Fair and Breezy, 43.0°
Log in ·
Hmm, oooooor, we can figure out a way to make it available to local farmers who could always use a nitrogen resource for their farming needs. I can't say that I know the chemical makeup of the wastewater, but it would seem that if the KDHE feels it is safe enough to dump in the river, it should be safe enough to use in crop fields--since part of our sanitation comes from the same body of water. I suppose they want it done *now* rather than a sensible solution which might take longer.
---> And Bob, I am not sure how this conforms to your tired response of congenital liberal...or any other form of political affiliation. The ground water has a pollutant which our city allowed to exist and build. We gave the same company a quick out and under-billed for the cleanup. We spent the money rather than save it for the actual use...and now we choose to cry to the federal and state cronies for permission to dump it in a body of water which makes it a problem for someone else down-river too. Way I see it, that makes it everyone's problem. Not just those of somebody who wears a lapel pin of one color or another.
Posted 11 November 2017, 12:45 a.m.
Chad, I know it has been asked many times before. If you post a plan such as this to accompany your articles, can you *please* link to an image which is large and of better resolution? You can't even read the key. The image above is slightly more than nothing. Thanks and on an alternate note, I like seeing your writings on Lawrence developments.
Posted 10 November 2017, 6:37 p.m.
Sounds like someone has seen a Montessori school recently. I can't say that I dislike this direction of exploring all learning avenues. Not everyone digests educational teachings the same way. My hope is that they explore the options fully instead of just making a blanket change with a pen's signature. This will be interesting.
Posted 18 October 2017, 2:38 p.m.
Stunning the number of times I have seen folks making a U-turn in the middle of the highway -- whether going E/W or simply going around the barriers N/S. Dangerous, idiocy and selfish are words which come to mind immediately.
Posted 11 July 2017, 1:36 p.m.
Choosing a relatively neutral source to say, actually, they have cancelled the plans or construction of over 104 plants this year, or over 120GW of production. That cancellation is a little more than 1/3 of our country's total annual production. To be clear, they use more than 3X the number of coal-fired plants than the US. Yes, they are the largest polluter. *We are second, not India. Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/china-...
I actually agree that the president would best leave this issue to the general consensus of the elected officials in congress to get a better representation of public opinion--although they seem incapable in the last few years on any issue.
Posted 1 June 2017, 12:27 p.m.
You also notice he was forced to resign?
Posted 1 June 2017, 11:15 a.m.
David, science is a bit like chess. Someone makes a move and the other side does it's best to find flaws and disprove the other. The rules in this game are that you have to use data which are reliably reproduced to solidify your stance and make claims only the data can prove. You never enjoy being proven wrong but it also furthers the discipline as a whole. As a standard, very few folks get mad when your theory is disproved. Your hope is only that your research was still good enough to spur further discovery when the others were working to refute your findings. Your quotes come from bloggers and politically tied and motivated websites. Instead of choosing a moving target, how about you define a neutral, peer-reviewed resource and lets discuss on equal terms. I can imagine no scientist who would use the term "religion" and "science" when referring to their work. The two are not incompatible nor mutually exclusive throughout history. Likewise, history has proven that when religion and science are equally mixed, unsavory results seem to follow.
Posted 1 June 2017, 11:06 a.m.
Armen, a valid question. I think we both have to honestly answer, "no." There has been no accord and something the alt-right likes to point to often. The difference is we now see a global consortium willing to work together in some fashion. I have climbed mountains in Appalachia and seen the direct effects of deforestation from prevailing winds an arm's reach from coal-fired plants. The folks living within a mud-slide's distance have a very strong opinion of sulfuric and nitric acid. Likewise, I am an avid diver and experienced the bleaching of corals in some of the most pristine reefs. Ammonium has a large effect here. These animals have been alive, many for hundreds of years, and have changed in form little for millennia. The pace in which our world changes today has far exceeded their ability to adapt. Much like us, their tissue is susceptible to burns. Their contained algal symbiotes long since dead which provide photosynthetic sugar compounds for food. If we think of the environment as an economy, we continue to flood the market with currency that can't be spent. Sooner or later, the environment will no longer be able to adapt. What then happens?
Posted 1 June 2017, 10:48 a.m.
*boggle* I am honestly baffled. Snarky comments aside. Agreed, we may never find common ground. Yet, I still remain amazed for your thinking is not alone. Indeed "trace" gasses, as you call them and as found on the first returned Google result which hails from a middle-school lecture, can be found in most natural causes. Volcanic activity most folks like to point out first. Those introductions, however, are part of the earth's natural equilibrium. The earth has evolved to handle the ebb and flow of these movements and indeed causes our weather to cycle. Most folks like to point to these cycles as reason to deny climate change yet never acknowledge the megatons of carbon we place unnaturally in the air. That tire spins so it must be a car, right? Uh, no, that's a truck...but it's got tires, so it must be a car.
I am baffled, however, by your statement regarding vapor and clouds. How is that making the global temperature rise? That is a weather element which has persisted long before our coming. Are you suggesting there are fewer (or more?) clouds today which is the explanation for weather cycles? Maybe some type of 20 year El Nino which causes the ocean and atmosphere temps to rise and global ice caps to shrink to all-time lows? You also state you "know" where your data comes from and it's reliability. I would ask you cite it as I have please.
My degree is in biology. I have followed the scientific process, written and been accepted in scientific publication. I have never mentioned that anywhere outside a resume before and feel it is only relevant for one reason here. I know what it's like to have your work mercilessly scrutinized for flaw or logic error. I wonder who in the scientific community you point to might have successfully refuted the stats which NASA, to return to my previous example, has published? I have seen some works from authors whose research was funded by the fossil fuel industry. Their biggest problem was they failed to divulge their ethical dilemma and the taint it had on skewed stats. Do, please, continue the conversation as I am interested in the mentioned sources.
Posted 1 June 2017, 12:45 a.m.
Is your point that the magic fairy is making the carbon we place in the atmosphere go poof? I don't even believe I pointed to CO2 in my writings. The most significant factor contributing to change is methane, although the efforts of CO2 cannot be deducted as well. So let's go with the gas less likely to be found in the atmosphere and use your example. Do you believe we placed a man on the moon? Some people don't. If you are one of them, I shall close here. If so, and you believe NASA as a credible source of information, how about we start simple. According to NASA research, 1950 was the last time we reached the highest recorded CO2 levels in the last 400,000 years. How do they know that? They can measure radioactive isotopes, carbon 14 which is created in the atmosphere, and part of respiration of all creatures on this earth...or to use your words, "required for life the planet [sic]" and describe the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere at the time of life. Furthermore, *TODAY* our carbon levels, as observed by NASA is nearly *TWICE* the level of 1950. There has been no magical dip, dive or rollercoaster ride. Like NASA, those levels have skyrocketed. If we discuss global temperatures as a function of CO2 levels (I know, facts are sticky and you don't like those I can surmise from your lack of source defended writings), we see the correlation of CO2 levels observed with the coinciding hypotenuse showing global temperature rise. It's no wonder that 16 or the 17 warmest years we have ever seen have happened since 1950. You can't fake that data. It's there. There is nobody falsifying those numbers. Which numbers are *YOU* referring to...those "alternate facts?" https://climate.nasa.com for fact checking.
Posted 31 May 2017, 9:20 p.m.
Full LJWorld.com site
© 2017 LJWorld.com