On Microclimates

[Bill who putters]

some ideas on how to protect or enhance or inhibit plant growth. In a way your home can save energy using similar info.

[gardenlen]

yes it all starts with knowing about and being able to identify the aspects of the land, ie.,. northern hemi' ideal would be a southern aspect around to eastern. add some knowledge of average weather conditions eg.,. rainfall an you can have a producing garden in an area that say gets more rain than other near by places.

then the right sort of house needs to be built for the climate area so it is truely efficient to run. lots of stumbling block in there as many have no idea to even look for aspect let alone what it is, and outside the indoctrinated mcmansion designs very many won't look at altenatives.

so when buy

[David Hare-Scott]

Some good basic information there but as is so often the case the author fails the international community by not considering which hemisphere the garden is in.

David

[David Hare-Scott]

Quite right Len. So many houses, even newly erected, contain basic errors that could easily be avoided. For example, they are oriented towards the street or the view not the sun, or in hot climates they have unshaded sunward windows. I know of people who are saving money by not including insulation but they worry whether the portico should have Ionic or Corinthian columns, of course they plan for aircon to deal with their design errors. Such carelessness and ignorance will come back and bite them and their heirs and successors.

Something else to consider is using the garden to improve the house. It is common for people to assume that this means only the aspect and decorating concepts such as linking the outdoors into the house. The plants that you grow can do all that as well as improving the thermal performance of the house. For example you can shade a sun-facing window in summer but allow in the sun in winter by having a trellis with a deciduous vine over it.

David

[Billy]

Having a bad day?

[David Hare-Scott]

There are cases where hemisphere is not important but not this time. It's a fairly fundamental error in the context of microclimates. Unless you already understand what is going on and are used to making the switch the article in question is going to be misleading. Either the author doesn't get this herself or she is being parochial and only addressing the northern hemisphere.

David

[The Cook]

I admit that we got the best orientation when we bought this house. But it was luck. The house faces the west and we have two very large Oak trees in the front yard. The deck is on the back and gets the morning sun. By late afternoon the deck is completely shaded and comfortable unless the day is extremely hot. We got one of the sunshade awnings and roll it out early in the day to keep the heat out of the kitchen and family room.

If I were looking for a building lot I would be checking out the orientation and prevailing winds. Then see if I could build the kind of house and orientation I wanted there. If I were planning to garden I would also think about orientation & winds.

[David Hare-Scott]

You may have got the best aspect for your deck but not for the overall thermal performance of the house. In temperate zones the best aspect is that the long sides of the house face north and south. In your climate you would be missing out on getting winter sun into the house which will add to your heating bills.

Certainly.

David

[FarmI]

LOL. As a result of wandering round the Net, I've become convinced that Geography is either ineffectively taught, or not taught at all in USian schools.

[FarmI]

So much for critical analysis...............

[Doug Freyburger]

I vote for taught but completely forgotten after the test by the majority of students. Consider the TV show "Are you smarter than a fifth grader?" to see how much most forget.

How much school stuff should be retained? Vastly more than is by most. How much effort should be spent at imporoving the median retention? I have no idea. I remember enough of the material that I am amazed at what folks don't know.

[David Hare-Scott]

I am sure that forgetting large amounts of material we were taught in schools happens everywhere. One of my concerns is with attitudes to facts and learning rather than data retention. Do schools effectively teach good attitudes to verifying facts and claims? To me this is an essential skill for life because we are constantly bombarded by advertisers, politicians and the like who want us to believe their view of things.

Evaluating claims requires the will and the skills to acquire facts and opinions. Having done so if you forget some of the facts this is not such a big deal in comparison with those who never bother and just accept and pass on opinions somebody has handed them or they feel emotionally comfortable with.

Getting back on topic, we see plenty of unverified "facts" presented in gardening and by gardeners. Who was it (Mark Twain??) who said " the problem with folks isn't what they don't know it's what they know that just ain't so".

David

[FarmI]

:-)) I'm amazed too - and especially that so much of the compulsory subject matter didn't seem to penetrate some skulls.

I was listening to a radio quizz the other night and the question asked was: What was the relationship between Ophelia and Laertes and give the name of the Shakespearian play in which they appeared?

The answers astounded me. In the end the compere had to give so many hints about the realtionship that he effectivley gave the person the answer, but then she couldn't manage to produce the name of the play. She said Grapes of Wrath. Another guess was something just as equally impossible and by an another American author although that guess was actually a play rather than a novel.

Of the actual Shakespearean plays the offerings were Romeo and Juliet, Othello (at least there was one tragedy mentioned), Much ado about nothing, Midsummer's Night Dream and a couple of others. It was gobbsmackingly depressing that it took so long and that so many people couldn't answer or bowed out and even attempt to answer.

[David Hare-Scott]

There is a difference between not knowing your Shakespeare and voting for candidates who want to invade a country that you cannot find on a map and know nothing about.

David

[Billy]

University of Maryland Study Shows Watching Fox News Makes You Ignorant A study conducted by the University of Maryland gives credence to the view that Fox News is anything but, and is really a propaganda machine meant to further a right wing agenda.

-----

Uh, he's one of yours, isn't he?

If you like weekends, thank a union.

[Nad R]

My entire family except me are strong fundamental Christians. I am an atheist with strong ties to science. Almost everyone in my family believes in the Ptolemaic system where I believe in the Copernican system. I would ask them if the Sun was the center of the solar system, they all stated the earth was the center because they could see the sun move. And the bible states that the Sun stood still, so how could it be the center if it did not move. They laugh at me and laugh at the scientific types as being stupid... It is a sad world... I am also out numbered.

Religious people refuse to believe in global warming, because the bible states that God would not destroy the earth with water again and refuse to believe that the poles are melting. They dismiss pollution because they believe God will create a new planet for them when Jesus Christ returns.

I have two minister nephews that went to Christian universities at have PHD's in theology and they believe in the crap listed above! They believe in the literal translation of the bible. They all watch Glen Beck and believe in the crap he spews. Religious people have no concept of logical reasoning, they believe in what the religious authorities tell them without question.

They all belong to the so called "archery" classes. But in reality the teach kids as young as six years old to use guns. They teach them propaganda like the government is going to take away their second amendment rights. The list goes on and they are not the few they are in the many, in the thousands.

This is one reason why I want to be alone. I cannot stand my family or others like them.

[Doug Freyburger]

Just to check - When I read this what I see is you reject one actively anti-rational religion and become an atheist without seeming to notice that there are a ton of other religious options out there. How is that a rational approach? It's the major weakness of many atheists than runs like this -

1) Assume there is only one valid religion in the world. Ignore that this is a false basic assumption that allows the claims of that one religion to dictate the terms. 2) Find flaws in that one religion and thus reject all religions. Become an atheist rather than even address that the competition exists. 3) Never notice that the question of addressing deity has little or nothing to do with the question of which religion, if any, to use as a framework for that. For that matter never notice that there are religions that don't much care if you actually believe in deity or not.

There are only two religions out there that are actively irrational. They happen to be the two with the largest populations but "eat crap, a trillion flies can't be wrong" is false in pretty much every group other than a gardening one with composters in it. If you have such objections to Christianity I figure you're not going to convert to Islam in reaction to the irrationality of Christianity.

Science addresses the how. Religion addresses the why. To go without religion is to throw away ages of why and reinvent the wheel yourself. To change to a different religion is to chose among why's that have centuries or millinnia of working on specific why's.

So look at the grillion other religions that have zero conflict with science. This is a gardening group so consider one of the many nature based religions. At one point I asked Thor if he cared how people followed him. Thor is very good about being there but not so good at paying attention to questions. After about a year of repeating the question he finally came back with a shrugging "followers are good" "have another ale". I conclude from that that it doesn't much matter if you decide to follow his nature based system versus one of the many others. But you don't seem to have noticed that options exist at all.

This one I have trouble accepting. Century old photos and year old photos of pretty much any glacier in the world make the conclusion so trivial. What I have trouble accepting is the irrationality of the stance of ignoring such simple and overwhleming evidence. On the other hand I am also very slow about my stance on the degree of human input. But my being behind the times on degree of human influence changes little in how I would approach the issue.

I do have objections to how folks are reaction to the fact of climate change. In the 900s cattle were ranched on Greenland so it's clear the current records don't go very far back. But Greenland was settled in a period of global warming that was clearly warmer than we are right now. Exactly how bad was it to be able to ranch cattle on Greenland? This matters on why I am slow to evolve my stance on the degree of human contribution - There was not much human contribution in those centuries compared to now.

Reading history books says it was a time of extreme social change. Ah hah, there's the political motivation right there. Folks are grabbing for power at a time near the beginning of extreme social change. They want time to build momentum and use leverage. Clearly it's not about whether global warming is happening but about who will be in power and what they will do with that power. That means their degree of sincerity is extremely crucial. Folks calling themselves environmentalists who are anti-nuke, check, very low degree of rationality and thus very low degree of sincerity.

Billy has dived face first into that political fray. What's wrong with ranching cattle on Greenland? What's wrong with letting the social change as it will as the USDA zones move? Why bother with an irrational religion that battles with science when there are rational religions with zero conflict with science that are nature based?

[Nad R]

Another irrational statement from a religious person.

Science addresses the why. Engineering addresses the how. Religion is just pure nonsense. Not needed at all.

Science and Religion is like oil and water, they do not mix.

Of course you do, most religious people are, they believe god will protect them and save us all. While destroying our environment until Jesus returns... Oh Brother!

Yea, yea, God will protect us all. I have no faith in Nukes or your God!

"Rational Religions"? That is an Oxymoron statement like "Pretty Ugly".

I see I cannot escape the religious nuts even on Usenet. This is last of this religious debate and will i not respond further as a waste of time.

[Billy]

How about constructive analysis?

Enlighten me. What is different for antipodials, except that they want a northern exposure, whereas we want a southern exposure (unless you're a painter, then it is just the inverse). After that, East is still East, and West is still West.

Or were you referring to the cursory exposition of the microclimates?

Or were you referring to the type of habit where a person says things like,"a gardener would be more efficient, if he . . ."?

Or all, or none of the above?

Inquiring antipodals want to know.

[Billy]

Somebody call?

It's called arrogance to say you know something, when you have no proof one way, or the other. A theist claims certainty. An atheist claims certainty. We agnostics see no proof one way or another. Theism, and atheism are both a matter of faith.

As far as global warming goes, I'm down with dairy ranching in Greenland, but when California's Central Valley floods because of rising sea levels, where are you going to get your produce then?