[Lemmy]

[BartSimpson]

"2112" was much better.

[Zipperfish]

Both awesome. La Villa Strangiato was my favourite, probably because Geddy wasn't singing.

Starting a prog band this fall, and getting pretty excited about it. Maybe I'll call it Proghole.

[ShepherdsDog]

Nah...the Proglavix so you can call your followers the progletariat

[Freakinoldguy]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The cost of the California dorught was estimated to be $2.2 billion in 2014. That works out to around $55/person in California.

You can't say the current drought was caused by AGW, but you can say that it is likely that additional tropospheric and ocean heat has exacerbated it. So if you figure it's, say, 10% worse because of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, then you'd be looking at a cost of about $5/person due to climate change.

The fact that there is a huge population, that is steadily growing, living in an area that is predominantly desert places a massive stress on local aquifers, reservoirs and such. Even without 'climate change' being factored in, there'd be a water crisis. Huge amounts of water are wasted keeping lawns, filling pools, fountains and for industrial and agricultural uses. Look at how much water is wasted on almond groves and orchards. Time to fire up some reactor powered desalinization plants along the coast.

This is only the beginning. Las Vegas and Phoenix are going to return to the desert because the water source is drying up and no matter how much water they divert it's not going to be enough to keep them viable.

Also the great plains aquifer is dropping to levels not seen since the great depression which means we'll likely see another dust bowl scenario yet people continue to live, work and move into areas that have extremely limited water with no chance of the situation ever improving simply because they like hot weather and shiny neon lights.

We are, by in large a species of morons.

But on the plus side Santa Barbara has flashed up it's 23 year old never used desalination plant which should drive the econuts crazy.

$1:

In Cambria, a hybrid desalination plant that began operating in November treats brackish water to make it drinkable. And the nation's largest desalination plant is being built in Carlsbad for $954 million.

Although it may seem natural to think the Pacific Ocean could be the answer to California's water crisis, experts say a stampede toward desalination is unlikely.

"It has two big disadvantages: It's really expensive and it's energy-intensive," said Henry Vaux Jr., a UC Berkeley professor emeritus of resource economics who contributed to a 2008 National Research Council report on desalination.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california ... story.html

Given the current anti everything climate in California I fully expect to see Hanoi Jane and Ed Begley Jr. leading the charge towards halting the use of non renewable sea water because as everyone knows once it's gone it's gone forever.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

So if everything is pollution, why do you need a word for it? I know...It is Groot, right?

Becasue pollution means "too much of it."

$1:

Toxic levels of CO2 are not possible in the atmosphere in any levels man is capable of putting into it. Look it up. No CO2 toxicity, no pollution. Unless, of course, you're using the new Prog-improved definition of the word, in which case what you're calling "pollution" means pretty much whatever you would like it to mean. It is Groot.

Noise isn't pollution either. But you have noise pollution. Too much of it. Light pollution.

I just looked up the etymology of the word. Interestingly enough, it was first used in the mid-14th century to refer to discharge of semen, other than during sex. Thus masturabtion was "polluting." It's root meaning was defilement or filth.

[Zipperfish]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Nah...the Proglavix so you can call your followers the progletariat

Oooh, that's not bad.

[martin14]

Lemmy Lemmy:

martin14 martin14:

Ahh, so the Dippers want less emissions ?

Taking the Ontario example, emissions will go lower.

Because the industries will be gone. But emissions will go down.

You missed a couple of key facts, like that the unemployment rate hasn't gone up and per capita income has. So who exactly was made worse off by the loss of dirty industry?

Wut ?

You wanna prove that, Mr. Have Not Province ?

[QBall]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

"2112" was much better.

I'll see your 2112 and raise you Subdivisions (drum work in that song shows why Neil Peart = God).

[Zipperfish]

QBall QBall:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

"2112" was much better.

I'll see your 2112 and raise you Subdivisions (drum work in that song shows why Neil Peart = God).

Sorry dude. That was a drum machine.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

So if everything is pollution, why do you need a word for it? I know...It is Groot, right?

Becasue pollution means "too much of it."

$1:

Toxic levels of CO2 are not possible in the atmosphere in any levels man is capable of putting into it. Look it up. No CO2 toxicity, no pollution. Unless, of course, you're using the new Prog-improved definition of the word, in which case what you're calling "pollution" means pretty much whatever you would like it to mean. It is Groot.

Noise isn't pollution either. But you have noise pollution. Too much of it. Light pollution.

Light pollution or Sound pollution would be descriptives making creative use of an implied sense of the word "pollution" as defilement. And yes I suppose you could also invent a descriptive for CO2 and say carbon dioxide pollution, but that would only mean it's a subjective evaluation of some sort of contamination you imagine in your head.

Pollution has a real world definition. It means to "contaminate (water, air, or a place) with harmful or poisonous substances." according to Google definitions or " 1. : to make physically impure or unclean. 2. : to contaminate (an environment) especially with man-made waste." according to Merriam Webster.

When you're calling CO2 pollution you're hoping to imply it means that, but it doesn't.

You're imagining a new sort of definition to describe something subjective you feel in your personal head, or something that becomes a new, invented compound word definition like light pollution, or carbon pollution.

But no, Carbon dioxide is not pollution according to the conventional definition of the word. At least not in any levels man is capable of putting into the atmosphere.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I just looked up the etymology of the word. Interestingly enough, it was first used in the mid-14th century to refer to discharge of semen, other than during sex. Thus masturabtion was "polluting." It's root meaning was defilement or filth.

But anybody can google and that's not the complete truth, is it?

That definition is from the 14 century and it also has an etymological source.

" from Late Latin pollutionem (nominative pollutio) "defilement," noun of action from past participle stem of Latin polluere "to soil, defile, contaminate," from por- "before" + -luere "smear," from PIE root *leu- "dirt; make dirty" "

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pollution

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Nah...the Proglavix so you can call your followers the progletariat

Oooh, that's not bad.

I think it's progtastic!

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Light pollution or Sound pollution would be descriptives making creative use of an implied sense of the word "pollution" as defilement. And yes I suppose you could also invent a descriptive for CO2 and say carbon dioxide pollution, but that would only mean it's a subjective evaluation of some sort of contamination you imagine in your head.

Pollution has a real world definition. It means to "contaminate (water, air, or a place) with harmful or poisonous substances." according to Google definitions or " 1. : to make physically impure or unclean. 2. : to contaminate (an environment) especially with man-made waste." according to Merriam Webster.

When you're calling CO2 pollution you're hoping to imply it means that, but it doesn't.

You're imagining a new sort of definition to describe something subjective you feel in your personal head, or something that becomes a new, invented compound word definition like light pollution, or carbon pollution.

But no, Carbon dioxide is not pollution according to the conventional definition of the word. At least not in any levels man is capable of putting into the atmosphere.

I'm not calling CO2 pollution. I was telling you the definition of pollution. You know--as a scientist who's worked on pollution issues for 20 years. Contaminant has a different deifnition.

http://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_difference_between_contamination_and_pollution_in_soil_health

There's a webiste where a bunch of eggheads are discussing teh difference, in tehcnial terms, between a contmainant and pollution.

Quit being such a whatever-the-opposite-of-a-progtard is.

[martin14]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

whatever-the-opposite-of-a-progtard is.

You mean a normal person ?