Is it frugality... or extreme cheapskate?

[US 89]

That's also why "greenhouse effect" didn't last very long as a term:  greenhouses are full of vibrant life.

I mean, I definitely associate "greenhouse" with "place that is uncomfortably warm" (see, e.g. Garfield Park Conservatory), but "hothouse effect" would have been a better idea.

"Greenhouse effect" is absolutely still a term - it's just not a great way to talk about human-caused climate change because it's a fundamental part of any atmosphere and an absolute necessity for life on this planet. Given the constant radiation output from the sun and the distance between it and Earth, the average global temperature should be about -1F ... which is obviously far too cold for liquid water except maybe in some areas in the tropics. But measurements show the average global temperature to be 57F. Why? Greenhouse gases absorb some of the planet's outgoing heat and re-radiate it back to the surface instead of letting it all be lost to space.

(Yeah, I totally dug out my Intro to Environmental Science notes from freshman year of undergrad for this. It's also not as well known that water vapor is responsible for over half of Earth's greenhouse effect.)

[Rothman]

That's also why "greenhouse effect" didn't last very long as a term:  greenhouses are full of vibrant life.

I mean, I definitely associate "greenhouse" with "place that is uncomfortably warm" (see, e.g. Garfield Park Conservatory), but "hothouse effect" would have been a better idea.

"Greenhouse effect" is absolutely still a term - it's just not a great way to talk about human-caused climate change because it's a fundamental part of any atmosphere and an absolute necessity for life on this planet. Given the constant radiation output from the sun and the distance between it and Earth, the average global temperature should be about -1F ... which is obviously far too cold for liquid water except maybe in some areas in the tropics. But measurements show the average global temperature to be 57F. Why? Greenhouse gases absorb some of the planet's outgoing heat and re-radiate it back to the surface instead of letting it all be lost to space.

(Yeah, I totally dug out my Intro to Environmental Science notes from freshman year of undergrad for this. It's also not as well known that water vapor is responsible for over half of Earth's greenhouse effect.)

Some of us also remember when CFCs were regulated...

[kalvado]

That's also why "greenhouse effect" didn't last very long as a term:  greenhouses are full of vibrant life.

I mean, I definitely associate "greenhouse" with "place that is uncomfortably warm" (see, e.g. Garfield Park Conservatory), but "hothouse effect" would have been a better idea.

"Greenhouse effect" is absolutely still a term - it's just not a great way to talk about human-caused climate change because it's a fundamental part of any atmosphere and an absolute necessity for life on this planet. Given the constant radiation output from the sun and the distance between it and Earth, the average global temperature should be about -1F ... which is obviously far too cold for liquid water except maybe in some areas in the tropics. But measurements show the average global temperature to be 57F. Why? Greenhouse gases absorb some of the planet's outgoing heat and re-radiate it back to the surface instead of letting it all be lost to space.

(Yeah, I totally dug out my Intro to Environmental Science notes from freshman year of undergrad for this. It's also not as well known that water vapor is responsible for over half of Earth's greenhouse effect.)

Some of us also remember when CFCs were regulated...

They are still being regulated; ones that are used now are supposingly much safer for ozone.
Ozone hole is no longer in the news, but it is still there. I have a hard time saying if it is CFC regulation that made things change, or if there is something else.  Some things really make too little sense...

[ZLoth]

Apparently, it's about how Texas used to be better than California in every single way.

I never claimed that Texas is better in every single way, only that I'm happier here than in California.

So, what then is better in California, do you think?

First off, I will admit to missing the hot-summer Mediterranean climate with the lower humidity making some of the high summer days bearable. Here in north Dallas, the humidity is somewhat higher, and there have been days where it was 100℉ and a wind was blowing. On the other hand, Dallas has weather that is more interesting, while Sacramento has "weather".

There is also some spectacular scenic routes in Northern California. Besides CA-1/US-101 along the coast, there is also CA-70, CA-88, CA-49, and CA-32 through the Sierra Nevadas. I had plans to do a end-to-end trip on US-395, but alas, plans fell through. Those trips are off the normal paths of I-80/US-50, so mobile coverage is spotty to non-existent. I cannot speak to Southern California, as I've only been there about five times in 41 years. I really need to explore Texas a bit more.

Having said that, life is better in Texas. The travel opportunities from DFW International and Love Field is much better than Sacramento "International". In 2018, I saved up and took a cruise which departed from Miami. There are no non-stops to Miami, so my flight was from SMF to Washington DC to Miami. (The alternative was Houston International). The alternative would have been through a Bay Area airport, which would have meant at least 2-3 hour drive each way... just to save $20? No thanks. Also, the cost of living for me is lower in DFW and better career opportunities.

[webny99]

Having said that, life is better in Texas. The travel opportunities from DFW International and Love Field is much better than Sacramento "International". In 2018, I saved up and took a cruise which departed from Miami. There are no non-stops to Miami, so my flight was from SMF to Washington DC to Miami. (The alternative was Houston International). The alternative would have been through a Bay Area airport, which would have meant at least 2-3 hour drive each way... just to save $20? No thanks. Also, the cost of living for me is lower in DFW and better career opportunities.

Definitely understandable, but that's a comparison between the two cities, not their respective states.

[kalvado]

Having said that, life is better in Texas. The travel opportunities from DFW International and Love Field is much better than Sacramento "International". In 2018, I saved up and took a cruise which departed from Miami. There are no non-stops to Miami, so my flight was from SMF to Washington DC to Miami. (The alternative was Houston International). The alternative would have been through a Bay Area airport, which would have meant at least 2-3 hour drive each way... just to save $20? No thanks.

You could compare Los Angeles (LAX) with, for example, El Paso to approximately same effect. This is about a major city with airline hub vs a smaller one, regardless of state.

[ZLoth]

Having said that, life is better in Texas. The travel opportunities from DFW International and Love Field is much better than Sacramento "International". In 2018, I saved up and took a cruise which departed from Miami. There are no non-stops to Miami, so my flight was from SMF to Washington DC to Miami. (The alternative was Houston International). The alternative would have been through a Bay Area airport, which would have meant at least 2-3 hour drive each way... just to save $20? No thanks. Also, the cost of living for me is lower in DFW and better career opportunities.

Definitely understandable, but that's a comparison between the two cities, not their respective states.

To be fair, you are talking about the third largest state verses the second largest state in terms of land area. Even if you chop California's land area in half and call it Northern California, that still is slightly larger than #15 Nebraska. Cut that in half again, and we're talking about a land area smaller than #37 Virginia. My stomping grounds have been mainly Northern California, and it has been extremely rare that I have gone further south than Modesto. And, traveling to Los Angeles is a whole day's drive and hopefully a good selection of music and audiobooks as you drive down Interstate 5, which isn't exactly a scenic drive.

Now, we are switching over to Texas, and that state is larger than most COUNTRIES. I have barely explored my new home state.

In addition, consider the population density. Check out this YouTube video:

You will notice that the states in the western half of the United States tend to be larger in land mass, but also a corresponding low population density compared with the eastern half. Per this list, the top ten population-dense states are in the eastern half of the United States. California and Hawaii make up #11 and #13, while New York is #7, but has only 30.2% of the land area. And where is the highest population density area of New York State?

[kphoger]

So...  you're agreeing with him?

Because both CA and TX are such large states, and because they're both in the western part of the US, it's fair to suppose that the advantages Dallas has over Sacramento might be offset by the advantages Los Angeles has over Lubbock?

[CtrlAltDel]

To be fair, you are talking about the third largest state verses the second largest state in terms of land area. Even if you chop California's land area in half and call it Northern California, that still is slightly larger than #15 Nebraska. Cut that in half again, and we're talking about a land area smaller than #37 Virginia. My stomping grounds have been mainly Northern California, and it has been extremely rare that I have gone further south than Modesto. And, traveling to Los Angeles is a whole day's drive and hopefully a good selection of music and audiobooks as you drive down Interstate 5, which isn't exactly a scenic drive.

Now, we are switching over to Texas, and that state is larger than most COUNTRIES. I have barely explored my new home state.

In addition, consider the population density. Check out this YouTube video:

You will notice that the states in the western half of the United States tend to be larger in land mass, but also a corresponding low population density compared with the eastern half. Per this list, the top ten population-dense states are in the eastern half of the United States. California and Hawaii make up #11 and #13, while New York is #7, but has only 30.2% of the land area. And where is the highest population density area of New York State?

This is definitely a head scratcher. What he seems to be saying is that California is big, but it doesn't count as big, since he didn't really travel to most of it when he lived there, but that Texas is big and because it's big, he hasn't really traveled to most of it in the time he's lived there.

[US 89]

That's also why "greenhouse effect" didn't last very long as a term:  greenhouses are full of vibrant life.

I mean, I definitely associate "greenhouse" with "place that is uncomfortably warm" (see, e.g. Garfield Park Conservatory), but "hothouse effect" would have been a better idea.

"Greenhouse effect" is absolutely still a term - it's just not a great way to talk about human-caused climate change because it's a fundamental part of any atmosphere and an absolute necessity for life on this planet. Given the constant radiation output from the sun and the distance between it and Earth, the average global temperature should be about -1F ... which is obviously far too cold for liquid water except maybe in some areas in the tropics. But measurements show the average global temperature to be 57F. Why? Greenhouse gases absorb some of the planet's outgoing heat and re-radiate it back to the surface instead of letting it all be lost to space.

(Yeah, I totally dug out my Intro to Environmental Science notes from freshman year of undergrad for this. It's also not as well known that water vapor is responsible for over half of Earth's greenhouse effect.)

Some of us also remember when CFCs were regulated...

They are still being regulated; ones that are used now are supposingly much safer for ozone.
Ozone hole is no longer in the news, but it is still there. I have a hard time saying if it is CFC regulation that made things change, or if there is something else.  Some things really make too little sense...

Ozone hole has begun to slowly shrink. The problem with CFCs is they have exceptionally long atmospheric lifetimes, which means their effects persist long after they stop being emitted. Incidentally, this is why CFCs were introduced in the first place - earlier refrigerants included far more toxic and reactive compounds like ammonia, sulfur dioxide, or methyl chloride. The advantage of CFCs is that they are entirely nontoxic and do not react in the troposphere. The problem is if they get up to the stratosphere, they participate in a catalytic ozone-depleting cycle (in other words, a chemical reaction involving a CFC molecule and ozone occurs that destroys the ozone and gives you back the CFC molecule to destroy some more ozone, and so on...).

The industry has largely switched to HCFCs, which are more reactive than CFCs giving them less opportunity to get up to the stratosphere where they can cause ozone problems. Unfortunately, that doesn't eliminate the issue entirely, and it turns out HCFCs are just as potent greenhouse gases...

[bing101]

Having said that, life is better in Texas. The travel opportunities from DFW International and Love Field is much better than Sacramento "International". In 2018, I saved up and took a cruise which departed from Miami. There are no non-stops to Miami, so my flight was from SMF to Washington DC to Miami. (The alternative was Houston International). The alternative would have been through a Bay Area airport, which would have meant at least 2-3 hour drive each way... just to save $20? No thanks.

You could compare Los Angeles (LAX) with, for example, El Paso to approximately same effect. This is about a major city with airline hub vs a smaller one, regardless of state.

Sacramento Metro Airport is mainly like Oakland Airport in the Bay Area and Burbank Airport in Los Angeles it's that they mainly deal with budget flights.  The major hubs like LAX and SFO  really do international flights.

[ZLoth]

Having said that, life is better in Texas. The travel opportunities from DFW International and Love Field is much better than Sacramento "International". In 2018, I saved up and took a cruise which departed from Miami. There are no non-stops to Miami, so my flight was from SMF to Washington DC to Miami. (The alternative was Houston International). The alternative would have been through a Bay Area airport, which would have meant at least 2-3 hour drive each way... just to save $20? No thanks.

You could compare Los Angeles (LAX) with, for example, El Paso to approximately same effect. This is about a major city with airline hub vs a smaller one, regardless of state.

Actually, Las Vegas, DFW, and Houston are closer in flight times than LAX for international destinations. Having said that, SFO is much closer than LAX to Sacramento.

[Max Rockatansky]

I've never found it difficult to find an eastbound connecting flight from FAT (Fresno-Yosemite).  Usually you can get where you want to go pretty easily if you are willing to layover at Denver, Dallas or Phoenix.  Usually any cost benefit to going to San Jose, San Francisco or Los Angeles is offset by the cost in gas it takes to get to those airports for direct flights. 

All the same, I generally don't consider flying as an option unless the destination I'm heading is a 10-12 hour drive away.  As example, last it cost us fraction of what it would have to drive to Boise than it would have driving.  I think we net saved about $1,000 dollars foregoing two adult tickets versus what we paid for in gas.  Considering how many blogs spawned from cool roads and road related stuff on Gribblenation it was even more of a no-brainer to drive in that scenario.  We did end up renting a van in Boise to finish the last leg of the trip to Yellowstone given I had a five passenger car and my brother leases. 

[ZLoth]

All the same, I generally don't consider flying as an option unless the destination I'm heading is a 10-12 hour drive away.  As example, last it cost us fraction of what it would have to drive to Boise than it would have driving.  I think we net saved about $1,000 dollars foregoing two adult tickets versus what we paid for in gas.  Considering how many blogs spawned from cool roads and road related stuff on Gribblenation it was even more of a no-brainer to drive in that scenario.  We did end up renting a van in Boise to finish the last leg of the trip to Yellowstone given I had a five passenger car and my brother leases.

Isn't this a board that favors road trips over airplane trips anyways? At the same time, it's kinda hard to drive to a certain state or many countries.

[NWI_Irish96]

All the same, I generally don't consider flying as an option unless the destination I'm heading is a 10-12 hour drive away.  As example, last it cost us fraction of what it would have to drive to Boise than it would have driving.  I think we net saved about $1,000 dollars foregoing two adult tickets versus what we paid for in gas.  Considering how many blogs spawned from cool roads and road related stuff on Gribblenation it was even more of a no-brainer to drive in that scenario.  We did end up renting a van in Boise to finish the last leg of the trip to Yellowstone given I had a five passenger car and my brother leases.

Isn't this a board that favors road trips over airplane trips anyways? At the same time, it's kinda hard to drive to a certain state or many countries.

I certainly do. I've never enjoyed flying. First of all I'm a big guy and airplane seating is really uncomfortable for me. Secondly I'm not a patient person and when you fly you wait to check your bags, wait to get through security, wait to board the plane, wait to takeoff, wait to get off the plane, wait to collect your bags. I like being able to just get in my car and go. Plus there's the added fun of adding to my TravelMapping and MobRule portfolios that you don't get when you fly.

Now, I'm not big on the multi-day, cross country trips like I used to be, so anything more than a 10-12 hour drive I now prefer to fly, but I'll take an 8 hour drive over a 2 hour flight every single time.

[kphoger]

With a family of five, if it doesn't cross an ocean, then we're driving.

[Max Rockatansky]

All the same, I generally don't consider flying as an option unless the destination I'm heading is a 10-12 hour drive away.  As example, last it cost us fraction of what it would have to drive to Boise than it would have driving.  I think we net saved about $1,000 dollars foregoing two adult tickets versus what we paid for in gas.  Considering how many blogs spawned from cool roads and road related stuff on Gribblenation it was even more of a no-brainer to drive in that scenario.  We did end up renting a van in Boise to finish the last leg of the trip to Yellowstone given I had a five passenger car and my brother leases.

Isn't this a board that favors road trips over airplane trips anyways? At the same time, it's kinda hard to drive to a certain state or many countries.

Indeed, all the same sometimes what kinds of road play a factor for me.  If I was spending a couple days on cool two lane mountain roads to get some place, flying is certainly out.  12 hours on the road on mostly Interstate though and I'm at least checking flight options.

Another factor I have to consider now is that my wife doesn't have the affinity for driving and exploring weird places that I do.

[jeffandnicole]

Isn't this a board that favors road trips over airplane trips anyways? At the same time, it's kinda hard to drive to a certain state or many countries.

I would say yes, with limits.  There's an amazing number of people out there that will spend more time getting to and waiting to fly at a nearby airport than could have just driven to their destination in the same amount of time.  The people on this board favors longer trips, but there is a point where flying is the preferred option.  And for many, if they've already driven the same area over and over again relatively near their home, it may just be easier to fly over that part of the country, land, rent a car and start their road trip from there!

[Max Rockatansky]

Isn't this a board that favors road trips over airplane trips anyways? At the same time, it's kinda hard to drive to a certain state or many countries.

I would say yes, with limits.  There's an amazing number of people out there that will spend more time getting to and waiting to fly at a nearby airport than could have just driven to their destination in the same amount of time.  The people on this board favors longer trips, but there is a point where flying is the preferred option.  And for many, if they've already driven the same area over and over again relatively near their home, it may just be easier to fly over that part of the country, land, rent a car and start their road trip from there!

Which can be the case for me, especially with Interstate corridors.  I've clinched several of the big Interstates already, I don't "need"  to see them again given limited access tends to bore me. 

[kalvado]

Isn't this a board that favors road trips over airplane trips anyways? At the same time, it's kinda hard to drive to a certain state or many countries.

I would say yes, with limits.  There's an amazing number of people out there that will spend more time getting to and waiting to fly at a nearby airport than could have just driven to their destination in the same amount of time.  The people on this board favors longer trips, but there is a point where flying is the preferred option.  And for many, if they've already driven the same area over and over again relatively near their home, it may just be easier to fly over that part of the country, land, rent a car and start their road trip from there!

Actually you would hear that post-9-11 security killed a lot of short air routes just because flight became too long due to security timing.
However, breakeven point maybe 4-5 hours total trip time, which is 300-400 miles give or take.

[Max Rockatansky]

Isn't this a board that favors road trips over airplane trips anyways? At the same time, it's kinda hard to drive to a certain state or many countries.

I would say yes, with limits.  There's an amazing number of people out there that will spend more time getting to and waiting to fly at a nearby airport than could have just driven to their destination in the same amount of time.  The people on this board favors longer trips, but there is a point where flying is the preferred option.  And for many, if they've already driven the same area over and over again relatively near their home, it may just be easier to fly over that part of the country, land, rent a car and start their road trip from there!

Actually you would hear that post-9-11 security killed a lot of short air routes just because flight became too long due to security timing.
However, breakeven point maybe 4-5 hours total trip time, which is 300-400 miles give or take.

I found it to be more like 6-8 for locales west of the Rockies.  Examples I ran into regularly was my work sites in eastern New Mexico and western Texas.  It was almost always faster just to get in my work car and drive than the turn around of flying.  Flying including getting to the airport, waiting at the airport, the flight, getting out of the airport and getting a rental car.  From El Paso or Albuquerque it was usually at least another ninety minute to three hour drive to get where I needed to go.  I could usually straight shot those locations in 6-8 hours blasting down I-10, US 60 or I-40 from Phoenix.  At best a flight (assuming it is was on time) might save me a net hour.  That was hardly ever worth it in that work scenario given I was reimbursed for my mileage.

[Dirt Roads]

Isn't this a board that favors road trips over airplane trips anyways? At the same time, it's kinda hard to drive to a certain state or many countries.

I would say yes, with limits.  There's an amazing number of people out there that will spend more time getting to and waiting to fly at a nearby airport than could have just driven to their destination in the same amount of time.  The people on this board favors longer trips, but there is a point where flying is the preferred option.  And for many, if they've already driven the same area over and over again relatively near their home, it may just be easier to fly over that part of the country, land, rent a car and start their road trip from there!

Actually you would hear that post-9-11 security killed a lot of short air routes just because flight became too long due to security timing.
However, breakeven point maybe 4-5 hours total trip time, which is 300-400 miles give or take.

Tying all these themes together, I found that the combination of security timing and extra time spent on the tarmac more than justified my roadtrip pleasures.  I had a project post September 11 where I worked one week a month on the Lower Manhattan Recovery.  It was almost guaranteed that you would spend 4 hours on the tarmac at RDU before getting a slot into LaGuardia or JFK, then spend another 4 hours on the tarmac there waiting for a gate to open.  Including the AirTrain out to the subway, it the ordeal was approaching 12 hours for a 45-minute flight.  It was easier to drive to BWI and spend the night near the airport, then take Amtrak up first thing in the morning.

[JayhawkCO]

Isn't this a board that favors road trips over airplane trips anyways? At the same time, it's kinda hard to drive to a certain state or many countries.

I would say yes, with limits.  There's an amazing number of people out there that will spend more time getting to and waiting to fly at a nearby airport than could have just driven to their destination in the same amount of time.  The people on this board favors longer trips, but there is a point where flying is the preferred option.  And for many, if they've already driven the same area over and over again relatively near their home, it may just be easier to fly over that part of the country, land, rent a car and start their road trip from there!

I did this last October where I flew to Philly in order to road trip Atlantic Canada and New England. I don't need to see any more of the plains states unless I'm specifically visiting there.

[ZLoth]

Ah, yes, road trips. There is nothing like being alone in the car, driving down a route you haven't taken before, listening to music or an audiobook you have stored on your mobile device, enjoying a change of scenery, and . Compared to Northern California, DFW is a great launching point for road adventures. The southern endpoint of US-75 is in Dallas, but goes almost all the way up to the Canadian border in Minnesota, with a quick hop west, and you can be taking I-29/I-35 back to Dallas. Likewise, the western endpoint of US-80 is in Dallas, but the eastern endpoint is through Savannah, GA to Tybee Island. Plus Interstates 20, 30, 35, and 45. The challenge has been that, since 2019, I had to deal with the major expensive of moving halfway across the country, Covid and the resulting 12 hour workdays, and now having to be an adult caregiver.

Now that traveling is back in vogue, what challenges me is when people fly to the destination, take a cheaper hotel, then end up having to rent a car to get to the destinations they want to visit. Especially when, for a little bit more, they could have a hotel room within walking distance or a short public transit ride and not deal with the traffic. My last major vacation in 2018 in Miami, and I stayed in the Brickell district and within walking distance of the Brickell Metromover/Metrorail station which gave access to multiple tourist destinations.

[zachary_amaryllis]

Speaking of pizza, I've taken to ordering carryout lately. (Apologies to Zachary, should he read this.) I live near enough to Pizza Hut that I figured out that, even at the IRS mileage rate, it's faster and cheaper for me to go get the pizza myself than to have it delivered. (The only exception is if something's going on at the house where I don't want to leave; e.g. we have people over).

A lot of people are doing that, especially if they're close to the store. I get it -- the mysterious 'delivery charge' that I certainly get none of, tipping, all of that. At least you're not a dick about it. There's an apartment complex behind the store, that depending on the building, it's faster to just walk. I've walked deliveries there before. I don't mind 'I don't want to pay the extras, so I'll go get it myself'. It's the "I mind the extra charges, so I'm going to order and take it out on the guy that drives the car" that bugs me.