed and I wouldn't trust them too far with science issues. :shades:
Don't have to measure temps down to the actual digit to know it's hot.
The "heat" didn't directly kill any normal, healthy person in Russia. What killed the Russians was the combination of: a lot of Vodka, and swimming. Drowned drunks!
http://abcnews.go.com/International/russia-heat-wave-vodka-deadly-mix-drowning/s- - tory?id=11170454
BTW - the other night, a summer night, the temperature was 34F where I live. It's not too hot in much of the world. I still don't need an AC; and many people around the world including in the tropics don't have AC's. The climate is not killing millions in the tropics who have no AC's. What you're repeating is a bunch of hogwash, intended to promote hogwash to the uninformed.
No, it's not.
That's because "tropical" areas usually never go over 100F, and the people there have adapted to the tropical humidity.
But when areas which are typically "mild" in the summer, areas where people don't need to install air conditioners as a required appliance, have extreme heat waves, i.e. the Northeast USA and parts of Europe, HEAT WAVES KILL people.
kernick says, "The "heat" didn't directly kill any normal, healthy person in Russia. What killed the Russians was the combination of: a lot of Vodka, and swimming. Drowned drunks!"
The heat made them get in the water. So it WAS partly responsible, because had there not been a heat wave, they would not have been flocking to the water for relief from heat.
The two events cannot be separated.
Don't you mean three events? Don't forget the VODKA !!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
But actually, those young Ruskies probably would have been drinking the Wodka, heat wave or not, so........................................
So, you have to deduct the number of Russians that would die from Alcoholism in an average year. That leaves one person that died from the higher temps. We still have documented at least 175 deaths from the extreme cold in several So American countries. Not to mention 1000s of cattle dying and millions of fish that the people depend on to eat. Global cooling is a much bigger problem that GW. Do you think we would survive another Ice Age? It could be coming. Many credible scientists claim it is very possible.
“Watch out, Al Gore. The glaciers will get you!” With that appended note, my friend, retired field geologist Jack Sauers, forwarded to me a report that should have been a lead item in every newspaper in the world. It was the news that the best-measured glacier in North America, the Nisqually on Mount Rainier, has been growing since 1931.
The significance of the fact, immediately grasped by any competent climatologist, is that glacial advance is an early warning sign of Northern Hemisphere chilling of the sort that can bring on an Ice Age. The last Little Ice Age continued from about 1400 to 1850. It was followed by a period of slight warming. There are a growing number of signs that we may be descending into another Little Ice Age—all the mountains of “global warming” propaganda aside.
(25 minutes later>>>>)
That quote is from the year 2000, BEFORE we had one of the hottest decades on record. De-Bunked.
Gary, you lived in Alaska for a few years, right?
So you are being disingenuous if you say (and believe) that people cannot adapt to colder, snowy, icy environments.
You know the people there have done it.
Oh, and this is a gas, here.
What's gonna happen to all the Conservative Blogs and Websites if an Ice Age REALLY starts, and then the Guvmint starts (ahem) "trying to CONTROL US WITH OUR POCKETBOOK" to avoid the Ice Age?
Are they going to "embrace" the Ice Age and support all the Guvmint programs to protect us?
Or, are they going to do an "about face" and say, "WHAT ICE AGE ?????" like they do with the current warming trend?
HHHHHHHMMMMMMMM..???????????????????
P.S. Politically, I consider myself a "moderate COMMON-SENSE-DRIVEN Conservative." Meaning, I don't just "tow the party line" on conservative issues - I use common sense to decide if a stance is the right one. Being "against Global Warming" JUST because you are a Conservative and that's the party line is just RIDICULOUS to me. That's all.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
There is plenty of evidence that it is NOT warming also. You can make data say what you want to push your agenda. Yours is man is a horrible polluter and must be stopped at any cost. I think we are doing plenty in this country to curb pollution of the air and water. It is not the cars that are the biggest polluters. My guess it is the main stream media.
And when NOAA gets their act together and puts out HONEST weather data, we may get some idea if it is getting warmer or colder across the globe. You are still clinging to debunked and discredited UN data.
Here is a 2008 report on glaciers growing.
9 Jul 08 – An AP article today written by Samantha Young admits that all seven glaciers on California’s Mount Shasta are growing. The article then goes on to rhapsodize about global warming.
The seven tongues of ice creeping down Mount Shasta's flanks “are the only known glaciers in the continental U.S. that are growing,” the article says.
How convenient. Let’s ignore Crater Glacier on Mount
St. Helens, which is not only growing, but is now larger
than it was prior to the 1980 eruption that entirely
obliterated it.
How convenient. Let’s ignore the fact that the Nisqually
Glacier on Mount Rainier is growing. Let’s ignore the
most continuously monitored glacier in the northern
hemisphere.
How convenient. Let’s ignore the fact that the glaciers
are growing on Washington’s Mount Shuksan.
(See http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm)
How convenient. Let’s limit our discussion to the
continental U.S. That way we can ignore the glaciers
in Alaska that are advancing a third of a mile per year.
http://www.iceagenow.com/California_Glaciers_Growing.htm
No, Sir.
Discredited by whom? A few "anti-global-warming" fanatics? Harrumph.
YOU are still clinging to the FALSEHOOD that any debunking actually occurred.
You tend to forget (conveniently for your stance) that FOUR different investigations cleared the supposedly debunked scientists from any wrongdoing involving the ACTUAL SCIENCE. Any wrongdoing of theirs was just some misplaced political jockeying.
Those scientists are NOT causing the arctic ice to melt.
And I don't think you REALLY want to get into whether or not glaciers are shrinking or growing globally. That will NOT enhance your argument, being that the argument does not have an icicle to stand on.
They are not causing glaciers to shrink GLOBALLY.
In answer to your glaciers issue:
Some Skeptics confuse these issues by cherry picking individual glaciers or by ignoring long term trends. Diversions such as these do not address the most important question of what is the real state of glaciers globally?
The answer is not only clear but it is definitive and based on the scientific literature. Globally glaciers are losing ice at an extensive rate (Figure 1). There are still situations in which glaciers gain or lose ice more than typical for one region or another but the long term trends are all the same.
It is also very important to understand that glacier changes are not only dictated by air temperature changes but also by precipitation. Therefore, there are scenarios in which warming can lead to increases in precipitation (and thus glacier ice accumulation) such as displayed in part of southwestern Norway during the 1990s (Nesje et al 2008).
The bottom line is that glacier variations can be dependent on localized conditions but that these variations are superimposed on a clear and evident long term global reduction in glacier volume which has accelerated rapidly since the 1970s.
So, the drought, brought on by the warming, is itself another factor in the shrinking of the glaciers.
.
.
.
You should really reconsider your stance on the "whether we are warming or not" issue, Gary. There is NO DOUBT that we are still warming. The only debatable issue at this point is the CAUSE.
So when you listen to the news tonight and in the coming months and years, and you hear: how we're on the verge of winning the war in Afghanistan, or the economy isn't in recession, or the housing market is recovering, and the bailouts and stimulus are all worth it while sinking the U.S. into an abyss of debt (much more to come), then you will see that your experts are all a bunch of self-serving liars and fools. Your belief in government and science would have put you squarely on the side of invading Iraq to eliminate their WMD, which they said "we have tons of data, and indisputable scientific proof"! These were supposed to be the best and brightest scientists reviewing data for Bush and the CIA. Go back 8 years and look at the history! Recent and undeniable proof of them being liars and/or fools.
The names and faces have changed slightly, but it's the same mega-power-bureaucratic system promoted by the naieve media, that's telling you man is creating any warming, and picking and choosing the data they give you.
Enuf of my time talking to you about this. Believe your experts who say the "Titantic is Unsinkable". Stay on board and bail!
It's hard to change someone's mind without any evidence.
No matter how logical your stance is, some people choose to believe what they FEEL rather than what might or might not be the truth.
Having been paying attention to the warming issues over the last few years, there just is not enough evidence to conclude:
1. AGW is a scam, perpetrated by a smart few over an ignorant many to "control" them.
2. Man cannot be having an influence on the warming.
Until one or both of those things are proven, then I'm going to side with the "err on the side of caution" people rather than the other side.
Seriously, from some of your laughable arguments, I am beginning to think you must have some sort of personal stake in the GW issue. Are you hoarding carbon credits or something?
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
He's done more to HURT his cause than help it.
He needs to just go away and Shaddup.
Don't recall posting any "laughable" arguments.
Let the free market build alternatives in good time. Get the FEDS out of our businesses.
PS
ARCO was involved in Solar Energy long before it was the IN thing.
So if this were the Stone Age and your witch doctor village scientist told you there was a god in the volcano who needed a sacrifice, if I couldn't prove to you there was no god in the volcano, something modern man still can't do, you'd just go along sacrificing people. That's basically what you're saying.
And one of your other evidence issues, is that you need proof on this issue that it is a scam. When history shows time after time after time how politicians and other power-hungry-people have tried to control information and people. Is this similar to if I put my hand in 99 wild lions' cages that attacked, you would want proof that the next one will act similar?
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2010-09-23-canadian-home-buyers_N.- - htm
Of course we have known for years that people when they have a chance - like retiring, move somewhere warmer. Just imagine how nice most of the U.S. and Canada will be if it's 5-10F warmer! Larsb and the others may have to vacate Phoenix and the valley, but the other 95% of the people in North America will be happy.
That would be good. The people have taken one of the healthiest climates in NA and destroyed it with all the trees and plants. What was once a haven for asthma sufferers is now a hell for anyone with breathing or allergy problems. Not to mention the huge dust clouds caused by uncontrolled building.
Ahem, I may just have to hold you to that Kernick. I'll get back to you in January. :shades:
Did y'all see this one?
Poll Shows 'Likely Voters' Like Idea of 60 MPG Federal Fuel Economy Rule (Green Car Advisor)
(And relax, that's 60 mpg, not 60 MPH)..
Thanks for educating me about Phoenix.
Wait.....
NOT !!!!!
Gary says, "The people have taken one of the healthiest climates in NA and destroyed it with all the trees and plants. What was once a haven for asthma sufferers is now a hell for anyone with breathing or allergy problems. "
Phoenix WAS back in the Olden Days a haven because low humidity levels and low pollen counts brought many here in the early years that had allergies or other chronic ailments.
That could NEVER have been expected to LAST !! No reason to beat people up for that. It was inevitable progress. It could not have been prevented.
What did you expect, circle the city with a fence and man it with "Plant Police" or the "Pollen Police" and prevent people from bring in trees and plants? That's completely unreasonable to think that it could have happened any other way than it happened !! Get over it, Geez.
Gary says, "Not to mention the huge dust clouds caused by uncontrolled building."
Um, No. Not keeping up with current events there, are ya Big Fella?
The EPA and Maricopa County are CONSTANTLY monitoring air and fining companies who break the dust regulations::
Maricopa County expanding "dust police" to meet EPA requirements
The only time we have "huge dust clouds" is when we have a storm which blows in off the OPEN DESERT which SURROUNDS the Valley and brings dust clouds in advance of the storm.
THAT is not caused by "uncontrolled building" and in FACT, there is no such thing in Phoenix as "uncontrolled building." Anyone doing any construction has to have permits and is forced to use water trucks to water down any exposed dirt surfaces involved in their construction process.
Is PM-10 still a problem here? Sure it is. But it is because ALL construction takes place on open desert floor, with almost zero exceptions.
Well, glad to hear you do have limits to how clean the air should be. So keeping the air clean is not as important as progress. That has been my contention from day one. We are not willing to give up, our trees flowers and POLLEN as well as dust for a few unfortunate souls with Asthma.
Back then, in the early 1900's NO, it wasn't. But ONLY because those people in those days had NO IDEA how bad the pollution was going to be unless they controlled it. It was merely an issue of education.
Like when we didn't think cigarettes were terrible and awful for the human body.
As we progress as a people and as a society, we do LEARN things.
No one can successfully argue that NOW, TODAY, progress is more important than clean air.
.
.
Not so in the olden days.
.
My mom-in-law, a retired RN with allergies, might agree with you a bit on the low humidity being helpful, but it seems that it takes about five years for the local pollen to catch up with you when you move some place new. So if you have bad allergies, you may get relief simply by moving to different parts of the country when your body starts getting bothered by the local spores.
Sounds good in theory anyway.
Downtown Los Angeles hits all-time high of 113
Downtown Los Angeles hits all-time high of 113
Associated Press
Posted: 09/27/2010 01:22:32 PM PDT
Updated: 09/27/2010 01:25:21 PM PDT
LOS ANGELES -- The National Weather Service says downtown Los Angeles has recorded an all-time record high of 113 degrees as a heat wave bakes California.
Weather forecaster Stuart Seto says the record high was reached about 15 minutes after noon Monday.
The old record was 112 degrees on June 26, 1990.
California has been in the grip of a heat wave since high pressure built over the West late last week.
Must be GW. But not from my SUV as it has been parked for weeks. I rarely drive it. It is not as good as my Suburban. It will only go about 4 weeks before the battery gets too low to start it.
My guess is the hot air is coming from the politicians campaigning to save their jobs.
By Harry Saunders
I recently co-authored an article for the Journal of Physics ("Solid-state lighting: an energy-economics perspective" by Jeff Tsao, Harry Saunders, Randy Creighton, Mike Coltrin, Jerry Simmon, August 19, 2010) analyzing the increase in energy consumption that will likely result from new (and more efficient) solid-state lighting (SSL) technologies. The article triggered a round of commentaries and responses that have confused the debate over energy efficiency. What follows is my attempt to clarify the issue, and does not necessarily represent the views of my co-authors.
More Efficient Lighting Will Increase, Not Decrease, Energy Consumption
The implications of this research are important for those who care about global warming. In recent years, more efficient light bulbs have been widely viewed as an important step to reducing energy consumption and thus greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Moreover, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations and the International Energy Agency (IEA) have produced analyses that assume energy efficiency technologies will provide a substantial part of the remedy for climate change by reducing global energy consumption approximately 30 percent -- a reduction nearly sufficient to offset projected economic growth-driven energy consumption increases.
Many have come to believe that new, highly-efficient, solid-state lighting -- generally LED technology, like that used on the displays of stereo consoles, microwaves, and digital clocks -- will result in reduced energy consumption. We find the opposite is true, concluding "that there is a massive potential for growth in the consumption of light if new lighting technologies are developed with higher luminous efficacies and lower cost of light."
The good news is that increased light consumption has historically been tied to higher productivity and quality of life. The bad news is that energy efficient lighting should not be relied upon as means of reducing aggregate energy consumption, and therefore emissions. We thus write: "These conclusions suggest a subtle but important shift in how one views the baseline consequence of the increased energy efficiency associated with SSL. The consequence is not a simple 'engineering' decrease in energy consumption with consumption of light fixed, but rather an increase in human productivity and quality of life due to an increase in consumption of light." This phenomenon has come to be known as the energy "rebound" effect.
The Empirical Evidence for Rebound
What he seems to be saying about third-world countries is this:
"since they can't currently afford a 60 watt incandescent, they will in the future put 80 watts of LED lighting in their home."
Seems totally ridiculous. Why would people who can't afford proper lighting NOW, all of a sudden use "efficient lighting" but in the process burn more energy?
It would be interesting to see who funded that study.
In essence, they seem to be telling us "It's going to cost way too many resources to produce all this energy efficient lighting, so maybe it's a bad idea."
Ludicrous, and I don't mean Chris Bridges.
Now, it they want to just sound this warning:
"Don't use extra lighting just to be proud of having an LED-only house" then that is an acceptable warning.
But I think the group of people who would do that is relatively small.
This LED Bulb’s 50,000 Hour rating is from the factory’s test and is in fact a factory rating under laboratory conditions. AQL only warranties this bulb for 30 days. The Rating is only the anticipated life expectancy of the LED Bulb and not a warranty period
Not so great of a warranty for bulbs that start at about $25 each and go over $100 each.
Or maybe I'm just old and cynical.
P.S. I kept the receipt.....:)
I actually thought of those LED Floods for the two we use most over the sink area. I would have to have more than a 30 Day warranty to spend $14. The 50,000 hours is meaningless. Unless Sam's will warranty for that period. Though not sure how they would figure it.
I have to assume they will do the same with LEDs.
LED lights should last longer than incandescent. Just so expensive. I turned my LED Christmas lights around the house on and they all seem to be working after hanging all year.
Not because I believe in AGW. Because I am cheap and don't like big electric bills. If the price of electricity goes up too much it is back to reading by candle light. :shades:
After the record heat wave this summer, Russia's weather seems to have acquired a taste for the extreme.
Forecasters say this winter could be the coldest Europe has seen in the last 1,000 years.
The change is reportedly connected with the speed of the Gulf Stream, which has shrunk in half in just the last couple of years. Polish scientists say that it means the stream will not be able to compensate for the cold from the Arctic winds. According to them, when the stream is completely stopped, a new Ice Age will begin in Europe.
So far, the results have been lower temperatures: for example, in Central Russia, they are a couple of degrees below the norm.
“Although the forecast for the next month is only 70 percent accurate, I find the cold winter scenario quite likely,” Vadim Zavodchenkov, a leading specialist at the Fobos weather center, told RT. “We will be able to judge with more certainty come November. As for last summer's heat, the statistical models that meteorologists use to draw up long-term forecasts aren't able to predict an anomaly like that.”
In order to meet the harsh winter head on, Moscow authorities are drawing up measures to help Muscovites survive the extreme cold.
http://rt.com/prime-time/2010-10-04/coldest-winter-emergency-measures.html
The wise thing is to adapt to what ever climate comes along. We need to quit wasting money trying to figure out who is to blame for the changes.
In recent years, the environmentally friendly reusable grocery bags have become popular. However, these reusable grocery bags may not be too health friendly as they can serve as a ripe breeding ground for dangerous food borne bacteria E-coli and salmonella, that could cause a serious health risk. Every shop seems to sell reusable bags with their logo whether shopping in the local pharmacy or grocery store.
A recent study which was done by researchers from University of Arizona (UA) and Loma Linda University, found that reusable shopping bags can harbor potentially harmful bacteria if they aren’t cleaned and 97% of people surveyed said they had never washed theirs. However the study, conducted by the American Chemistry Council, also found that bacterial contamination can cut by more than 99% by washing the reusable bags either by hand or machine.
Charles Gerba, a UA professor and co-author of the study said, “A lot of people are not aware of the potential for the cross-contamination of food.”
http://b4tea.com/food-health/are-reusable-grocery-bags-harmful-health-risks
back to the safe bet for me. That is the plastic bags which are biodegradable.
That's not a new story, by the way. It was out in the news a few months ago.
The solution? PUT YOUR REUSABLE BAGS IN THE WASHER EVERY COUPLE OF WEEKS WITH A LOAD YOU WERE GOING TO WASH ANYWAY.
I do that. All my reusable bags (I use one to carry food to work every single day of the week) get washed and their usage is rotated.
Gary says, "That is the plastic bags which are biodegradable. "
You have special, Ninja biodegradable plastic bags in California? Where do you get them? Because the ones they use in most states are the regular ones which take, oh, about, a HECK of a long time to decompose in a landfill.
The ingredient in plastic bags, polyethylene, is not biodegradable.
Starting July 1, most large grocery stores in the state of California will be legally required to recycle plastic shopping bags. In Europe, even stricter anti-plastic measures are gaining traction. Retailers in Modbury, England, for example, recently committed to an outright plastic-bag ban. News reports have cited a statistic that the ubiquitous receptacles take 500 years to break down in landfills. How do we know?
Actually, we don't. Plastic bags have only been around for about 50 years, so there's no firsthand evidence of their decomposition rate. To make long-term estimates of this sort, scientists often use respirometry tests. The experimenters place a solid waste sample—like a newspaper, banana peel, or plastic bag—in a vessel containing microbe-rich compost, then aerate the mixture. Over the course of several days, microorganisms assimilate the sample bit by bit and produce carbon dioxide; the resultant CO2 level serves as an indicator of degradation.
Respirometry tests work perfectly for newspapers and banana peels. (Newspapers take two to five months to biodegrade in a compost heap; banana peels take several days.) But when scientists test generic plastic bags, nothing happens—there's no CO2 production and no decomposition. Why? The most common type of plastic shopping bag—the kind you get at supermarkets—is made of polyethylene, a man-made polymer that microorganisms don't recognize as food.
So, where does the 500-year statistic come from? Although standard polyethylene bags don't biodegrade, they do photodegrade. When exposed to ultraviolet radiation from sunlight, polyethylene's polymer chains become brittle and start to crack. This suggests that plastic bags will eventually fragment into microscopic granules. As of yet, however, scientists aren't sure how many centuries it takes for the sun to work its magic. That's why certain news sources cite a 500-year estimate while others prefer a more conservative 1,000-year lifespan. According to some plastics experts, all these figures are just another way of saying "a really, really long time."
Sometimes, even banana peels don't decompose once they reach the landfill. For sanitary reasons, modern landfills are lined on the bottom with clay and plastic to keep waste from escaping into the soil and are covered daily with a layer of earth to reduce odor. The landfill, then, acts like a trash tomb—the garbage within receives little air, water, or sunlight. This means that even readily degradable waste objects, including paper and food scraps, are more likely to mummify than decompose.
Just because you have to wash them makes it ill-conceived?
Because that also wastes water that is very expensive and precious in CA. Plus the soap it dumps into the water table is hardly inert. The last article I read on plastic grocery bags was 6 months they are consumed by the earth in the land fills. Not so with disposable diapers. Now there is something that should be legislated. You know why it is not. They make BILLIONS of dollars on disposable diapers. Plastic grocery bags are an expense the retailers would like to get away from. Follow the money amigo and you will learn more about environmentalism than you really want to know.
I wonder if a cold water wash actually will kill the bacteria in the bags? I don't see anything on the HE soap required for our washing machine, that would indicate it is anti-bacterial. I wonder what it actually costs to wash those bags. Is it costing me more than the nickel I get for using them?
Six days of blizzards have caused deaths among new lambs numbering in the hundreds of thousands, and raised concern over the welfare of ewes yet to lamb.
Besides the effect of the cold weather itself, the continued snowfall has not allowed snow on the ground to thaw, making it much harder for stock to feed.
This makes ewes about to lamb particularly susceptible to metabolic illnesses from a lack of nutrients.
Reportedly, lamb mortality in the area may be as high as 15% for some farmers. With average prices for lambs expected to be around NZ$80/head this season (NZ Herald), the financial loss to NZ producers will be significant, estimated to exceed NZ$50 million (NZ Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry).
http://www.meattradenewsdaily.co.uk/news/051010/nz___snow_hits_farmers_big_time_- - .aspx
We are back to well below normal in San Diego. We barely hit 60 degrees yesterday. Our normal is 84 for that day in past years. Al and the AGW cult need a new scam. This one is freezing up on them. Predictions of another ice age would be more believable.
I think I have about 15 cloth bags now. They are real handy for road trips. It's getting where I don't have an empty one around for the grocery runs.