tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5549306427964459740.post5498680667620052374..comments2023-12-23T05:14:34.273-05:00Comments on Wit's End: The Love Song of J. Alfred PrufrockGail Zawackihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01800944469843206253noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5549306427964459740.post-6780752840412632882009-09-21T07:15:57.305-04:002009-09-21T07:15:57.305-04:00Oh my, CETEV! It is always good to be cautious an...Oh my, CETEV! It is always good to be cautious and prudent. At this point the trees are deteriorating so fast that examining them with an infrared camera hardly seems necessary. Most people are still oblivious, of course, but I doubt for much longer. Thanks for reading!<br />GailGail Zawackihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01800944469843206253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5549306427964459740.post-37843058885512642592009-09-21T03:52:57.997-04:002009-09-21T03:52:57.997-04:00I can only tell you to be very carrefull on doing ...I can only tell you to be very carrefull on doing bussiness with Marcus. We are one of the numerous companies in Europe to whom he own's money! Do never pre pay any service or material, as he will not forfill hi part of the contract and tell you all kinds of reasons whyè he can't. it a shame as the thermal imaging is probalby a good additional tool to inspect trees but Marcus is not a honest person!CETEVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06064933030369881334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5549306427964459740.post-67888513836228356862009-08-11T17:21:49.678-04:002009-08-11T17:21:49.678-04:00Welcome back, Anonymous. I think we do agree and ...Welcome back, Anonymous. I think we do agree and are more or less saying the same thing. We all must and will make lifestyle adjustments, willingly or not. It may soon get to the point where any recreational burning of fossil fuels is banned. But one person's luxury is another's necessity. And I guess what I object to is when deniers ridicule scientists and policy makers for flying to Copenhagen, for instance.<br /><br />Ultimately the solution is a global push for renewable energy and conservation (individual and collective). I think that was Obama's point. And I like that he can be blunt about it.Gailhttp://witsendnj.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5549306427964459740.post-62356904394077106282009-08-11T15:08:11.736-04:002009-08-11T15:08:11.736-04:00If Obama means it'll take more than just indiv...If Obama means it'll take more than just individual action at this point, then yes, I agree. But people do have a tendency to think their actions have little effect. The light bulb thing, or the equivalent "Oh, c'mon, my little carbon footprint is meaningless" <b>X hundreds of millions of people assuming the same thing</b> = significant problem. If most people did all they could to live as generally efficiently as possible, that would at least ease the transition to a fossil-free economy. Even Al Gore seems to have acknowledged that, with his home/office energy retrofit. I think the fuss about his energy bills was overdone a bit considering his use of renewable power, an initial obstacle to solar installation in his neighborhood, and his old home having similar energy use to others of similar size in that area.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5549306427964459740.post-11924813868165567852009-08-11T07:38:44.506-04:002009-08-11T07:38:44.506-04:00Hey, it's not MY little blue toy! Anyway, tha...Hey, it's not MY little blue toy! Anyway, that kind of finger pointing is counterproductive. It's like people complaining about Al Gore's house.<br /><br />One of my favorite Obama quotes is his reply, when asked what he has done to reduce his carbon footprint, was something like, "Hey, its not going to make any difference if I change a fucking light bulb. It's a collective thing."<br /><br />Ooh, doesn't that sound socialist!<br /><br />Anyway I appreciate the comments!Gailhttp://witendnj.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5549306427964459740.post-90811334680862768432009-08-10T15:51:33.166-04:002009-08-10T15:51:33.166-04:00Gail,
Wasn't trying to hold you to anything. I...Gail,<br />Wasn't trying to hold you to anything. I think ozone is a better line of investigation.Paul Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855759989308442259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5549306427964459740.post-8384503686993041572009-08-10T15:42:35.803-04:002009-08-10T15:42:35.803-04:00The big squabble seems to be around "anthropo...The big squabble seems to be around "anthropogenic" Of course it is. <br /><br />Global warming from CO2, Ozone depletion and ozone toxicity, other GHGs - all, ALL are caused by humans. Out of control civilization. <br /><br />The denialists can no longer deny warming, or even a destablized climate. But their final line in the sand battle will be about whether it is all human caused. Of course PR encouragement from carbon fuel industries helps muchrpaulihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00016149709193595632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5549306427964459740.post-43579143009823530002009-08-10T15:36:17.149-04:002009-08-10T15:36:17.149-04:00"... so that the EPA will invoke the clean ai..."<i>... so that the EPA will invoke the clean air act to halt production of ozone-producing emissions ...</i>"<br /><br />Including from the "favorite little blue toy"? :-) Maybe it's time for those next-gen hybrids to make more headway in the marketplace.<br /><br />It's interesting to note, though, that although tropospheric ozone is also a greenhouse gas, it's breakdown destroys methane, a more powerful GHG (although still a less significant global forcing than currently much higher emissions of fossil CO2). I'm not sure what the net forcing effect is, considering the interaction between the two, but it would be nice to reduce both of them along with CO2.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5549306427964459740.post-91632092891800737682009-08-10T14:32:06.565-04:002009-08-10T14:32:06.565-04:00Um, I would have to retrieve the exact wording but...Um, I would have to retrieve the exact wording but I have never been 100% certain CO2 induced drought was the reason trees are dying. I think I said, I could convince anyone that all the trees are dying. From the very beginning I have been, I think, clear that I don't know for sure the mechanism, only that something as over-reaching as climate change-induced drought has to be responsible - or acid rain, or ozone.<br /><br />Seriously the last two summers we did have almost two months with zero rain, snowmelt is reduced, and warmer temps mean faster evaporation.<br /><br />But, that doesn't explain the lotus, plants in pots, and irrigated trees.<br /><br />So we are left with ozone - or, some more virulent combination of increased UV radiation or other chemical reactions to different pollutants. There is a long list and there may be completely unknown things going on. But at this point I would stake more than a dinner on something in the atmosphere being to blame. And there's no question in mind mind something quite unnatural is killing vegetation.Gailhttp://witendnj.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5549306427964459740.post-76884148877143766312009-08-10T13:15:43.375-04:002009-08-10T13:15:43.375-04:00Gail,
A while ago, you offered a dinner to anyone ...Gail,<br />A while ago, you offered a dinner to anyone you couldn't convince of CO2 induced drought after a four hour tour of your area. Does the bet now hold for ozone?<br /><br />Sounds like you made some good contacts at the arboretum. Most of what you ascribed to drought and now ascribe to ozone, the professional foresters ascribe to natural occurrence.<br /><br />While there wasn't a drought, there is ozone.Paul Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855759989308442259noreply@blogger.com