They can say what ever they want, but...........

I'm so happy that I stirred up such a nice bee's nest...

Bob, on flourescent light bulbs... you say... "I, for one, am not even sure that they save energy". You are not
sure they are more efficient? I don't know how to argue against a non-belief in simple physics.
Click to expand...

If you will reread my remarks in the bulb I said that I know that my sample was small and perhaps not valid. I do know that of the twenty or so fluorescent light bulbs that I have had in my home, three different manufacturers and two different sizes, only one bulb matched an old fashioned incandescent bulb in terms of life span. One bulb lasted a long time though.

I also said that I've never read if the increase in energy used to manufacture the fluorescent bulbs was added to the energy cost to society as a whole. In other words, do they save energy in total. There is no point in them if they do not. How much energy does it take to manufacture one? Maybe the amount of difference is insignificant between the old and the new. If it is, then the savings with the new bulbs is real. I do know this, my boy changed out one of the burned out fluorescent bulbs jut two days ago. It had been burned out for quite some time, the remaining bulbs in the room, on the same circuit, supplying light. The bulb was putting out NO light yet was using enough energy to make the base of it hot. Burnt out incandescent bulbs do not use energy. When the old bulbs went out they went out. This bulb used energy enough to make the fixture hot after it was "burned out" for months.

For me these bulbs have been a huge waste of MONEY. (Not energy, I'm sure that they DO save energy.) Keep in mind that I am only talking about the twisted tube fluorescents that emulate a regular light bulb. Most of my straight tube fixture have tubes in them that are about 25 years old. If the new bulbs had lives like that, I would have them everywhere.

I read just recently that the fluorescent bulbs are considered by some to be hazardous waste requiring special disposal.

I personally think that the only ones who will make out by requiring us all to use the new bulbs are GE, Sylvania, and other manufacturers. (and the politicians who passed the law) At the price of these bulbs they need to last many times longer than incandescents to make any sense at all to me. My personal experience with them make me suspect that the published life spans for fluorescents is either exaggerated or the testing is not done under real world conditions. I have recently purchased about a dozen more of these bulbs three of which have worked for a month. (the others not in service yet) I am surprised that they are all still working based on my own past experience. If they have a much longer life span than the old bulbs I may change my opinion of them. I am not holding my breath though.

Bob
 
Bob,

I will agree on the quality of the bulbs, at least early on. The first ones we bought did have some duds. We have some 22 in the house now and haven't had to change one.

T
 
I don't think anyone disputes that we are having warmer weather. Let me go on record by saying MANS CONTRIBUTION DOESN'T AMOUNT TO A PINCH OF SHIT!! Follow the politics.
Every time some one says they are cutting down on their "carbon foot print" I just cant help running out back and cutting down a tree.
Click to expand...


Hey Howard, Too bad I wasn't closer or I would drop by with by Stihl and we could cut down every last tree on your property - that would show those tree-huggers!
 
The China thing was mostly meant as a little bit of fun at this and the previousely mentioned thread. However the basic point is still valid and unanswered, All this breast beating, wailing and gnashing of teeth is silly and pointless until an answer to China and Indias growth and expanding "footprint" is found.
Click to expand...


Eric,

In my understanding from the global environmental policy people I have talked to it that the policy makers in china are actually pretty concerned, I have no idea about india. It is my understanding that the climate models predict China's ag areas to dry and they can't feed themselves already. Maybe they will have to take us out to annex our ag areas.

T
 
good gawd speakin of a warming tread hows this minus 21 C [-5.8F]last nite now a front is moving in expected to lay down a few inches of snow and then 25 to 50 mm of rain which i think converts to [2] inches of rain and to be blown around with 45 to 60 mph winds but heres the kicker its going up to 11 C around 51 F in less then 24 hours ,,jeeze typical maritime weather lol

32 degrees diff in less then 24 mother nature you gotta respect her she changes her mind aweful quick by times...

this is in Nova Scotia ,Canada by the way

im sorry guys for interupting the very thoughtful and educational banter..

for a weather report lmao..im such an arse by times...

but ive been checking some stuff out that concerns global warming and saving our planet and it is science at its best its thinking out side of the box and even breaking some laws of physics ,and whats worse some of the stuff has been around for 30 or more years yet because oil and everything around it runs our countries this new technology has been squashed ,im not totaly sold on it but have tried to duplicate some of the inventions and one has worked so it realy has me thinking that yes thinking outside of the box with these new inventions which are not realy new have merit.check out these.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/...lusive-electrolyzer/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSDtCkLxQd8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNBMVsuPdm4&feature=related

http://www.josephnewman.com/

there are lots more on you tube in a search of overunity motors or generators..
basic idea is it takes a little power input to make more power on the output over 100 % some claim 300% but you have tobe a skeptic on the internet.

i have sent emails enquiring about some overuntity generators still waiting for replys


whats interseting to me being a power engineer is the amount of power one could actuly save if all claims are true.. this means the fall of the oil empires that be ,no need for oil other then lubrication and plastics production,as we would be running things off water [hygrogen] and magnets..

just think of the change in the world no more fighting over oil ,everybody has salt water and we can burn it..

i know its being hopeful probably nuts but it sure would be great to see folks up here wwho are hard off not having to pay for power or oil or feul because they only use the water in there wells and its free..and withthe unity generators well no power bill.. means a better life for there youngins growing up doesnt it...

well enough i think just some stuff to think about ..

shermie
 
Last edited:
Tod,

As you point out, perhaps I am too naive to understand the "language of science".
But if I was told the stepping on the land mine was "likely", but the alternative was staying where I was and never moving forward I'm going anyway.

Perhaps I misunderstood the scientific method. Its nice to know "the debate is completely over", and there is "absolutely no debate within the fields of climate change"

Give me a break, Statements like that are the reason you've stirred up such a hornets nest even on a duckboat site. That's not science, that's a religion. you dismiss all the arguments with a condecending attitude because you've made up your mind and know you are correct.

Well the rest of us have questions.

A 100,000 years of ice cores is a drop in the bucket on a geologic scale, that doesn't even begin to prove that this has "never happened before".

Why do the Co2 levels follow the temperature increase and not the reverse?

How long have we really had the capability to even measure the world temperatures with the accuracy needed to detect the very small changes predicted?

Why are the ice caps on mars melting faster than ever before?

I can put together a long list of scientists who are not convinced man has anything to do with the warming.

Your assurances that the debate is over do not inspire confidence while the government is preparing to yet again to regulate and tax me.
I've been around awhile and have seen this before many times.
Even the best intended government solutions often have consequences no one saw coming and often make things worse.

The fluorescent light bulb for example, do they really produce a smaller carbon footprint? If you take all factors into account including manufacturing, I doubt it.

Electric cars sound great, until you take into account all the additional coal fired plants and the cost of transmission lines.

Those of you that Know the debate is over are welcome to take all the steps you like to save the planet.
But the rest of us need more convincing before we give up on the industrial revolution.

The words "Everybody Knows" are often followed by the big lie.


Still burning two cycle oil,

Mike
 
I have no problem identifying the big head above the stuffed shirt.
Definitely out of his specialty.
Disappointed, but I know the type.
 
Mike,

The "there are so many unknowns" game has gotten old, it worked for 10 years. That phase is over, consensus has been produced and the debate is how much how fast.

Next time you meet one of those scientists (I'm assuming that they are climate scientists) from the "long list of scientists who are not convinced man has anything to do with the warming", please let them know that their message is not getting out among the greater community of scientists.

T
 
Hey guys. We burn shizz... it's been getting into the atmosphere for a long time... over the last 60 years it's finally catching up with us. Scientists have ice core samples and computer generated facts and it's getting warmer out there. It's real. Personally speaking my family and I are doing something about it, we are using less fuel now (cars, house, etc). I don't think that people can argue against that. And if they do, what their point?

You go Tod.
 
Tod,

Asserting that there is "no debate" and "consensus is reached" over and over is not going to convince anybody who is still looking for more evidence.

I don't believe the skeptical scientists, (or duckboat owners) have any message to get out.

We just want solid proof before wrecking the economy of the western world.

To paraphrase "Dr Science" from PBS You have a masters degree, and know MORE than I do.

I going back to reading the hunting related posts before they start a Global Warming or excuse me, Global Climate Change Forum.

Respectfully exhausted, (in a non greenhouse gas emitting way)

Mike
 
C'mon over Tod. I've got an Echo that will take a 36 inch bar and access to over 600 acres.
 
What do you think of stories like this????

Posted Thursday, February 07, 2008
4:20 PM PT
Climate Change: Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical
"consensus." Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to
better observe something bigger than your SUV  the sun.
Related Topics: Global Warming

Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in
the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study
using data that went back centuries that showed that global
temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.
To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are
seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to
observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than
all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.
And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.
Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for
Canada's National Research Council, is among those looking at the
sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.
Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this
cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased
activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder
Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can
last as long as a century.
Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of
sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun,
with little or no 11-year cycle.
This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold
that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of
warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that
period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern
Europe.
Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this
cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or
two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of
the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the
Northern Hemisphere.
Tapping oversees the operation of a 60-year-old radio telescope
that he calls a "stethoscope for the sun." But he and his
colleagues need better equipment.
In Canada, where radio-telescopic monitoring of the sun has been
conducted since the end of World War II, a new instrument, the
next- generation solar flux monitor, could measure the sun's emissions
more rapidly and accurately.
As we have noted many times, perhaps the biggest impact on the
Earth's climate over time has been the sun.
For instance, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar
Research in Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly
over the last 60 years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius
increase in Earth's temperature over the last 100 years.
R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the
Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University,
says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's
climate on long, medium and even short time scales."
Rather, he says, "I and the first-class scientists I work with are
consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular
fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not
surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy
on this planet."
Patterson, sharing Tapping's concern, says: "Solar scientists
predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest
Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to
unusually cool conditions on Earth."
"Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before,
and it most likely will again," Patterson says. "If we were to have
even a medium-sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot
more bad effects than 'global warming' would have had."
In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves
 and not a few enemies in the global warming "community"  by
predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three
years from now, to be accompanied by "dramatic changes" in
temperatures.
A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical
data and came to a similar conclusion.
"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to
miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern
was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation
existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow
Bruce Berkowitz.
The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any
relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and
changes in global temperatures."
The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power
plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on
temperatures."
But if the sun shuts down, we've got a problem. It is the sun, not
the Earth, that's hanging in the balance.
 
Eric- I may be with Tod on this one. I find the article rather compelling, I have read it before from some other source. The biggest problem that I have with it is that , as much as it make sense to me, it is a single source (for me). If it is all accurate I'm sure that we will be reading of more confirmation although there will be resistance to publish due to the personal and emotional investment that so many people have in the "global warming" industry.

Related comment- I have decided to become a little more "in your face" to people who refer to us who question human caused global warming as "deniers". I take it personal when someone equates my questions about global warming theory with those who deny that the Holocaust occurred. I too will be less kind to those who refer to conservatives and capitalists as Nazis. Nazis were left wingers, socialists, whose programs and ideas more closely aligned with left wingers in our own country (USA). I do not refer to Democrats as Nazis even though it would be more accurate than referring to right wing conservatives as Nazis. It is wrong either way.

Bob
 
Last edited:
I think the people at the Hoover Institute ought to take a refresher on correlation and multivariate regression. Repeat after me, "correlation does not prove causation"...
 
Eric,

To be frank, I don't think much of an article like that. I don't have a whole lot of time tonight (Jen is putting Gus down now), but first of all it is clearly written with an advocacy angle.

I will try to explain the larger issue for anyone truly interested.... As for the data mentioned, sure, I don't doubt those individual pieces mentioned exist, but they don't tell the whole story. Climate scientists understand the importance of sunspots, but to think that the majority fo scientists haven't considered that they may be at play is hard to believe.

The bulk of data ever collected point towards global climate change. To evaluate a body of science (global change is only one), you have to factor in a lot and I am no climate scientist (nor would I ever want to be), but I keep current and meet a lot of scientists. To be honest it is pretty complicated to judge and weight the quality of science. Things to help decide on include: 1) simple quantity of publications (there are problems there), 2) quality fo the publications, 3) reputation of the researchers. To construct a simple model to evaluate global change... as far as publications global change has it 1000:1 (wild ass guess), the most important pro publications have been in the absolute top scientific journals and there are lots of them, the credentials of the top scientists arguing pro are outstanding.

I am a scientist (not a climate scientist) and I have thought hard about my decision of what to think and it is based on pretty much the fact that there are thousands and thousands of scientists around the world that are very convinced AND included in the thousands and thousands are our best thinkers. We are talking thousands and thousands vs. tens, not 60:40 pro:con, or 70:30, we are talking 100:1 or (1000:1) at least. No scientist I have talked to in the past 5-10 years has offered the contrary opinion. I have never talked to a colleague that met a legitimate scientist that promoted the non-climate change view.

My whole point in entering in the thread was to give my perspective of where we are from the view of a mainstream scientist in a field that often interfaces with climate scientists.

T
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top