Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » OK........I've had enough of this
|
|
| Re: OK........I've had enough of this [message #95660 is a reply to message #95640] |
Wed, 06 February 2008 04:09   |
Don Nafe
Messages: 1206
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Intersting note about CF bulbs
No one has actually determined whether there is a real overall savings with
these things as they cost more to make, ship, dispose of and buy. And if not
used in high traffic areas that need light on for long periods, do not last
as long as claimed.I know this last bit as fact as I replaced every light in
our house that wasn't on a dimmer and several of these bulbs lasted barely
six months...others on the otherhand are on their second year. Good thing
they go on sale every once in a while otherwise I'd never use them again.
"Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message
news:C3CE9F9F.16188%tony@standinghampton.com...
> The Mayan calendar stops on December 21st, 2012. They thought this was the
> date the world would end. It was a tongue-in-check reference, but it is
> interesting that you pointed out Kyoto expires in 2012. Coincidence? . . .
> I
> THINK NOT! ;>)
>
> Seriously, I think it's great that you're "smallerizing" your carbon foot
> print. It's a good idea for everyone just in terms of pollution, no matter
> what side of the debate you're on. I have switched over many of our lights
> bulb to CF's and installed energy efficient windows, but there is much
> more
> I could do. My fear is that the average person will do little or nothing
> simply because it requires too much effort. I think it's true that
> individuals can be pretty smart when they need to be, but large groups are
> generally ignorant. As Ronnie James Dio so elegantly put it when singing
> with Black Sabbath, "The Mob Rules".
>
> I'll try to have a more positive outlook.
>
> Tony
>
>
> On 2/5/08 12:35 AM, in article 47a80709@linux, "Jamie K"
> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>> Tony Benson wrote:
>>> So you're saying we're all pretty much f*cked then, huh Jamie.
>>
>> Me? No, I'm not saying that.
>>
>> We would have been better off not dragging our feet for so long, but
>> there's still time to make a difference, and people ARE acting on what
>> we know.
>>
>>
>>> We really are
>>> our own worst enemies. The problem now is we can't do much to stop it.
>>
>> It's important to realize that's not true.
>>
>> Doing nothing would be a very risky choice.
>>
>> Some warming has happened, some will still happen no matter what we do
>> because of how long greenhouse gases already added will stay in the
>> atmosphere.
>>
>> But a significant amount of warming can still be prevented. There's a
>> lot we can do, some of which we are already doing.
>>
>>
>>> Short
>>> of deciding, as a species, to go back to living "pre-industrialization"
>>> life
>>> styles. Wanna place any bets on that happening? ;>)
>>
>> I haven't seen that idea proposed in any serious mitigation plan. :^)
>>
>>
>>> Seriously, I don't know if I believe everything the doomsayers are
>>> preaching.
>>
>> Nor I. There are always exaggerations. But if you avoid some of the more
>> hyperbolic special interest groups and stick closely to the science, the
>> more likely range of possible outcomes is worth paying attention to and
>> working to mitigate.
>>
>>
>>> I also don't think we're doing the world any good though by the
>>> amount of carbon we pump into the air.
>>
>> It might be good for some places where a warmer climate is at least a
>> superficial improvement, but bad overall for the possible shock of rapid
>> ecosystem change, threats to coastlines and hard to predict outcomes
>> like the possible melting of permafrost (which would release methane,
>> another greenhouse gas), changing of ocean currents and other rolls of
>> the dice.
>>
>>
>>> Hopefully, we still have enough time
>>> to figure out a clean way to produce the energy we need to maintain our
>>> current and growing rate of consumption. I just don't see us all getting
>>> around on horses, plowing our fields with oxen, and reading by
>>> candlelight
>>> anytime soon.
>>
>> I don't know that horses are all that great of a solution, although I
>> like horses. :^)
>>
>> But we have a lot of options. There are a lot of efficiency improvements
>> we can make in building design, city planning and manufacturing;
>> logistical improvements to transportation; more efficient uses of fossil
>> fuels; increased use of renewable energy; and faster adoption of more
>> efficient technologies.
>>
>> Here are a few different perspectives:
>> http://carbonsequestration.us/Papers-presentations/htm/Pacal a-Socolow-ScienceM
>> ag-Aug2004.pdf
>>
>> http://www.ases.org/climatechange/
>> http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/clenergy.php
>> http://www.ipcc.ch/
>>
>> I highly recommend this issue of Scientific American:
>> http://www.sciam.com/sciammag/?contents=2006-09
>>
>> Especially this article:
>> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-plan-to-keep-carbon-in
>>
>> Worth a trip to the library.
>>
>>> Maybe the Mayans's were right? Four years and counting is it? :>o
>>
>> What did the Mayan's say?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>
>>> Tony
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/4/08 11:33 PM, in article 47a7f891@linux, "Jamie K"
>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Neil wrote:
>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hey Don, it's true that one of the expected byproducts of global
>>>>>> warming
>>>>>> is increased extreme weather events, including winter weather events.
>>>>> This is like saying that one of the byproducts of global
>>>>> stupidity is that people will get more intelligent.
>>>> We can only hope! :^)
>>>>
>>>> An increase in extreme weather events is predicted by climate
>>>> scientists
>>>> as a consequence of the current climate change event.
>>>>
>>>> It may seem counter-intuitive until you really think about it.
>>>>
>>>> Warmer ocean water, more evaporation, more energy in weather systems to
>>>> carry the moisture farther, this can bring more snow over the
>>>> mountains.
>>>>
>>>> (And again, any single weather event can't be linked to the current
>>>> climate change by itself. But over time we can measure patterns.)
>>>>
>>>> Another recent study shows the possibility for earlier rain and earlier
>>>> snow pack melting leading to quicker snow pack degradation. So even
>>>> though individual weather systems may dump a lot of moisture (hang in
>>>> there, Deej!), it may not stay around as long or melt as slowly. Which
>>>> means we may be facing possible water shortages in some areas.
>>>>
>>>> http://climate.weather.com/articles/watertrends020108.html
>>>>
>>>> "They found that up to 60 percent of changes in river flow, temperature
>>>> and snow pack between 1950 and 1999 can be attributed to human
>>>> activities, such as driving, that release emissions including carbon
>>>> dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Let's see, what else can we blame on opposite-cause events like
>>>>> this?
>>>> Don't be confused by the term "global warming." It doesn't mean equal
>>>> heat everywhere on the globe, weather doesn't work like that.
>>>>
>>>> That's one reason to use the "climate change" label instead. It's more
>>>> accurate and less confusing to people. Another is that as the surface
>>>> warms (on average), the mesosphere cools. Both from the same mechanism,
>>>> the additional heat absorption and re-radiation from additional
>>>> greenhouse gases.
>>>>
>>>> It's interesting to read about this stuff.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_chemistry
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Neil
>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK........I've had enough of this [message #95664 is a reply to message #95660] |
Wed, 06 February 2008 06:39 |
chuck duffy
Messages: 453
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Don,
Here's my experience. The last set I put in the basement lasted five years.
When I bought them 5 years ago they were big money. Probably 10 times the
cost of an incandesent.
When I went to get the replacements a pack of 8 GE CFs was around $12.00.
I was shocked at how much they have come down in price.
The 60 watt equivalent uses 13 watts.
So anway... My house has a basement apartment in it, and has a separate electric
meter. We use the basement for our 'playroom'/tv room/office.
Since switching to CF and LCD TV and Computer monitors the basements monthly
electric bill comes in around $15 a month. It used to run in the mid 30's.
Granted this is not that big of a deal money wise, but I'm clearly seeing
a directly measurable cut in consumption of over 50%.
Chuck
"Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote:
>Intersting note about CF bulbs
>
>No one has actually determined whether there is a real overall savings with
>these things as they cost more to make, ship, dispose of and buy. And if
not
>used in high traffic areas that need light on for long periods, do not last
>as long as claimed.I know this last bit as fact as I replaced every light
in
>our house that wasn't on a dimmer and several of these bulbs lasted barely
>six months...others on the otherhand are on their second year. Good thing
>they go on sale every once in a while otherwise I'd never use them again.
>
>
>"Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message
>news:C3CE9F9F.16188%tony@standinghampton.com...
>> The Mayan calendar stops on December 21st, 2012. They thought this was
the
>> date the world would end. It was a tongue-in-check reference, but it is
>> interesting that you pointed out Kyoto expires in 2012. Coincidence? .
. .
>> I
>> THINK NOT! ;>)
>>
>> Seriously, I think it's great that you're "smallerizing" your carbon foot
>> print. It's a good idea for everyone just in terms of pollution, no matter
>> what side of the debate you're on. I have switched over many of our lights
>> bulb to CF's and installed energy efficient windows, but there is much
>> more
>> I could do. My fear is that the average person will do little or nothing
>> simply because it requires too much effort. I think it's true that
>> individuals can be pretty smart when they need to be, but large groups
are
>> generally ignorant. As Ronnie James Dio so elegantly put it when singing
>> with Black Sabbath, "The Mob Rules".
>>
>> I'll try to have a more positive outlook.
>>
>> Tony
>>
>>
>> On 2/5/08 12:35 AM, in article 47a80709@linux, "Jamie K"
>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Tony Benson wrote:
>>>> So you're saying we're all pretty much f*cked then, huh Jamie.
>>>
>>> Me? No, I'm not saying that.
>>>
>>> We would have been better off not dragging our feet for so long, but
>>> there's still time to make a difference, and people ARE acting on what
>>> we know.
>>>
>>>
>>>> We really are
>>>> our own worst enemies. The problem now is we can't do much to stop it.
>>>
>>> It's important to realize that's not true.
>>>
>>> Doing nothing would be a very risky choice.
>>>
>>> Some warming has happened, some will still happen no matter what we do
>>> because of how long greenhouse gases already added will stay in the
>>> atmosphere.
>>>
>>> But a significant amount of warming can still be prevented. There's a
>>> lot we can do, some of which we are already doing.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Short
>>>> of deciding, as a species, to go back to living "pre-industrialization"
>>>> life
>>>> styles. Wanna place any bets on that happening? ;>)
>>>
>>> I haven't seen that idea proposed in any serious mitigation plan. :^)
>>>
>>>
>>>> Seriously, I don't know if I believe everything the doomsayers are
>>>> preaching.
>>>
>>> Nor I. There are always exaggerations. But if you avoid some of the more
>>> hyperbolic special interest groups and stick closely to the science,
the
>>> more likely range of possible outcomes is worth paying attention to and
>>> working to mitigate.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I also don't think we're doing the world any good though by the
>>>> amount of carbon we pump into the air.
>>>
>>> It might be good for some places where a warmer climate is at least a
>>> superficial improvement, but bad overall for the possible shock of rapid
>>> ecosystem change, threats to coastlines and hard to predict outcomes
>>> like the possible melting of permafrost (which would release methane,
>>> another greenhouse gas), changing of ocean currents and other rolls of
>>> the dice.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hopefully, we still have enough time
>>>> to figure out a clean way to produce the energy we need to maintain
our
>>>> current and growing rate of consumption. I just don't see us all getting
>>>> around on horses, plowing our fields with oxen, and reading by
>>>> candlelight
>>>> anytime soon.
>>>
>>> I don't know that horses are all that great of a solution, although I
>>> like horses. :^)
>>>
>>> But we have a lot of options. There are a lot of efficiency improvements
>>> we can make in building design, city planning and manufacturing;
>>> logistical improvements to transportation; more efficient uses of fossil
>>> fuels; increased use of renewable energy; and faster adoption of more
>>> efficient technologies.
>>>
>>> Here are a few different perspectives:
>>> http://carbonsequestration.us/Papers-presentations/htm/Pacal a-Socolow-ScienceM
>>> ag-Aug2004.pdf
>>>
>>> http://www.ases.org/climatechange/
>>> http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/clenergy.php
>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/
>>>
>>> I highly recommend this issue of Scientific American:
>>> http://www.sciam.com/sciammag/?contents=2006-09
>>>
>>> Especially this article:
>>> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-plan-to-keep-carbon-in
>>>
>>> Worth a trip to the library.
>>>
>>>> Maybe the Mayans's were right? Four years and counting is it? :>o
>>>
>>> What did the Mayan's say?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Tony
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/4/08 11:33 PM, in article 47a7f891@linux, "Jamie K"
>>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Neil wrote:
>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hey Don, it's true that one of the expected byproducts of global
>>>>>>> warming
>>>>>>> is increased extreme weather events, including winter weather events.
>>>>>> This is like saying that one of the byproducts of global
>>>>>> stupidity is that people will get more intelligent.
>>>>> We can only hope! :^)
>>>>>
>>>>> An increase in extreme weather events is predicted by climate
>>>>> scientists
>>>>> as a consequence of the current climate change event.
>>>>>
>>>>> It may seem counter-intuitive until you really think about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Warmer ocean water, more evaporation, more energy in weather systems
to
>>>>> carry the moisture farther, this can bring more snow over the
>>>>> mountains.
>>>>>
>>>>> (And again, any single weather event can't be linked to the current
>>>>> climate change by itself. But over time we can measure patterns.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Another recent study shows the possibility for earlier rain and earlier
>>>>> snow pack melting leading to quicker snow pack degradation. So even
>>>>> though individual weather systems may dump a lot of moisture (hang
in
>>>>> there, Deej!), it may not stay around as long or melt as slowly. Which
>>>>> means we may be facing possible water shortages in some areas.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://climate.weather.com/articles/watertrends020108.html
>>>>>
>>>>> "They found that up to 60 percent of changes in river flow, temperature
>>>>> and snow pack between 1950 and 1999 can be attributed to human
>>>>> activities, such as driving, that release emissions including carbon
>>>>> dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's see, what else can we blame on opposite-cause events like
>>>>>> this?
>>>>> Don't be confused by the term "global warming." It doesn't mean equal
>>>>> heat everywhere on the globe, weather doesn't work like that.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's one reason to use the "climate change" label instead. It's more
>>>>> accurate and less confusing to people. Another is that as the surface
>>>>> warms (on average), the mesosphere cools. Both from the same mechanism,
>>>>> the additional heat absorption and re-radiation from additional
>>>>> greenhouse gases.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's interesting to read about this stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_chemistry
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Neil
>>>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK........I've had enough of this [message #95668 is a reply to message #95664] |
Wed, 06 February 2008 08:35 |
Don Nafe
Messages: 1206
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote in message news:47a9b880$1@linux...
>
> Don,
>
> Here's my experience. The last set I put in the basement lasted five
> years.
> When I bought them 5 years ago they were big money. Probably 10 times the
> cost of an incandesent.
>
> When I went to get the replacements a pack of 8 GE CFs was around $12.00.
> I was shocked at how much they have come down in price.
>
> The 60 watt equivalent uses 13 watts.
>
> So anway... My house has a basement apartment in it, and has a separate
> electric
> meter. We use the basement for our 'playroom'/tv room/office.
>
> Since switching to CF and LCD TV and Computer monitors the basements
> monthly
> electric bill comes in around $15 a month. It used to run in the mid 30's.
>
>
> Granted this is not that big of a deal money wise, but I'm clearly seeing
> a directly measurable cut in consumption of over 50%.
>
> Chuck
Excellent! I wish my experience with them was more like yours in terms of
reliability and savings but we are such big users of electricity in this
house it's hard to say just how much we're saving.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote:
>>Intersting note about CF bulbs
>>
>>No one has actually determined whether there is a real overall savings
>>with
>
>>these things as they cost more to make, ship, dispose of and buy. And if
> not
>>used in high traffic areas that need light on for long periods, do not
>>last
>
>>as long as claimed.I know this last bit as fact as I replaced every light
> in
>>our house that wasn't on a dimmer and several of these bulbs lasted barely
>
>>six months...others on the otherhand are on their second year. Good thing
>
>>they go on sale every once in a while otherwise I'd never use them again.
>>
>>
>>"Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message
>>news:C3CE9F9F.16188%tony@standinghampton.com...
>>> The Mayan calendar stops on December 21st, 2012. They thought this was
> the
>>> date the world would end. It was a tongue-in-check reference, but it is
>>> interesting that you pointed out Kyoto expires in 2012. Coincidence? .
> .
>>> I
>>> THINK NOT! ;>)
>>>
>>> Seriously, I think it's great that you're "smallerizing" your carbon
>>> foot
>>> print. It's a good idea for everyone just in terms of pollution, no
>>> matter
>>> what side of the debate you're on. I have switched over many of our
>>> lights
>>> bulb to CF's and installed energy efficient windows, but there is much
>
>>> more
>>> I could do. My fear is that the average person will do little or nothing
>>> simply because it requires too much effort. I think it's true that
>>> individuals can be pretty smart when they need to be, but large groups
> are
>>> generally ignorant. As Ronnie James Dio so elegantly put it when singing
>>> with Black Sabbath, "The Mob Rules".
>>>
>>> I'll try to have a more positive outlook.
>>>
>>> Tony
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/5/08 12:35 AM, in article 47a80709@linux, "Jamie K"
>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tony Benson wrote:
>>>>> So you're saying we're all pretty much f*cked then, huh Jamie.
>>>>
>>>> Me? No, I'm not saying that.
>>>>
>>>> We would have been better off not dragging our feet for so long, but
>>>> there's still time to make a difference, and people ARE acting on what
>>>> we know.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> We really are
>>>>> our own worst enemies. The problem now is we can't do much to stop it.
>>>>
>>>> It's important to realize that's not true.
>>>>
>>>> Doing nothing would be a very risky choice.
>>>>
>>>> Some warming has happened, some will still happen no matter what we do
>>>> because of how long greenhouse gases already added will stay in the
>>>> atmosphere.
>>>>
>>>> But a significant amount of warming can still be prevented. There's a
>>>> lot we can do, some of which we are already doing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Short
>>>>> of deciding, as a species, to go back to living
>>>>> "pre-industrialization"
>
>>>>> life
>>>>> styles. Wanna place any bets on that happening? ;>)
>>>>
>>>> I haven't seen that idea proposed in any serious mitigation plan. :^)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Seriously, I don't know if I believe everything the doomsayers are
>>>>> preaching.
>>>>
>>>> Nor I. There are always exaggerations. But if you avoid some of the
>>>> more
>>>> hyperbolic special interest groups and stick closely to the science,
> the
>>>> more likely range of possible outcomes is worth paying attention to and
>>>> working to mitigate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I also don't think we're doing the world any good though by the
>>>>> amount of carbon we pump into the air.
>>>>
>>>> It might be good for some places where a warmer climate is at least a
>>>> superficial improvement, but bad overall for the possible shock of
>>>> rapid
>>>> ecosystem change, threats to coastlines and hard to predict outcomes
>>>> like the possible melting of permafrost (which would release methane,
>>>> another greenhouse gas), changing of ocean currents and other rolls of
>>>> the dice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hopefully, we still have enough time
>>>>> to figure out a clean way to produce the energy we need to maintain
> our
>>>>> current and growing rate of consumption. I just don't see us all
>>>>> getting
>>>>> around on horses, plowing our fields with oxen, and reading by
>>>>> candlelight
>>>>> anytime soon.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know that horses are all that great of a solution, although I
>>>> like horses. :^)
>>>>
>>>> But we have a lot of options. There are a lot of efficiency
>>>> improvements
>>>> we can make in building design, city planning and manufacturing;
>>>> logistical improvements to transportation; more efficient uses of
>>>> fossil
>>>> fuels; increased use of renewable energy; and faster adoption of more
>>>> efficient technologies.
>>>>
>>>> Here are a few different perspectives:
>>>> http://carbonsequestration.us/Papers-presentations/htm/Pacal a-Socolow-ScienceM
>>>> ag-Aug2004.pdf
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ases.org/climatechange/
>>>> http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/clenergy.php
>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/
>>>>
>>>> I highly recommend this issue of Scientific American:
>>>> http://www.sciam.com/sciammag/?contents=2006-09
>>>>
>>>> Especially this article:
>>>> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-plan-to-keep-carbon-in
>>>>
>>>> Worth a trip to the library.
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe the Mayans's were right? Four years and counting is it? :>o
>>>>
>>>> What did the Mayan's say?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Tony
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/4/08 11:33 PM, in article 47a7f891@linux, "Jamie K"
>>>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Neil wrote:
>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hey Don, it's true that one of the expected byproducts of global
>
>>>>>>>> warming
>>>>>>>> is increased extreme weather events, including winter weather
>>>>>>>> events.
>>>>>>> This is like saying that one of the byproducts of global
>>>>>>> stupidity is that people will get more intelligent.
>>>>>> We can only hope! :^)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An increase in extreme weather events is predicted by climate
>>>>>> scientists
>>>>>> as a consequence of the current climate change event.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It may seem counter-intuitive until you really think about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Warmer ocean water, more evaporation, more energy in weather systems
> to
>>>>>> carry the moisture farther, this can bring more snow over the
>>>>>> mountains.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (And again, any single weather event can't be linked to the current
>>>>>> climate change by itself. But over time we can measure patterns.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another recent study shows the possibility for earlier rain and
>>>>>> earlier
>>>>>> snow pack melting leading to quicker snow pack degradation. So even
>>>>>> though individual weather systems may dump a lot of moisture (hang
> in
>>>>>> there, Deej!), it may not stay around as long or melt as slowly.
>>>>>> Which
>>>>>> means we may be facing possible water shortages in some areas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://climate.weather.com/articles/watertrends020108.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "They found that up to 60 percent of changes in river flow,
>>>>>> temperature
>>>>>> and snow pack between 1950 and 1999 can be attributed to human
>>>>>> activities, such as driving, that release emissions including carbon
>>>>>> dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's see, what else can we blame on opposite-cause events like
>>>>>>> this?
>>>>>> Don't be confused by the term "global warming." It doesn't mean equal
>>>>>> heat everywhere on the globe, weather doesn't work like that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's one reason to use the "climate change" label instead. It's
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> accurate and less confusing to people. Another is that as the surface
>>>>>> warms (on average), the mesosphere cools. Both from the same
>>>>>> mechanism,
>>>>>> the additional heat absorption and re-radiation from additional
>>>>>> greenhouse gases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's interesting to read about this stuff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_chemistry
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Neil
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: How I spent my day part 1 [message #95669 is a reply to message #95629] |
Wed, 06 February 2008 08:41 |
Don Nafe
Messages: 1206
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:47a92b2a$1@linux...
>
> "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote:
>>...but just to be sure let's pump billions of dollars into useless CO2
>>reductions just in case.
>
> As per Chuck's thread, it's important to realise that a massive number of
> the changes which will reduce climate change are beneficial regardless of
> climate change.
>
> Things like better house insulation and design, more efficient appliances,
> solar and wind power etc all have benefits on many levels whether climate
> change exists or not. Pretty much all of them cost less in the long term.
> They use less resources in the long term (and whether it's in our
> lifetimes
> or not we WILL run out of naturally occurring coal, crude oil etc
> eventually.
> In many cases is takes extra effort to begin with, but this effort does
> return
> in the long term. It seems odd to be passionately against such things.
>
> Not that you are, but I guess I can't see why everybody can't band
> together
> on things when we agree on the direction, even if we have different
> reasons
> for wanting to head that way.
>
> Cheers,
> Kim.
Please don't get me wrong Kim, I'm all for maximizing energy savings,
reducing, reusing and recycling etc but that is not what Jamie and I have
been discussing...I'm firmly on the side that says Human generated CO2
driven global warming is not the slam dunk the enviro-movement would have us
believe.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK........I've had enough of this [message #95670 is a reply to message #95660] |
Wed, 06 February 2008 09:22 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
We've had good luck with CF bulbs, overall. We had a couple of early
failures (within 2 years), and a couple that have lasted longer than
their rated life and just won't die. The rest are still cruising along
so we'll see how long they last. I think some brands are better than others.
Even the duds have lasted longer than an incandescent heat bulb (I
hesitate to call incandescents "light bulbs" since they put out more far
more heat than light).
Energy Star lists CFs as being about 75% more efficient and lasting 10
times longer than incandescents.
Quote: "If every home in America replaced just one incandescent light
bulb with an ENERGY STAR qualified CFL, in one year it would save enough
energy to light more than 3 million homes and prevent greenhouse gas
emissions equivalent to those of more than 800,000 cars. '
They do make dimmable CFs, but I haven't tried those.
I'm keeping an eye on the progress of LED lighting for home use. It's
getting brighter and coming down in price (still more expensive,
though), and offers the potential to do color mixing.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
Don Nafe wrote:
> Intersting note about CF bulbs
>
> No one has actually determined whether there is a real overall savings with
> these things as they cost more to make, ship, dispose of and buy. And if not
> used in high traffic areas that need light on for long periods, do not last
> as long as claimed.I know this last bit as fact as I replaced every light in
> our house that wasn't on a dimmer and several of these bulbs lasted barely
> six months...others on the otherhand are on their second year. Good thing
> they go on sale every once in a while otherwise I'd never use them again.
>
>
> "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message
> news:C3CE9F9F.16188%tony@standinghampton.com...
>> The Mayan calendar stops on December 21st, 2012. They thought this was the
>> date the world would end. It was a tongue-in-check reference, but it is
>> interesting that you pointed out Kyoto expires in 2012. Coincidence? . . .
>> I
>> THINK NOT! ;>)
>>
>> Seriously, I think it's great that you're "smallerizing" your carbon foot
>> print. It's a good idea for everyone just in terms of pollution, no matter
>> what side of the debate you're on. I have switched over many of our lights
>> bulb to CF's and installed energy efficient windows, but there is much
>> more
>> I could do. My fear is that the average person will do little or nothing
>> simply because it requires too much effort. I think it's true that
>> individuals can be pretty smart when they need to be, but large groups are
>> generally ignorant. As Ronnie James Dio so elegantly put it when singing
>> with Black Sabbath, "The Mob Rules".
>>
>> I'll try to have a more positive outlook.
>>
>> Tony
>>
>>
>> On 2/5/08 12:35 AM, in article 47a80709@linux, "Jamie K"
>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Tony Benson wrote:
>>>> So you're saying we're all pretty much f*cked then, huh Jamie.
>>> Me? No, I'm not saying that.
>>>
>>> We would have been better off not dragging our feet for so long, but
>>> there's still time to make a difference, and people ARE acting on what
>>> we know.
>>>
>>>
>>>> We really are
>>>> our own worst enemies. The problem now is we can't do much to stop it.
>>> It's important to realize that's not true.
>>>
>>> Doing nothing would be a very risky choice.
>>>
>>> Some warming has happened, some will still happen no matter what we do
>>> because of how long greenhouse gases already added will stay in the
>>> atmosphere.
>>>
>>> But a significant amount of warming can still be prevented. There's a
>>> lot we can do, some of which we are already doing.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Short
>>>> of deciding, as a species, to go back to living "pre-industrialization"
>>>> life
>>>> styles. Wanna place any bets on that happening? ;>)
>>> I haven't seen that idea proposed in any serious mitigation plan. :^)
>>>
>>>
>>>> Seriously, I don't know if I believe everything the doomsayers are
>>>> preaching.
>>> Nor I. There are always exaggerations. But if you avoid some of the more
>>> hyperbolic special interest groups and stick closely to the science, the
>>> more likely range of possible outcomes is worth paying attention to and
>>> working to mitigate.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I also don't think we're doing the world any good though by the
>>>> amount of carbon we pump into the air.
>>> It might be good for some places where a warmer climate is at least a
>>> superficial improvement, but bad overall for the possible shock of rapid
>>> ecosystem change, threats to coastlines and hard to predict outcomes
>>> like the possible melting of permafrost (which would release methane,
>>> another greenhouse gas), changing of ocean currents and other rolls of
>>> the dice.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hopefully, we still have enough time
>>>> to figure out a clean way to produce the energy we need to maintain our
>>>> current and growing rate of consumption. I just don't see us all getting
>>>> around on horses, plowing our fields with oxen, and reading by
>>>> candlelight
>>>> anytime soon.
>>> I don't know that horses are all that great of a solution, although I
>>> like horses. :^)
>>>
>>> But we have a lot of options. There are a lot of efficiency improvements
>>> we can make in building design, city planning and manufacturing;
>>> logistical improvements to transportation; more efficient uses of fossil
>>> fuels; increased use of renewable energy; and faster adoption of more
>>> efficient technologies.
>>>
>>> Here are a few different perspectives:
>>> http://carbonsequestration.us/Papers-presentations/htm/Pacal a-Socolow-ScienceM
>>> ag-Aug2004.pdf
>>>
>>> http://www.ases.org/climatechange/
>>> http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/clenergy.php
>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/
>>>
>>> I highly recommend this issue of Scientific American:
>>> http://www.sciam.com/sciammag/?contents=2006-09
>>>
>>> Especially this article:
>>> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-plan-to-keep-carbon-in
>>>
>>> Worth a trip to the library.
>>>
>>>> Maybe the Mayans's were right? Four years and counting is it? :>o
>>> What did the Mayan's say?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Tony
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/4/08 11:33 PM, in article 47a7f891@linux, "Jamie K"
>>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Neil wrote:
>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hey Don, it's true that one of the expected byproducts of global
>>>>>>> warming
>>>>>>> is increased extreme weather events, including winter weather events.
>>>>>> This is like saying that one of the byproducts of global
>>>>>> stupidity is that people will get more intelligent.
>>>>> We can only hope! :^)
>>>>>
>>>>> An increase in extreme weather events is predicted by climate
>>>>> scientists
>>>>> as a consequence of the current climate change event.
>>>>>
>>>>> It may seem counter-intuitive until you really think about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Warmer ocean water, more evaporation, more energy in weather systems to
>>>>> carry the moisture farther, this can bring more snow over the
>>>>> mountains.
>>>>>
>>>>> (And again, any single weather event can't be linked to the current
>>>>> climate change by itself. But over time we can measure patterns.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Another recent study shows the possibility for earlier rain and earlier
>>>>> snow pack melting leading to quicker snow pack degradation. So even
>>>>> though individual weather systems may dump a lot of moisture (hang in
>>>>> there, Deej!), it may not stay around as long or melt as slowly. Which
>>>>> means we may be facing possible water shortages in some areas.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://climate.weather.com/articles/watertrends020108.html
>>>>>
>>>>> "They found that up to 60 percent of changes in river flow, temperature
>>>>> and snow pack between 1950 and 1999 can be attributed to human
>>>>> activities, such as driving, that release emissions including carbon
>>>>> dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's see, what else can we blame on opposite-cause events like
>>>>>> this?
>>>>> Don't be confused by the term "global warming." It doesn't mean equal
>>>>> heat everywhere on the globe, weather doesn't work like that.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's one reason to use the "climate change" label instead. It's more
>>>>> accurate and less confusing to people. Another is that as the surface
>>>>> warms (on average), the mesosphere cools. Both from the same mechanism,
>>>>> the additional heat absorption and re-radiation from additional
>>>>> greenhouse gases.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's interesting to read about this stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_chemistry
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Neil
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK........I've had enough of this [message #95684 is a reply to message #95670] |
Wed, 06 February 2008 16:40 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I purchased a 5 pack of the Sunbeam bulbs, 4 out of five burned out with in
a few months.
There was a news story a while bacK about a lady in NY that dropped one on
a hard wood floor in her child's room. She called Home Depot to ask how
to clean up the liquid from the bulb, they informed her that she had to call
the EPA. The EPA told her she had to contact one of the companies on there
HazMat list, because the bulbs have mercury in them. The clean up cost $2500.00.
So my question is why did our government let these bulbs come on the market
if they are such a health risk? Just think of what these bulbs will cost
all of us in bad health and expense when they end up in land fills and contaminate
ground water.
Just think, everybody is buying them.
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>We've had good luck with CF bulbs, overall. We had a couple of early
>failures (within 2 years), and a couple that have lasted longer than
>their rated life and just won't die. The rest are still cruising along
>so we'll see how long they last. I think some brands are better than others.
>
>Even the duds have lasted longer than an incandescent heat bulb (I
>hesitate to call incandescents "light bulbs" since they put out more far
>more heat than light).
>
>Energy Star lists CFs as being about 75% more efficient and lasting 10
>times longer than incandescents.
>
>Quote: "If every home in America replaced just one incandescent light
>bulb with an ENERGY STAR qualified CFL, in one year it would save enough
>energy to light more than 3 million homes and prevent greenhouse gas
>emissions equivalent to those of more than 800,000 cars. '
>
>They do make dimmable CFs, but I haven't tried those.
>
>I'm keeping an eye on the progress of LED lighting for home use. It's
>getting brighter and coming down in price (still more expensive,
>though), and offers the potential to do color mixing.
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>Don Nafe wrote:
>> Intersting note about CF bulbs
>>
>> No one has actually determined whether there is a real overall savings
with
>> these things as they cost more to make, ship, dispose of and buy. And
if not
>> used in high traffic areas that need light on for long periods, do not
last
>> as long as claimed.I know this last bit as fact as I replaced every light
in
>> our house that wasn't on a dimmer and several of these bulbs lasted barely
>> six months...others on the otherhand are on their second year. Good thing
>> they go on sale every once in a while otherwise I'd never use them again.
>>
>>
>> "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message
>> news:C3CE9F9F.16188%tony@standinghampton.com...
>>> The Mayan calendar stops on December 21st, 2012. They thought this was
the
>>> date the world would end. It was a tongue-in-check reference, but it
is
>>> interesting that you pointed out Kyoto expires in 2012. Coincidence?
. . .
>>> I
>>> THINK NOT! ;>)
>>>
>>> Seriously, I think it's great that you're "smallerizing" your carbon
foot
>>> print. It's a good idea for everyone just in terms of pollution, no matter
>>> what side of the debate you're on. I have switched over many of our lights
>>> bulb to CF's and installed energy efficient windows, but there is much
>>> more
>>> I could do. My fear is that the average person will do little or nothing
>>> simply because it requires too much effort. I think it's true that
>>> individuals can be pretty smart when they need to be, but large groups
are
>>> generally ignorant. As Ronnie James Dio so elegantly put it when singing
>>> with Black Sabbath, "The Mob Rules".
>>>
>>> I'll try to have a more positive outlook.
>>>
>>> Tony
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/5/08 12:35 AM, in article 47a80709@linux, "Jamie K"
>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tony Benson wrote:
>>>>> So you're saying we're all pretty much f*cked then, huh Jamie.
>>>> Me? No, I'm not saying that.
>>>>
>>>> We would have been better off not dragging our feet for so long, but
>>>> there's still time to make a difference, and people ARE acting on what
>>>> we know.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> We really are
>>>>> our own worst enemies. The problem now is we can't do much to stop
it.
>>>> It's important to realize that's not true.
>>>>
>>>> Doing nothing would be a very risky choice.
>>>>
>>>> Some warming has happened, some will still happen no matter what we
do
>>>> because of how long greenhouse gases already added will stay in the
>>>> atmosphere.
>>>>
>>>> But a significant amount of warming can still be prevented. There's
a
>>>> lot we can do, some of which we are already doing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Short
>>>>> of deciding, as a species, to go back to living "pre-industrialization"
>>>>> life
>>>>> styles. Wanna place any bets on that happening? ;>)
>>>> I haven't seen that idea proposed in any serious mitigation plan. :^)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Seriously, I don't know if I believe everything the doomsayers are
>>>>> preaching.
>>>> Nor I. There are always exaggerations. But if you avoid some of the
more
>>>> hyperbolic special interest groups and stick closely to the science,
the
>>>> more likely range of possible outcomes is worth paying attention to
and
>>>> working to mitigate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I also don't think we're doing the world any good though by the
>>>>> amount of carbon we pump into the air.
>>>> It might be good for some places where a warmer climate is at least
a
>>>> superficial improvement, but bad overall for the possible shock of rapid
>>>> ecosystem change, threats to coastlines and hard to predict outcomes
>>>> like the possible melting of permafrost (which would release methane,
>>>> another greenhouse gas), changing of ocean currents and other rolls
of
>>>> the dice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hopefully, we still have enough time
>>>>> to figure out a clean way to produce the energy we need to maintain
our
>>>>> current and growing rate of consumption. I just don't see us all getting
>>>>> around on horses, plowing our fields with oxen, and reading by
>>>>> candlelight
>>>>> anytime soon.
>>>> I don't know that horses are all that great of a solution, although
I
>>>> like horses. :^)
>>>>
>>>> But we have a lot of options. There are a lot of efficiency improvements
>>>> we can make in building design, city planning and manufacturing;
>>>> logistical improvements to transportation; more efficient uses of fossil
>>>> fuels; increased use of renewable energy; and faster adoption of more
>>>> efficient technologies.
>>>>
>>>> Here are a few different perspectives:
>>>> http://carbonsequestration.us/Papers-presentations/htm/Pacal a-Socolow-ScienceM
>>>> ag-Aug2004.pdf
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ases.org/climatechange/
>>>> http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/clenergy.php
>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/
>>>>
>>>> I highly recommend this issue of Scientific American:
>>>> http://www.sciam.com/sciammag/?contents=2006-09
>>>>
>>>> Especially this article:
>>>> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-plan-to-keep-carbon-in
>>>>
>>>> Worth a trip to the library.
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe the Mayans's were right? Four years and counting is it? :>o
>>>> What did the Mayan's say?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Tony
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/4/08 11:33 PM, in article 47a7f891@linux, "Jamie K"
>>>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Neil wrote:
>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hey Don, it's true that one of the expected byproducts of global
>>>>>>>> warming
>>>>>>>> is increased extreme weather events, including winter weather events.
>>>>>>> This is like saying that one of the byproducts of global
>>>>>>> stupidity is that people will get more intelligent.
>>>>>> We can only hope! :^)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An increase in extreme weather events is predicted by climate
>>>>>> scientists
>>>>>> as a consequence of the current climate change event.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It may seem counter-intuitive until you really think about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Warmer ocean water, more evaporation, more energy in weather systems
to
>>>>>> carry the moisture farther, this can bring more snow over the
>>>>>> mountains.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (And again, any single weather event can't be linked to the current
>>>>>> climate change by itself. But over time we can measure patterns.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another recent study shows the possibility for earlier rain and earlier
>>>>>> snow pack melting leading to quicker snow pack degradation. So even
>>>>>> though individual weather systems may dump a lot of moisture (hang
in
>>>>>> there, Deej!), it may not stay around as long or melt as slowly. Which
>>>>>> means we may be facing possible water shortages in some areas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://climate.weather.com/articles/watertrends020108.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "They found that up to 60 percent of changes in river flow, temperature
>>>>>> and snow pack between 1950 and 1999 can be attributed to human
>>>>>> activities, such as driving, that release emissions including carbon
>>>>>> dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's see, what else can we blame on opposite-cause events like
>>>>>>> this?
>>>>>> Don't be confused by the term "global warming." It doesn't mean equal
>>>>>> heat everywhere on the globe, weather doesn't work like that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's one reason to use the "climate change" label instead. It's
more
>>>>>> accurate and less confusing to people. Another is that as the surface
>>>>>> warms (on average), the mesosphere cools. Both from the same mechanism,
>>>>>> the additional heat absorption and re-radiation from additional
>>>>>> greenhouse gases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's interesting to read about this stuff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_chemistry
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Neil
>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK........I've had enough of this [message #95686 is a reply to message #95684] |
Wed, 06 February 2008 16:02 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
If your electricity is from coal plants, CF bulbs will actually prevent
the release of a lot more mercury into the environment than the bulb is
using.
When the bulb finally burns out, you can return it without releasing the
mercury. Call the store where you purchased it first. If they don't take
them or know who will, check the recycling links below.
More info here, including how to clean up if you accidentally smash one
(it doesn't cost $2500):
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_ligh t/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf
Recycling info:
http://www.epa.gov/bulbrecycling/
http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/household.html
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
James McCloskey wrote:
> I purchased a 5 pack of the Sunbeam bulbs, 4 out of five burned out with in
> a few months.
>
> There was a news story a while bacK about a lady in NY that dropped one on
> a hard wood floor in her child's room. She called Home Depot to ask how
> to clean up the liquid from the bulb, they informed her that she had to call
> the EPA. The EPA told her she had to contact one of the companies on there
> HazMat list, because the bulbs have mercury in them. The clean up cost $2500.00.
> So my question is why did our government let these bulbs come on the market
> if they are such a health risk? Just think of what these bulbs will cost
> all of us in bad health and expense when they end up in land fills and contaminate
> ground water.
>
> Just think, everybody is buying them.
>
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> We've had good luck with CF bulbs, overall. We had a couple of early
>> failures (within 2 years), and a couple that have lasted longer than
>> their rated life and just won't die. The rest are still cruising along
>> so we'll see how long they last. I think some brands are better than others.
>>
>> Even the duds have lasted longer than an incandescent heat bulb (I
>> hesitate to call incandescents "light bulbs" since they put out more far
>
>> more heat than light).
>>
>> Energy Star lists CFs as being about 75% more efficient and lasting 10
>> times longer than incandescents.
>>
>> Quote: "If every home in America replaced just one incandescent light
>> bulb with an ENERGY STAR qualified CFL, in one year it would save enough
>
>> energy to light more than 3 million homes and prevent greenhouse gas
>> emissions equivalent to those of more than 800,000 cars. '
>>
>> They do make dimmable CFs, but I haven't tried those.
>>
>> I'm keeping an eye on the progress of LED lighting for home use. It's
>> getting brighter and coming down in price (still more expensive,
>> though), and offers the potential to do color mixing.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> Don Nafe wrote:
>>> Intersting note about CF bulbs
>>>
>>> No one has actually determined whether there is a real overall savings
> with
>>> these things as they cost more to make, ship, dispose of and buy. And
> if not
>>> used in high traffic areas that need light on for long periods, do not
> last
>>> as long as claimed.I know this last bit as fact as I replaced every light
> in
>>> our house that wasn't on a dimmer and several of these bulbs lasted barely
>
>>> six months...others on the otherhand are on their second year. Good thing
>
>>> they go on sale every once in a while otherwise I'd never use them again.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message
>>> news:C3CE9F9F.16188%tony@standinghampton.com...
>>>> The Mayan calendar stops on December 21st, 2012. They thought this was
> the
>>>> date the world would end. It was a tongue-in-check reference, but it
> is
>>>> interesting that you pointed out Kyoto expires in 2012. Coincidence?
> . . .
>>>> I
>>>> THINK NOT! ;>)
>>>>
>>>> Seriously, I think it's great that you're "smallerizing" your carbon
> foot
>>>> print. It's a good idea for everyone just in terms of pollution, no matter
>>>> what side of the debate you're on. I have switched over many of our lights
>>>> bulb to CF's and installed energy efficient windows, but there is much
>
>>>> more
>>>> I could do. My fear is that the average person will do little or nothing
>>>> simply because it requires too much effort. I think it's true that
>>>> individuals can be pretty smart when they need to be, but large groups
> are
>>>> generally ignorant. As Ronnie James Dio so elegantly put it when singing
>>>> with Black Sabbath, "The Mob Rules".
>>>>
>>>> I'll try to have a more positive outlook.
>>>>
>>>> Tony
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/5/08 12:35 AM, in article 47a80709@linux, "Jamie K"
>>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tony Benson wrote:
>>>>>> So you're saying we're all pretty much f*cked then, huh Jamie.
>>>>> Me? No, I'm not saying that.
>>>>>
>>>>> We would have been better off not dragging our feet for so long, but
>>>>> there's still time to make a difference, and people ARE acting on what
>>>>> we know.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> We really are
>>>>>> our own worst enemies. The problem now is we can't do much to stop
> it.
>>>>> It's important to realize that's not true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doing nothing would be a very risky choice.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some warming has happened, some will still happen no matter what we
> do
>>>>> because of how long greenhouse gases already added will stay in the
>>>>> atmosphere.
>>>>>
>>>>> But a significant amount of warming can still be prevented. There's
> a
>>>>> lot we can do, some of which we are already doing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Short
>>>>>> of deciding, as a species, to go back to living "pre-industrialization"
>
>>>>>> life
>>>>>> styles. Wanna place any bets on that happening? ;>)
>>>>> I haven't seen that idea proposed in any serious mitigation plan. :^)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Seriously, I don't know if I believe everything the doomsayers are
>>>>>> preaching.
>>>>> Nor I. There are always exaggerations. But if you avoid some of the
> more
>>>>> hyperbolic special interest groups and stick closely to the science,
> the
>>>>> more likely range of possible outcomes is worth paying attention to
> and
>>>>> working to mitigate.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I also don't think we're doing the world any good though by the
>>>>>> amount of carbon we pump into the air.
>>>>> It might be good for some places where a warmer climate is at least
> a
>>>>> superficial improvement, but bad overall for the possible shock of rapid
>>>>> ecosystem change, threats to coastlines and hard to predict outcomes
>>>>> like the possible melting of permafrost (which would release methane,
>>>>> another greenhouse gas), changing of ocean currents and other rolls
> of
>>>>> the dice.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hopefully, we still have enough time
>>>>>> to figure out a clean way to produce the energy we need to maintain
> our
>>>>>> current and growing rate of consumption. I just don't see us all getting
>>>>>> around on horses, plowing our fields with oxen, and reading by
>>>>>> candlelight
>>>>>> anytime soon.
>>>>> I don't know that horses are all that great of a solution, although
> I
>>>>> like horses. :^)
>>>>>
>>>>> But we have a lot of options. There are a lot of efficiency improvements
>>>>> we can make in building design, city planning and manufacturing;
>>>>> logistical improvements to transportation; more efficient uses of fossil
>>>>> fuels; increased use of renewable energy; and faster adoption of more
>>>>> efficient technologies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here are a few different perspectives:
>>>>> http://carbonsequestration.us/Papers-presentations/htm/Pacal a-Socolow-ScienceM
>>>>> ag-Aug2004.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ases.org/climatechange/
>>>>> http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/clenergy.php
>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/
>>>>>
>>>>> I highly recommend this issue of Scientific American:
>>>>> http://www.sciam.com/sciammag/?contents=2006-09
>>>>>
>>>>> Especially this article:
>>>>> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-plan-to-keep-carbon-in
>>>>>
>>>>> Worth a trip to the library.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe the Mayans's were right? Four years and counting is it? :>o
>>>>> What did the Mayan's say?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tony
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/4/08 11:33 PM, in article 47a7f891@linux, "Jamie K"
>>>>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Neil wrote:
>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hey Don, it's true that one of the expected byproducts of global
>
>>>>>>>>> warming
>>>>>>>>> is increased extreme weather events, including winter weather events.
>>>>>>>> This is like saying that one of the byproducts of global
>>>>>>>> stupidity is that people will get more intelligent.
>>>>>>> We can only hope! :^)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An increase in extreme weather events is predicted by climate
>>>>>>> scientists
>>>>>>> as a consequence of the current climate change event.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It may seem counter-intuitive until you really think about it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Warmer ocean water, more evaporation, more energy in weather systems
> to
>>>>>>> carry the moisture farther, this can bring more snow over the
>>>>>>> mountains.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (And again, any single weather event can't be linked to the current
>>>>>>> climate change by itself. But over time we can measure patterns.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another recent study shows the possibility for earlier rain and earlier
>>>>>>> snow pack melting leading to quicker snow pack degradation. So even
>>>>>>> though individual weather systems may dump a lot of moisture (hang
> in
>>>>>>> there, Deej!), it may not stay around as long or melt as slowly. Which
>>>>>>> means we may be facing possible water shortages in some areas.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://climate.weather.com/articles/watertrends020108.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "They found that up to 60 percent of changes in river flow, temperature
>>>>>>> and snow pack between 1950 and 1999 can be attributed to human
>>>>>>> activities, such as driving, that release emissions including carbon
>>>>>>> dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let's see, what else can we blame on opposite-cause events like
>>>>>>>> this?
>>>>>>> Don't be confused by the term "global warming." It doesn't mean equal
>>>>>>> heat everywhere on the globe, weather doesn't work like that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's one reason to use the "climate change" label instead. It's
> more
>>>>>>> accurate and less confusing to people. Another is that as the surface
>>>>>>> warms (on average), the mesosphere cools. Both from the same mechanism,
>>>>>>> the additional heat absorption and re-radiation from additional
>>>>>>> greenhouse gases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's interesting to read about this stuff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere
>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_chemistry
>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Neil
>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK........I've had enough of this [message #95687 is a reply to message #95686] |
Wed, 06 February 2008 17:29 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>If your electricity is from coal plants, CF bulbs will actually prevent
>the release of a lot more mercury into the environment than the bulb is
>using.
>
>When the bulb finally burns out, you can return it without releasing the
>mercury. Call the store where you purchased it first. If they don't take
>them or know who will, check the recycling links below.
>
>More info here, including how to clean up if you accidentally smash one
>(it doesn't cost $2500):
>
> http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_ligh t/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf
>
>Recycling info:
>http://www.epa.gov/bulbrecycling/
>http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/household.html
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
That was the news report.
>
>James McCloskey wrote:
>> I purchased a 5 pack of the Sunbeam bulbs, 4 out of five burned out with
in
>> a few months.
>>
>> There was a news story a while bacK about a lady in NY that dropped one
on
>> a hard wood floor in her child's room. She called Home Depot to ask how
>> to clean up the liquid from the bulb, they informed her that she had to
call
>> the EPA. The EPA told her she had to contact one of the companies on
there
>> HazMat list, because the bulbs have mercury in them. The clean up cost
$2500.00.
>> So my question is why did our government let these bulbs come on the
market
>> if they are such a health risk? Just think of what these bulbs will cost
>> all of us in bad health and expense when they end up in land fills and
contaminate
>> ground water.
>>
>> Just think, everybody is buying them.
>>
>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>> We've had good luck with CF bulbs, overall. We had a couple of early
>>> failures (within 2 years), and a couple that have lasted longer than
>>> their rated life and just won't die. The rest are still cruising along
>>> so we'll see how long they last. I think some brands are better than
others.
>>>
>>> Even the duds have lasted longer than an incandescent heat bulb (I
>>> hesitate to call incandescents "light bulbs" since they put out more
far
>>
>>> more heat than light).
>>>
>>> Energy Star lists CFs as being about 75% more efficient and lasting 10
>>> times longer than incandescents.
>>>
>>> Quote: "If every home in America replaced just one incandescent light
>>> bulb with an ENERGY STAR qualified CFL, in one year it would save enough
>>
>>> energy to light more than 3 million homes and prevent greenhouse gas
>>> emissions equivalent to those of more than 800,000 cars. '
>>>
>>> They do make dimmable CFs, but I haven't tried those.
>>>
>>> I'm keeping an eye on the progress of LED lighting for home use. It's
>>> getting brighter and coming down in price (still more expensive,
>>> though), and offers the potential to do color mixing.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>> Don Nafe wrote:
>>>> Intersting note about CF bulbs
>>>>
>>>> No one has actually determined whether there is a real overall savings
>> with
>>>> these things as they cost more to make, ship, dispose of and buy. And
>> if not
>>>> used in high traffic areas that need light on for long periods, do not
>> last
>>>> as long as claimed.I know this last bit as fact as I replaced every
light
>> in
>>>> our house that wasn't on a dimmer and several of these bulbs lasted
barely
>>
>>>> six months...others on the otherhand are on their second year. Good
thing
>>
>>>> they go on sale every once in a while otherwise I'd never use them again.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:C3CE9F9F.16188%tony@standinghampton.com...
>>>>> The Mayan calendar stops on December 21st, 2012. They thought this
was
>> the
>>>>> date the world would end. It was a tongue-in-check reference, but it
>> is
>>>>> interesting that you pointed out Kyoto expires in 2012. Coincidence?
>> . . .
>>>>> I
>>>>> THINK NOT! ;>)
>>>>>
>>>>> Seriously, I think it's great that you're "smallerizing" your carbon
>> foot
>>>>> print. It's a good idea for everyone just in terms of pollution, no
matter
>>>>> what side of the debate you're on. I have switched over many of our
lights
>>>>> bulb to CF's and installed energy efficient windows, but there is much
>>
>>>>> more
>>>>> I could do. My fear is that the average person will do little or nothing
>>>>> simply because it requires too much effort. I think it's true that
>>>>> individuals can be pretty smart when they need to be, but large groups
>> are
>>>>> generally ignorant. As Ronnie James Dio so elegantly put it when singing
>>>>> with Black Sabbath, "The Mob Rules".
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll try to have a more positive outlook.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tony
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/5/08 12:35 AM, in article 47a80709@linux, "Jamie K"
>>>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tony Benson wrote:
>>>>>>> So you're saying we're all pretty much f*cked then, huh Jamie.
>>>>>> Me? No, I'm not saying that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We would have been better off not dragging our feet for so long, but
>>>>>> there's still time to make a difference, and people ARE acting on
what
>>>>>> we know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We really are
>>>>>>> our own worst enemies. The problem now is we can't do much to stop
>> it.
>>>>>> It's important to realize that's not true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doing nothing would be a very risky choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some warming has happened, some will still happen no matter what we
>> do
>>>>>> because of how long greenhouse gases already added will stay in the
>>>>>> atmosphere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But a significant amount of warming can still be prevented. There's
>> a
>>>>>> lot we can do, some of which we are already doing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Short
>>>>>>> of deciding, as a species, to go back to living "pre-industrialization"
>>
>>>>>>> life
>>>>>>> styles. Wanna place any bets on that happening? ;>)
>>>>>> I haven't seen that idea proposed in any serious mitigation plan.
:^)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seriously, I don't know if I believe everything the doomsayers are
>>>>>>> preaching.
>>>>>> Nor I. There are always exaggerations. But if you avoid some of the
>> more
>>>>>> hyperbolic special interest groups and stick closely to the science,
>> the
>>>>>> more likely range of possible outcomes is worth paying attention to
>> and
>>>>>> working to mitigate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also don't think we're doing the world any good though by the
>>>>>>> amount of carbon we pump into the air.
>>>>>> It might be good for some places where a warmer climate is at least
>> a
>>>>>> superficial improvement, but bad overall for the possible shock of
rapid
>>>>>> ecosystem change, threats to coastlines and hard to predict outcomes
>>>>>> like the possible melting of permafrost (which would release methane,
>>>>>> another greenhouse gas), changing of ocean currents and other rolls
>> of
>>>>>> the dice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hopefully, we still have enough time
>>>>>>> to figure out a clean way to produce the energy we need to maintain
>> our
>>>>>>> current and growing rate of consumption. I just don't see us all
getting
>>>>>>> around on horses, plowing our fields with oxen, and reading by
>>>>>>> candlelight
>>>>>>> anytime soon.
>>>>>> I don't know that horses are all that great of a solution, although
>> I
>>>>>> like horses. :^)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But we have a lot of options. There are a lot of efficiency improvements
>>>>>> we can make in building design, city planning and manufacturing;
>>>>>> logistical improvements to transportation; more efficient uses of
fossil
>>>>>> fuels; increased use of renewable energy; and faster adoption of more
>>>>>> efficient technologies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here are a few different perspectives:
>>>>>> http://carbonsequestration.us/Papers-presentations/htm/Pacal a-Socolow-ScienceM
>>>>>> ag-Aug2004.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.ases.org/climatechange/
>>>>>> http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/clenergy.php
>>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I highly recommend this issue of Scientific American:
>>>>>> http://www.sciam.com/sciammag/?contents=2006-09
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Especially this article:
>>>>>> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-plan-to-keep-carbon-in
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Worth a trip to the library.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe the Mayans's were right? Four years and counting is it? :>o
>>>>>> What did the Mayan's say?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tony
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/4/08 11:33 PM, in article 47a7f891@linux, "Jamie K"
>>>>>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Neil wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hey Don, it's true that one of the expected byproducts of global
>>
>>>>>>>>>> warming
>>>>>>>>>> is increased extreme weather events, including winter weather
events.
>>>>>>>>> This is like saying that one of the byproducts of global
>>>>>>>>> stupidity is that people will get more intelligent.
>>>>>>>> We can only hope! :^)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An increase in extreme weather events is predicted by climate
>>>>>>>> scientists
>>>>>>>> as a consequence of the current climate change event.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It may seem counter-intuitive until you really think about it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Warmer ocean water, more evaporation, more energy in weather systems
>> to
>>>>>>>> carry the moisture farther, this can bring more snow over the
>>>>>>>> mountains.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (And again, any single weather event can't be linked to the current
>>>>>>>> climate change by itself. But over time we can measure patterns.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Another recent study shows the possibility for earlier rain and
earlier
>>>>>>>> snow pack melting leading to quicker snow pack degradation. So even
>>>>>>>> though individual weather systems may dump a lot of moisture (hang
>> in
>>>>>>>> there, Deej!), it may not stay around as long or melt as slowly.
Which
>>>>>>>> means we may be facing possible water shortages in some areas.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://climate.weather.com/articles/watertrends020108.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "They found that up to 60 percent of changes in river flow, temperature
>>>>>>>> and snow pack between 1950 and 1999 can be attributed to human
>>>>>>>> activities, such as driving, that release emissions including carbon
>>>>>>>> dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Let's see, what else can we blame on opposite-cause events like
>>>>>>>>> this?
>>>>>>>> Don't be confused by the term "global warming." It doesn't mean
equal
>>>>>>>> heat everywhere on the globe, weather doesn't work like that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's one reason to use the "climate change" label instead. It's
>> more
>>>>>>>> accurate and less confusing to people. Another is that as the surface
>>>>>>>> warms (on average), the mesosphere cools. Both from the same mechanism,
>>>>>>>> the additional heat absorption and re-radiation from additional
>>>>>>>> greenhouse gases.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's interesting to read about this stuff.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_chemistry
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Neil
>>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK........I've had enough of this [message #95688 is a reply to message #95686] |
Wed, 06 February 2008 17:43 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Here's the story, I heard it on the radio. So Jamie, go find an anti Fox
news site that will say it is a lie. Bottom line, mercury in light bulbs
is a bad idea! LEDs look to be a much better idea???
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268747,00.html
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>If your electricity is from coal plants, CF bulbs will actually prevent
>the release of a lot more mercury into the environment than the bulb is
>using.
>
>When the bulb finally burns out, you can return it without releasing the
>mercury. Call the store where you purchased it first. If they don't take
>them or know who will, check the recycling links below.
>
>More info here, including how to clean up if you accidentally smash one
>(it doesn't cost $2500):
>
> http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_ligh t/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf
>
>Recycling info:
>http://www.epa.gov/bulbrecycling/
>http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/household.html
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>James McCloskey wrote:
>> I purchased a 5 pack of the Sunbeam bulbs, 4 out of five burned out with
in
>> a few months.
>>
>> There was a news story a while bacK about a lady in NY that dropped one
on
>> a hard wood floor in her child's room. She called Home Depot to ask how
>> to clean up the liquid from the bulb, they informed her that she had to
call
>> the EPA. The EPA told her she had to contact one of the companies on
there
>> HazMat list, because the bulbs have mercury in them. The clean up cost
$2500.00.
>> So my question is why did our government let these bulbs come on the
market
>> if they are such a health risk? Just think of what these bulbs will cost
>> all of us in bad health and expense when they end up in land fills and
contaminate
>> ground water.
>>
>> Just think, everybody is buying them.
>>
>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>> We've had good luck with CF bulbs, overall. We had a couple of early
>>> failures (within 2 years), and a couple that have lasted longer than
>>> their rated life and just won't die. The rest are still cruising along
>>> so we'll see how long they last. I think some brands are better than
others.
>>>
>>> Even the duds have lasted longer than an incandescent heat bulb (I
>>> hesitate to call incandescents "light bulbs" since they put out more
far
>>
>>> more heat than light).
>>>
>>> Energy Star lists CFs as being about 75% more efficient and lasting 10
>>> times longer than incandescents.
>>>
>>> Quote: "If every home in America replaced just one incandescent light
>>> bulb with an ENERGY STAR qualified CFL, in one year it would save enough
>>
>>> energy to light more than 3 million homes and prevent greenhouse gas
>>> emissions equivalent to those of more than 800,000 cars. '
>>>
>>> They do make dimmable CFs, but I haven't tried those.
>>>
>>> I'm keeping an eye on the progress of LED lighting for home use. It's
>>> getting brighter and coming down in price (still more expensive,
>>> though), and offers the potential to do color mixing.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>> Don Nafe wrote:
>>>> Intersting note about CF bulbs
>>>>
>>>> No one has actually determined whether there is a real overall savings
>> with
>>>> these things as they cost more to make, ship, dispose of and buy. And
>> if not
>>>> used in high traffic areas that need light on for long periods, do not
>> last
>>>> as long as claimed.I know this last bit as fact as I replaced every
light
>> in
>>>> our house that wasn't on a dimmer and several of these bulbs lasted
barely
>>
>>>> six months...others on the otherhand are on their second year. Good
thing
>>
>>>> they go on sale every once in a while otherwise I'd never use them again.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:C3CE9F9F.16188%tony@standinghampton.com...
>>>>> The Mayan calendar stops on December 21st, 2012. They thought this
was
>> the
>>>>> date the world would end. It was a tongue-in-check reference, but it
>> is
>>>>> interesting that you pointed out Kyoto expires in 2012. Coincidence?
>> . . .
>>>>> I
>>>>> THINK NOT! ;>)
>>>>>
>>>>> Seriously, I think it's great that you're "smallerizing" your carbon
>> foot
>>>>> print. It's a good idea for everyone just in terms of pollution, no
matter
>>>>> what side of the debate you're on. I have switched over many of our
lights
>>>>> bulb to CF's and installed energy efficient windows, but there is much
>>
>>>>> more
>>>>> I could do. My fear is that the average person will do little or nothing
>>>>> simply because it requires too much effort. I think it's true that
>>>>> individuals can be pretty smart when they need to be, but large groups
>> are
>>>>> generally ignorant. As Ronnie James Dio so elegantly put it when singing
>>>>> with Black Sabbath, "The Mob Rules".
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll try to have a more positive outlook.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tony
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/5/08 12:35 AM, in article 47a80709@linux, "Jamie K"
>>>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tony Benson wrote:
>>>>>>> So you're saying we're all pretty much f*cked then, huh Jamie.
>>>>>> Me? No, I'm not saying that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We would have been better off not dragging our feet for so long, but
>>>>>> there's still time to make a difference, and people ARE acting on
what
>>>>>> we know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We really are
>>>>>>> our own worst enemies. The problem now is we can't do much to stop
>> it.
>>>>>> It's important to realize that's not true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doing nothing would be a very risky choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some warming has happened, some will still happen no matter what we
>> do
>>>>>> because of how long greenhouse gases already added will stay in the
>>>>>> atmosphere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But a significant amount of warming can still be prevented. There's
>> a
>>>>>> lot we can do, some of which we are already doing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Short
>>>>>>> of deciding, as a species, to go back to living "pre-industrialization"
>>
>>>>>>> life
>>>>>>> styles. Wanna place any bets on that happening? ;>)
>>>>>> I haven't seen that idea proposed in any serious mitigation plan.
:^)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seriously, I don't know if I believe everything the doomsayers are
>>>>>>> preaching.
>>>>>> Nor I. There are always exaggerations. But if you avoid some of the
>> more
>>>>>> hyperbolic special interest groups and stick closely to the science,
>> the
>>>>>> more likely range of possible outcomes is worth paying attention to
>> and
>>>>>> working to mitigate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also don't think we're doing the world any good though by the
>>>>>>> amount of carbon we pump into the air.
>>>>>> It might be good for some places where a warmer climate is at least
>> a
>>>>>> superficial improvement, but bad overall for the possible shock of
rapid
>>>>>> ecosystem change, threats to coastlines and hard to predict outcomes
>>>>>> like the possible melting of permafrost (which would release methane,
>>>>>> another greenhouse gas), changing of ocean currents and other rolls
>> of
>>>>>> the dice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hopefully, we still have enough time
>>>>>>> to figure out a clean way to produce the energy we need to maintain
>> our
>>>>>>> current and growing rate of consumption. I just don't see us all
getting
>>>>>>> around on horses, plowing our fields with oxen, and reading by
>>>>>>> candlelight
>>>>>>> anytime soon.
>>>>>> I don't know that horses are all that great of a solution, although
>> I
>>>>>> like horses. :^)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But we have a lot of options. There are a lot of efficiency improvements
>>>>>> we can make in building design, city planning and manufacturing;
>>>>>> logistical improvements to transportation; more efficient uses of
fossil
>>>>>> fuels; increased use of renewable energy; and faster adoption of more
>>>>>> efficient technologies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here are a few different perspectives:
>>>>>> http://carbonsequestration.us/Papers-presentations/htm/Pacal a-Socolow-ScienceM
>>>>>> ag-Aug2004.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.ases.org/climatechange/
>>>>>> http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/clenergy.php
>>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I highly recommend this issue of Scientific American:
>>>>>> http://www.sciam.com/sciammag/?contents=2006-09
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Especially this article:
>>>>>> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-plan-to-keep-carbon-in
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Worth a trip to the library.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe the Mayans's were right? Four years and counting is it? :>o
>>>>>> What did the Mayan's say?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tony
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/4/08 11:33 PM, in article 47a7f891@linux, "Jamie K"
>>>>>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Neil wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hey Don, it's true that one of the expected byproducts of global
>>
>>>>>>>>>> warming
>>>>>>>>>> is increased extreme weather events, including winter weather
events.
>>>>>>>>> This is like saying that one of the byproducts of global
>>>>>>>>> stupidity is that people will get more intelligent.
>>>>>>>> We can only hope! :^)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An increase in extreme weather events is predicted by climate
>>>>>>>> scientists
>>>>>>>> as a consequence of the current climate change event.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It may seem counter-intuitive until you really think about it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Warmer ocean water, more evaporation, more energy in weather systems
>> to
>>>>>>>> carry the moisture farther, this can bring more snow over the
>>>>>>>> mountains.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (And again, any single weather event can't be linked to the current
>>>>>>>> climate change by itself. But over time we can measure patterns.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Another recent study shows the possibility for earlier rain and
earlier
>>>>>>>> snow pack melting leading to quicker snow pack degradation. So even
>>>>>>>> though individual weather systems may dump a lot of moisture (hang
>> in
>>>>>>>> there, Deej!), it may not stay around as long or melt as slowly.
Which
>>>>>>>> means we may be facing possible water shortages in some areas.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://climate.weather.com/articles/watertrends020108.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "They found that up to 60 percent of changes in river flow, temperature
>>>>>>>> and snow pack between 1950 and 1999 can be attributed to human
>>>>>>>> activities, such as driving, that release emissions including carbon
>>>>>>>> dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Let's see, what else can we blame on opposite-cause events like
>>>>>>>>> this?
>>>>>>>> Don't be confused by the term "global warming." It doesn't mean
equal
>>>>>>>> heat everywhere on the globe, weather doesn't work like that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's one reason to use the "climate change" label instead. It's
>> more
>>>>>>>> accurate and less confusing to people. Another is that as the surface
>>>>>>>> warms (on average), the mesosphere cools. Both from the same mechanism,
>>>>>>>> the additional heat absorption and re-radiation from additional
>>>>>>>> greenhouse gases.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's interesting to read about this stuff.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_chemistry
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Neil
>>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK........I've had enough of this [message #95689 is a reply to message #95688] |
Wed, 06 February 2008 16:48 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey James, I was just trying to answer your questions.
Like I said below, I'm looking into LEDs for the future, one advantage
is no mercury. Plus it might be fun to do colorful mood lighting
anywhere in the house if I feel like it. :^)
But the mercury in CF bulbs is not a problem if you dispose of them
properly, and the eficiency of the bulbs means they keep mercury
pollution out of the air from coal plants. So that's something. As with
many things in technology, it's a reasonable compromise for the moment.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
James McCloskey wrote:
> Here's the story, I heard it on the radio. So Jamie, go find an anti Fox
> news site that will say it is a lie. Bottom line, mercury in light bulbs
> is a bad idea! LEDs look to be a much better idea???
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268747,00.html
>
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> If your electricity is from coal plants, CF bulbs will actually prevent
>
>> the release of a lot more mercury into the environment than the bulb is
>
>> using.
>>
>> When the bulb finally burns out, you can return it without releasing the
>
>> mercury. Call the store where you purchased it first. If they don't take
>
>> them or know who will, check the recycling links below.
>>
>> More info here, including how to clean up if you accidentally smash one
>
>> (it doesn't cost $2500):
>>
>> http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_ligh t/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf
>>
>> Recycling info:
>> http://www.epa.gov/bulbrecycling/
>> http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/household.html
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> James McCloskey wrote:
>>> I purchased a 5 pack of the Sunbeam bulbs, 4 out of five burned out with
> in
>>> a few months.
>>>
>>> There was a news story a while bacK about a lady in NY that dropped one
> on
>>> a hard wood floor in her child's room. She called Home Depot to ask how
>>> to clean up the liquid from the bulb, they informed her that she had to
> call
>>> the EPA. The EPA told her she had to contact one of the companies on
> there
>>> HazMat list, because the bulbs have mercury in them. The clean up cost
> $2500.00.
>>> So my question is why did our government let these bulbs come on the
> market
>>> if they are such a health risk? Just think of what these bulbs will cost
>>> all of us in bad health and expense when they end up in land fills and
> contaminate
>>> ground water.
>>>
>>> Just think, everybody is buying them.
>>>
>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>> We've had good luck with CF bulbs, overall. We had a couple of early
>
>>>> failures (within 2 years), and a couple that have lasted longer than
>
>>>> their rated life and just won't die. The rest are still cruising along
>
>>>> so we'll see how long they last. I think some brands are better than
> others.
>>>> Even the duds have lasted longer than an incandescent heat bulb (I
>>>> hesitate to call incandescents "light bulbs" since they put out more
> far
>>>> more heat than light).
>>>>
>>>> Energy Star lists CFs as being about 75% more efficient and lasting 10
>
>>>> times longer than incandescents.
>>>>
>>>> Quote: "If every home in America replaced just one incandescent light
>
>>>> bulb with an ENERGY STAR qualified CFL, in one year it would save enough
>>>> energy to light more than 3 million homes and prevent greenhouse gas
>
>>>> emissions equivalent to those of more than 800,000 cars. '
>>>>
>>>> They do make dimmable CFs, but I haven't tried those.
>>>>
>>>> I'm keeping an eye on the progress of LED lighting for home use. It's
>
>>>> getting brighter and coming down in price (still more expensive,
>>>> though), and offers the potential to do color mixing.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don Nafe wrote:
>>>>> Intersting note about CF bulbs
>>>>>
>>>>> No one has actually determined whether there is a real overall savings
>>> with
>>>>> these things as they cost more to make, ship, dispose of and buy. And
>>> if not
>>>>> used in high traffic areas that need light on for long periods, do not
>>> last
>>>>> as long as claimed.I know this last bit as fact as I replaced every
> light
>>> in
>>>>> our house that wasn't on a dimmer and several of these bulbs lasted
> barely
>>>>> six months...others on the otherhand are on their second year. Good
> thing
>>>>> they go on sale every once in a while otherwise I'd never use them again.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:C3CE9F9F.16188%tony@standinghampton.com...
>>>>>> The Mayan calendar stops on December 21st, 2012. They thought this
> was
>>> the
>>>>>> date the world would end. It was a tongue-in-check reference, but it
>>> is
>>>>>> interesting that you pointed out Kyoto expires in 2012. Coincidence?
>>> . . .
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> THINK NOT! ;>)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seriously, I think it's great that you're "smallerizing" your carbon
>>> foot
>>>>>> print. It's a good idea for everyone just in terms of pollution, no
> matter
>>>>>> what side of the debate you're on. I have switched over many of our
> lights
>>>>>> bulb to CF's and installed energy efficient windows, but there is much
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> I could do. My fear is that the average person will do little or nothing
>>>>>> simply because it requires too much effort. I think it's true that
>>>>>> individuals can be pretty smart when they need to be, but large groups
>>> are
>>>>>> generally ignorant. As Ronnie James Dio so elegantly put it when singing
>>>>>> with Black Sabbath, "The Mob Rules".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll try to have a more positive outlook.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tony
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/5/08 12:35 AM, in article 47a80709@linux, "Jamie K"
>>>>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tony Benson wrote:
>>>>>>>> So you're saying we're all pretty much f*cked then, huh Jamie.
>>>>>>> Me? No, I'm not saying that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We would have been better off not dragging our feet for so long, but
>>>>>>> there's still time to make a difference, and people ARE acting on
> what
>>>>>>> we know.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We really are
>>>>>>>> our own worst enemies. The problem now is we can't do much to stop
>>> it.
>>>>>>> It's important to realize that's not true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Doing nothing would be a very risky choice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some warming has happened, some will still happen no matter what we
>>> do
>>>>>>> because of how long greenhouse gases already added will stay in the
>>>>>>> atmosphere.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But a significant amount of warming can still be prevented. There's
>>> a
>>>>>>> lot we can do, some of which we are already doing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Short
>>>>>>>> of deciding, as a species, to go back to living "pre-industrialization"
>>>>>>>> life
>>>>>>>> styles. Wanna place any bets on that happening? ;>)
>>>>>>> I haven't seen that idea proposed in any serious mitigation plan.
> :^)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Seriously, I don't know if I believe everything the doomsayers are
>>>>>>>> preaching.
>>>>>>> Nor I. There are always exaggerations. But if you avoid some of the
>>> more
>>>>>>> hyperbolic special interest groups and stick closely to the science,
>>> the
>>>>>>> more likely range of possible outcomes is worth paying attention to
>>> and
>>>>>>> working to mitigate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I also don't think we're doing the world any good though by the
>>>>>>>> amount of carbon we pump into the air.
>>>>>>> It might be good for some places where a warmer climate is at least
>>> a
>>>>>>> superficial improvement, but bad overall for the possible shock of
> rapid
>>>>>>> ecosystem change, threats to coastlines and hard to predict outcomes
>>>>>>> like the possible melting of permafrost (which would release methane,
>>>>>>> another greenhouse gas), changing of ocean currents and other rolls
>>> of
>>>>>>> the dice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hopefully, we still have enough time
>>>>>>>> to figure out a clean way to produce the energy we need to maintain
>>> our
>>>>>>>> current and growing rate of consumption. I just don't see us all
> getting
>>>>>>>> around on horses, plowing our fields with oxen, and reading by
>>>>>>>> candlelight
>>>>>>>> anytime soon.
>>>>>>> I don't know that horses are all that great of a solution, although
>>> I
>>>>>>> like horses. :^)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But we have a lot of options. There are a lot of efficiency improvements
>>>>>>> we can make in building design, city planning and manufacturing;
>>>>>>> logistical improvements to transportation; more efficient uses of
> fossil
>>>>>>> fuels; increased use of renewable energy; and faster adoption of more
>>>>>>> efficient technologies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here are a few different perspectives:
>>>>>>> http://carbonsequestration.us/Papers-presentations/htm/Pacal a-Socolow-ScienceM
>>>>>>> ag-Aug2004.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.ases.org/climatechange/
>>>>>>> http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/clenergy.php
>>>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I highly recommend this issue of Scientific American:
>>>>>>> http://www.sciam.com/sciammag/?contents=2006-09
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Especially this article:
>>>>>>> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-plan-to-keep-carbon-in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Worth a trip to the library.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe the Mayans's were right? Four years and counting is it? :>o
>>>>>>> What did the Mayan's say?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tony
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/4/08 11:33 PM, in article 47a7f891@linux, "Jamie K"
>>>>>>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Neil wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Don, it's true that one of the expected byproducts of global
>>>>>>>>>>> warming
>>>>>>>>>>> is increased extreme weather events, including winter weather
> events.
>>>>>>>>>> This is like saying that one of the byproducts of global
>>>>>>>>>> stupidity is that people will get more intelligent.
>>>>>>>>> We can only hope! :^)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An increase in extreme weather events is predicted by climate
>>>>>>>>> scientists
>>>>>>>>> as a consequence of the current climate change event.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It may seem counter-intuitive until you really think about it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Warmer ocean water, more evaporation, more energy in weather systems
>>> to
>>>>>>>>> carry the moisture farther, this can bring more snow over the
>>>>>>>>> mountains.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (And again, any single weather event can't be linked to the current
>>>>>>>>> climate change by itself. But over time we can measure patterns.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Another recent study shows the possibility for earlier rain and
> earlier
>>>>>>>>> snow pack melting leading to quicker snow pack degradation. So even
>>>>>>>>> though individual weather systems may dump a lot of moisture (hang
>>> in
>>>>>>>>> there, Deej!), it may not stay around as long or melt as slowly.
> Which
>>>>>>>>> means we may be facing possible water shortages in some areas.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://climate.weather.com/articles/watertrends020108.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "They found that up to 60 percent of changes in river flow, temperature
>>>>>>>>> and snow pack between 1950 and 1999 can be attributed to human
>>>>>>>>> activities, such as driving, that release emissions including carbon
>>>>>>>>> dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Let's see, what else can we blame on opposite-cause events like
>>>>>>>>>> this?
>>>>>>>>> Don't be confused by the term "global warming." It doesn't mean
> equal
>>>>>>>>> heat everywhere on the globe, weather doesn't work like that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's one reason to use the "climate change" label instead. It's
>>> more
>>>>>>>>> accurate and less confusing to people. Another is that as the surface
>>>>>>>>> warms (on average), the mesosphere cools. Both from the same mechanism,
>>>>>>>>> the additional heat absorption and re-radiation from additional
>>>>>>>>> greenhouse gases.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's interesting to read about this stuff.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere
>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_chemistry
>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Neil
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK........I've had enough of this [message #95731 is a reply to message #95660] |
Thu, 07 February 2008 16:11 |
Aaron Allen
Messages: 1988
Registered: May 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I've had much better luck with them. When I bougth this house over 2 years
ago I replaced almost every bulb in the place (no dimmers) with CF's and
I've yet to lose one of them. Some are in night time lighting that runs 8-12
hours a day, every day.
I guess YMMV?
AA
"Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:47a9a6b2@linux...
> Intersting note about CF bulbs
>
> No one has actually determined whether there is a real overall savings
> with these things as they cost more to make, ship, dispose of and buy. And
> if not used in high traffic areas that need light on for long periods, do
> not last as long as claimed.I know this last bit as fact as I replaced
> every light in our house that wasn't on a dimmer and several of these
> bulbs lasted barely six months...others on the otherhand are on their
> second year. Good thing they go on sale every once in a while otherwise
> I'd never use them again.
>
>
> "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message
> news:C3CE9F9F.16188%tony@standinghampton.com...
>> The Mayan calendar stops on December 21st, 2012. They thought this was
>> the
>> date the world would end. It was a tongue-in-check reference, but it is
>> interesting that you pointed out Kyoto expires in 2012. Coincidence? . .
>> . I
>> THINK NOT! ;>)
>>
>> Seriously, I think it's great that you're "smallerizing" your carbon foot
>> print. It's a good idea for everyone just in terms of pollution, no
>> matter
>> what side of the debate you're on. I have switched over many of our
>> lights
>> bulb to CF's and installed energy efficient windows, but there is much
>> more
>> I could do. My fear is that the average person will do little or nothing
>> simply because it requires too much effort. I think it's true that
>> individuals can be pretty smart when they need to be, but large groups
>> are
>> generally ignorant. As Ronnie James Dio so elegantly put it when singing
>> with Black Sabbath, "The Mob Rules".
>>
>> I'll try to have a more positive outlook.
>>
>> Tony
>>
>>
>> On 2/5/08 12:35 AM, in article 47a80709@linux, "Jamie K"
>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Tony Benson wrote:
>>>> So you're saying we're all pretty much f*cked then, huh Jamie.
>>>
>>> Me? No, I'm not saying that.
>>>
>>> We would have been better off not dragging our feet for so long, but
>>> there's still time to make a difference, and people ARE acting on what
>>> we know.
>>>
>>>
>>>> We really are
>>>> our own worst enemies. The problem now is we can't do much to stop it.
>>>
>>> It's important to realize that's not true.
>>>
>>> Doing nothing would be a very risky choice.
>>>
>>> Some warming has happened, some will still happen no matter what we do
>>> because of how long greenhouse gases already added will stay in the
>>> atmosphere.
>>>
>>> But a significant amount of warming can still be prevented. There's a
>>> lot we can do, some of which we are already doing.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Short
>>>> of deciding, as a species, to go back to living "pre-industrialization"
>>>> life
>>>> styles. Wanna place any bets on that happening? ;>)
>>>
>>> I haven't seen that idea proposed in any serious mitigation plan. :^)
>>>
>>>
>>>> Seriously, I don't know if I believe everything the doomsayers are
>>>> preaching.
>>>
>>> Nor I. There are always exaggerations. But if you avoid some of the more
>>> hyperbolic special interest groups and stick closely to the science, the
>>> more likely range of possible outcomes is worth paying attention to and
>>> working to mitigate.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I also don't think we're doing the world any good though by the
>>>> amount of carbon we pump into the air.
>>>
>>> It might be good for some places where a warmer climate is at least a
>>> superficial improvement, but bad overall for the possible shock of rapid
>>> ecosystem change, threats to coastlines and hard to predict outcomes
>>> like the possible melting of permafrost (which would release methane,
>>> another greenhouse gas), changing of ocean currents and other rolls of
>>> the dice.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hopefully, we still have enough time
>>>> to figure out a clean way to produce the energy we need to maintain our
>>>> current and growing rate of consumption. I just don't see us all
>>>> getting
>>>> around on horses, plowing our fields with oxen, and reading by
>>>> candlelight
>>>> anytime soon.
>>>
>>> I don't know that horses are all that great of a solution, although I
>>> like horses. :^)
>>>
>>> But we have a lot of options. There are a lot of efficiency improvements
>>> we can make in building design, city planning and manufacturing;
>>> logistical improvements to transportation; more efficient uses of fossil
>>> fuels; increased use of renewable energy; and faster adoption of more
>>> efficient technologies.
>>>
>>> Here are a few different perspectives:
>>> http://carbonsequestration.us/Papers-presentations/htm/Pacal a-Socolow-ScienceM
>>> ag-Aug2004.pdf
>>>
>>> http://www.ases.org/climatechange/
>>> http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/clenergy.php
>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/
>>>
>>> I highly recommend this issue of Scientific American:
>>> http://www.sciam.com/sciammag/?contents=2006-09
>>>
>>> Especially this article:
>>> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-plan-to-keep-carbon-in
>>>
>>> Worth a trip to the library.
>>>
>>>> Maybe the Mayans's were right? Four years and counting is it? :>o
>>>
>>> What did the Mayan's say?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Tony
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/4/08 11:33 PM, in article 47a7f891@linux, "Jamie K"
>>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Neil wrote:
>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hey Don, it's true that one of the expected byproducts of global
>>>>>>> warming
>>>>>>> is increased extreme weather events, including winter weather
>>>>>>> events.
>>>>>> This is like saying that one of the byproducts of global
>>>>>> stupidity is that people will get more intelligent.
>>>>> We can only hope! :^)
>>>>>
>>>>> An increase in extreme weather events is predicted by climate
>>>>> scientists
>>>>> as a consequence of the current climate change event.
>>>>>
>>>>> It may seem counter-intuitive until you really think about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Warmer ocean water, more evaporation, more energy in weather systems
>>>>> to
>>>>> carry the moisture farther, this can bring more snow over the
>>>>> mountains.
>>>>>
>>>>> (And again, any single weather event can't be linked to the current
>>>>> climate change by itself. But over time we can measure patterns.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Another recent study shows the possibility for earlier rain and
>>>>> earlier
>>>>> snow pack melting leading to quicker snow pack degradation. So even
>>>>> though individual weather systems may dump a lot of moisture (hang in
>>>>> there, Deej!), it may not stay around as long or melt as slowly. Which
>>>>> means we may be facing possible water shortages in some areas.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://climate.weather.com/articles/watertrends020108.html
>>>>>
>>>>> "They found that up to 60 percent of changes in river flow,
>>>>> temperature
>>>>> and snow pack between 1950 and 1999 can be attributed to human
>>>>> activities, such as driving, that release emissions including carbon
>>>>> dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's see, what else can we blame on opposite-cause events like
>>>>>> this?
>>>>> Don't be confused by the term "global warming." It doesn't mean equal
>>>>> heat everywhere on the globe, weather doesn't work like that.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's one reason to use the "climate change" label instead. It's more
>>>>> accurate and less confusing to people. Another is that as the surface
>>>>> warms (on average), the mesosphere cools. Both from the same
>>>>> mechanism,
>>>>> the additional heat absorption and re-radiation from additional
>>>>> greenhouse gases.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's interesting to read about this stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_chemistry
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Neil
>>>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK........I've had enough of this [message #95732 is a reply to message #95686] |
Thu, 07 February 2008 16:14 |
Aaron Allen
Messages: 1988
Registered: May 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Great info, this I was not aware of
AA
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:47aa4df3@linux...
>
> If your electricity is from coal plants, CF bulbs will actually prevent
> the release of a lot more mercury into the environment than the bulb is
> using.
>
> When the bulb finally burns out, you can return it without releasing the
> mercury. Call the store where you purchased it first. If they don't take
> them or know who will, check the recycling links below.
>
> More info here, including how to clean up if you accidentally smash one
> (it doesn't cost $2500):
>
> http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_ligh t/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf
>
> Recycling info:
> http://www.epa.gov/bulbrecycling/
> http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/household.html
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
> James McCloskey wrote:
>> I purchased a 5 pack of the Sunbeam bulbs, 4 out of five burned out with
>> in
>> a few months. There was a news story a while bacK about a lady in NY
>> that dropped one on
>> a hard wood floor in her child's room. She called Home Depot to ask how
>> to clean up the liquid from the bulb, they informed her that she had to
>> call
>> the EPA. The EPA told her she had to contact one of the companies on
>> there
>> HazMat list, because the bulbs have mercury in them. The clean up cost
>> $2500.00.
>> So my question is why did our government let these bulbs come on the
>> market
>> if they are such a health risk? Just think of what these bulbs will cost
>> all of us in bad health and expense when they end up in land fills and
>> contaminate
>> ground water. Just think, everybody is buying them.
>>
>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>> We've had good luck with CF bulbs, overall. We had a couple of early
>>> failures (within 2 years), and a couple that have lasted longer than
>>> their rated life and just won't die. The rest are still cruising along
>>> so we'll see how long they last. I think some brands are better than
>>> others.
>>>
>>> Even the duds have lasted longer than an incandescent heat bulb (I
>>> hesitate to call incandescents "light bulbs" since they put out more far
>>
>>> more heat than light).
>>>
>>> Energy Star lists CFs as being about 75% more efficient and lasting 10
>>> times longer than incandescents.
>>>
>>> Quote: "If every home in America replaced just one incandescent light
>>> bulb with an ENERGY STAR qualified CFL, in one year it would save enough
>>
>>> energy to light more than 3 million homes and prevent greenhouse gas
>>> emissions equivalent to those of more than 800,000 cars. '
>>>
>>> They do make dimmable CFs, but I haven't tried those.
>>>
>>> I'm keeping an eye on the progress of LED lighting for home use. It's
>>> getting brighter and coming down in price (still more expensive,
>>> though), and offers the potential to do color mixing.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>> Don Nafe wrote:
>>>> Intersting note about CF bulbs
>>>>
>>>> No one has actually determined whether there is a real overall savings
>> with
>>>> these things as they cost more to make, ship, dispose of and buy. And
>> if not
>>>> used in high traffic areas that need light on for long periods, do not
>> last
>>>> as long as claimed.I know this last bit as fact as I replaced every
>>>> light
>> in
>>>> our house that wasn't on a dimmer and several of these bulbs lasted
>>>> barely
>>
>>>> six months...others on the otherhand are on their second year. Good
>>>> thing
>>
>>>> they go on sale every once in a while otherwise I'd never use them
>>>> again.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:C3CE9F9F.16188%tony@standinghampton.com...
>>>>> The Mayan calendar stops on December 21st, 2012. They thought this was
>> the
>>>>> date the world would end. It was a tongue-in-check reference, but it
>> is
>>>>> interesting that you pointed out Kyoto expires in 2012. Coincidence?
>> . . .
>>>>> I
>>>>> THINK NOT! ;>)
>>>>>
>>>>> Seriously, I think it's great that you're "smallerizing" your carbon
>> foot
>>>>> print. It's a good idea for everyone just in terms of pollution, no
>>>>> matter
>>>>> what side of the debate you're on. I have switched over many of our
>>>>> lights
>>>>> bulb to CF's and installed energy efficient windows, but there is much
>>
>>>>> more
>>>>> I could do. My fear is that the average person will do little or
>>>>> nothing
>>>>> simply because it requires too much effort. I think it's true that
>>>>> individuals can be pretty smart when they need to be, but large groups
>> are
>>>>> generally ignorant. As Ronnie James Dio so elegantly put it when
>>>>> singing
>>>>> with Black Sabbath, "The Mob Rules".
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll try to have a more positive outlook.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tony
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/5/08 12:35 AM, in article 47a80709@linux, "Jamie K"
>>>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tony Benson wrote:
>>>>>>> So you're saying we're all pretty much f*cked then, huh Jamie.
>>>>>> Me? No, I'm not saying that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We would have been better off not dragging our feet for so long, but
>>>>>> there's still time to make a difference, and people ARE acting on
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> we know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We really are
>>>>>>> our own worst enemies. The problem now is we can't do much to stop
>> it.
>>>>>> It's important to realize that's not true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doing nothing would be a very risky choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some warming has happened, some will still happen no matter what we
>> do
>>>>>> because of how long greenhouse gases already added will stay in the
>>>>>> atmosphere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But a significant amount of warming can still be prevented. There's
>> a
>>>>>> lot we can do, some of which we are already doing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Short
>>>>>>> of deciding, as a species, to go back to living
>>>>>>> "pre-industrialization"
>>
>>>>>>> life
>>>>>>> styles. Wanna place any bets on that happening? ;>)
>>>>>> I haven't seen that idea proposed in any serious mitigation plan. :^)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seriously, I don't know if I believe everything the doomsayers are
>>>>>>> preaching.
>>>>>> Nor I. There are always exaggerations. But if you avoid some of the
>> more
>>>>>> hyperbolic special interest groups and stick closely to the science,
>> the
>>>>>> more likely range of possible outcomes is worth paying attention to
>> and
>>>>>> working to mitigate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also don't think we're doing the world any good though by the
>>>>>>> amount of carbon we pump into the air.
>>>>>> It might be good for some places where a warmer climate is at least
>> a
>>>>>> superficial improvement, but bad overall for the possible shock of
>>>>>> rapid
>>>>>> ecosystem change, threats to coastlines and hard to predict outcomes
>>>>>> like the possible melting of permafrost (which would release methane,
>>>>>> another greenhouse gas), changing of ocean currents and other rolls
>> of
>>>>>> the dice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hopefully, we still have enough time
>>>>>>> to figure out a clean way to produce the energy we need to maintain
>> our
>>>>>>> current and growing rate of consumption. I just don't see us all
>>>>>>> getting
>>>>>>> around on horses, plowing our fields with oxen, and reading by
>>>>>>> candlelight
>>>>>>> anytime soon.
>>>>>> I don't know that horses are all that great of a solution, although
>> I
>>>>>> like horses. :^)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But we have a lot of options. There are a lot of efficiency
>>>>>> improvements
>>>>>> we can make in building design, city planning and manufacturing;
>>>>>> logistical improvements to transportation; more efficient uses of
>>>>>> fossil
>>>>>> fuels; increased use of renewable energy; and faster adoption of more
>>>>>> efficient technologies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here are a few different perspectives:
>>>>>> http://carbonsequestration.us/Papers-presentations/htm/Pacal a-Socolow-ScienceM
>>>>>> ag-Aug2004.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.ases.org/climatechange/
>>>>>> http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/clenergy.php
>>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I highly recommend this issue of Scientific American:
>>>>>> http://www.sciam.com/sciammag/?contents=2006-09
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Especially this article:
>>>>>> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-plan-to-keep-carbon-in
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Worth a trip to the library.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe the Mayans's were right? Four years and counting is it? :>o
>>>>>> What did the Mayan's say?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tony
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/4/08 11:33 PM, in article 47a7f891@linux, "Jamie K"
>>>>>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Neil wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hey Don, it's true that one of the expected byproducts of global
>>
>>>>>>>>>> warming
>>>>>>>>>> is increased extreme weather events, including winter weather
>>>>>>>>>> events.
>>>>>>>>> This is like saying that one of the byproducts of global
>>>>>>>>> stupidity is that people will get more intelligent.
>>>>>>>> We can only hope! :^)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An increase in extreme weather events is predicted by climate
>>>>>>>> scientists
>>>>>>>> as a consequence of the current climate change event.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It may seem counter-intuitive until you really think about it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Warmer ocean water, more evaporation, more energy in weather
>>>>>>>> systems
>> to
>>>>>>>> carry the moisture farther, this can bring more snow over the
>>>>>>>> mountains.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (And again, any single weather event can't be linked to the current
>>>>>>>> climate change by itself. But over time we can measure patterns.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Another recent study shows the possibility for earlier rain and
>>>>>>>> earlier
>>>>>>>> snow pack melting leading to quicker snow pack degradation. So even
>>>>>>>> though individual weather systems may dump a lot of moisture (hang
>> in
>>>>>>>> there, Deej!), it may not stay around as long or melt as slowly.
>>>>>>>> Which
>>>>>>>> means we may be facing possible water shortages in some areas.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://climate.weather.com/articles/watertrends020108.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "They found that up to 60 percent of changes in river flow,
>>>>>>>> temperature
>>>>>>>> and snow pack between 1950 and 1999 can be attributed to human
>>>>>>>> activities, such as driving, that release emissions including
>>>>>>>> carbon
>>>>>>>> dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Let's see, what else can we blame on opposite-cause events like
>>>>>>>>> this?
>>>>>>>> Don't be confused by the term "global warming." It doesn't mean
>>>>>>>> equal
>>>>>>>> heat everywhere on the globe, weather doesn't work like that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's one reason to use the "climate change" label instead. It's
>> more
>>>>>>>> accurate and less confusing to people. Another is that as the
>>>>>>>> surface
>>>>>>>> warms (on average), the mesosphere cools. Both from the same
>>>>>>>> mechanism,
>>>>>>>> the additional heat absorption and re-radiation from additional
>>>>>>>> greenhouse gases.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's interesting to read about this stuff.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_chemistry
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Neil
>>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK........I've had enough of this [message #95742 is a reply to message #95732] |
Thu, 07 February 2008 19:06 |
AlexPlasko
Messages: 211
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
being an electrical contractor and dealing with thousands of fluorescent
lamps I can tell you that recycling for mercury is a disaster.
It cost under $1.00 for a T-12 or T-8 lamp and $1.75 to recycle
it(each!).Try getting that from your customers.
I'm all for saving the planet and being able to eat more fish without heavy
metals but it isn't working.
Don't know about your states ,but enforcement is lacking here ,and I
wouldn't be surprised if the lamps being returned are ending up in dumpsters
anyway.
sad but true
"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
news:47aba22d@linux...
> Great info, this I was not aware of
>
> AA
>
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:47aa4df3@linux...
>>
>> If your electricity is from coal plants, CF bulbs will actually prevent
>> the release of a lot more mercury into the environment than the bulb is
>> using.
>>
>> When the bulb finally burns out, you can return it without releasing the
>> mercury. Call the store where you purchased it first. If they don't take
>> them or know who will, check the recycling links below.
>>
>> More info here, including how to clean up if you accidentally smash one
>> (it doesn't cost $2500):
>>
>> http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_ligh t/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf
>>
>> Recycling info:
>> http://www.epa.gov/bulbrecycling/
>> http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/household.html
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> James McCloskey wrote:
>>> I purchased a 5 pack of the Sunbeam bulbs, 4 out of five burned out with
>>> in
>>> a few months. There was a news story a while bacK about a lady in NY
>>> that dropped one on
>>> a hard wood floor in her child's room. She called Home Depot to ask how
>>> to clean up the liquid from the bulb, they informed her that she had to
>>> call
>>> the EPA. The EPA told her she had to contact one of the companies on
>>> there
>>> HazMat list, because the bulbs have mercury in them. The clean up cost
>>> $2500.00.
>>> So my question is why did our government let these bulbs come on the
>>> market
>>> if they are such a health risk? Just think of what these bulbs will
>>> cost
>>> all of us in bad health and expense when they end up in land fills and
>>> contaminate
>>> ground water. Just think, everybody is buying them.
>>>
>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>> We've had good luck with CF bulbs, overall. We had a couple of early
>>>> failures (within 2 years), and a couple that have lasted longer than
>>>> their rated life and just won't die. The rest are still cruising along
>>>> so we'll see how long they last. I think some brands are better than
>>>> others.
>>>>
>>>> Even the duds have lasted longer than an incandescent heat bulb (I
>>>> hesitate to call incandescents "light bulbs" since they put out more
>>>> far
>>>
>>>> more heat than light).
>>>>
>>>> Energy Star lists CFs as being about 75% more efficient and lasting 10
>>>> times longer than incandescents.
>>>>
>>>> Quote: "If every home in America replaced just one incandescent light
>>>> bulb with an ENERGY STAR qualified CFL, in one year it would save
>>>> enough
>>>
>>>> energy to light more than 3 million homes and prevent greenhouse gas
>>>> emissions equivalent to those of more than 800,000 cars. '
>>>>
>>>> They do make dimmable CFs, but I haven't tried those.
>>>>
>>>> I'm keeping an eye on the progress of LED lighting for home use. It's
>>>> getting brighter and coming down in price (still more expensive,
>>>> though), and offers the potential to do color mixing.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don Nafe wrote:
>>>>> Intersting note about CF bulbs
>>>>>
>>>>> No one has actually determined whether there is a real overall savings
>>> with
>>>>> these things as they cost more to make, ship, dispose of and buy. And
>>> if not
>>>>> used in high traffic areas that need light on for long periods, do not
>>> last
>>>>> as long as claimed.I know this last bit as fact as I replaced every
>>>>> light
>>> in
>>>>> our house that wasn't on a dimmer and several of these bulbs lasted
>>>>> barely
>>>
>>>>> six months...others on the otherhand are on their second year. Good
>>>>> thing
>>>
>>>>> they go on sale every once in a while otherwise I'd never use them
>>>>> again.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:C3CE9F9F.16188%tony@standinghampton.com...
>>>>>> The Mayan calendar stops on December 21st, 2012. They thought this
>>>>>> was
>>> the
>>>>>> date the world would end. It was a tongue-in-check reference, but it
>>> is
>>>>>> interesting that you pointed out Kyoto expires in 2012. Coincidence?
>>> . . .
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> THINK NOT! ;>)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seriously, I think it's great that you're "smallerizing" your carbon
>>> foot
>>>>>> print. It's a good idea for everyone just in terms of pollution, no
>>>>>> matter
>>>>>> what side of the debate you're on. I have switched over many of our
>>>>>> lights
>>>>>> bulb to CF's and installed energy efficient windows, but there is
>>>>>> much
>>>
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> I could do. My fear is that the average person will do little or
>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>> simply because it requires too much effort. I think it's true that
>>>>>> individuals can be pretty smart when they need to be, but large
>>>>>> groups
>>> are
>>>>>> generally ignorant. As Ronnie James Dio so elegantly put it when
>>>>>> singing
>>>>>> with Black Sabbath, "The Mob Rules".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll try to have a more positive outlook.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tony
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/5/08 12:35 AM, in article 47a80709@linux, "Jamie K"
>>>>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tony Benson wrote:
>>>>>>>> So you're saying we're all pretty much f*cked then, huh Jamie.
>>>>>>> Me? No, I'm not saying that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We would have been better off not dragging our feet for so long, but
>>>>>>> there's still time to make a difference, and people ARE acting on
>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>> we know.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We really are
>>>>>>>> our own worst enemies. The problem now is we can't do much to stop
>>> it.
>>>>>>> It's important to realize that's not true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Doing nothing would be a very risky choice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some warming has happened, some will still happen no matter what we
>>> do
>>>>>>> because of how long greenhouse gases already added will stay in the
>>>>>>> atmosphere.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But a significant amount of warming can still be prevented. There's
>>> a
>>>>>>> lot we can do, some of which we are already doing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Short
>>>>>>>> of deciding, as a species, to go back to living
>>>>>>>> "pre-industrialization"
>>>
>>>>>>>> life
>>>>>>>> styles. Wanna place any bets on that happening? ;>)
>>>>>>> I haven't seen that idea proposed in any serious mitigation plan.
>>>>>>> :^)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Seriously, I don't know if I believe everything the doomsayers are
>>>>>>>> preaching.
>>>>>>> Nor I. There are always exaggerations. But if you avoid some of the
>>> more
>>>>>>> hyperbolic special interest groups and stick closely to the science,
>>> the
>>>>>>> more likely range of possible outcomes is worth paying attention to
>>> and
>>>>>>> working to mitigate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I also don't think we're doing the world any good though by the
>>>>>>>> amount of carbon we pump into the air.
>>>>>>> It might be good for some places where a warmer climate is at least
>>> a
>>>>>>> superficial improvement, but bad overall for the possible shock of
>>>>>>> rapid
>>>>>>> ecosystem change, threats to coastlines and hard to predict outcomes
>>>>>>> like the possible melting of permafrost (which would release
>>>>>>> methane,
>>>>>>> another greenhouse gas), changing of ocean currents and other rolls
>>> of
>>>>>>> the dice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hopefully, we still have enough time
>>>>>>>> to figure out a clean way to produce the energy we need to maintain
>>> our
>>>>>>>> current and growing rate of consumption. I just don't see us all
>>>>>>>> getting
>>>>>>>> around on horses, plowing our fields with oxen, and reading by
>>>>>>>> candlelight
>>>>>>>> anytime soon.
>>>>>>> I don't know that horses are all that great of a solution, although
>>> I
>>>>>>> like horses. :^)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But we have a lot of options. There are a lot of efficiency
>>>>>>> improvements
>>>>>>> we can make in building design, city planning and manufacturing;
>>>>>>> logistical improvements to transportation; more efficient uses of
>>>>>>> fossil
>>>>>>> fuels; increased use of renewable energy; and faster adoption of
>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>> efficient technologies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here are a few different perspectives:
>>>>>>> http://carbonsequestration.us/Papers-presentations/htm/Pacal a-Socolow-ScienceM
>>>>>>> ag-Aug2004.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.ases.org/climatechange/
>>>>>>> http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/clenergy.php
>>>>>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I highly recommend this issue of Scientific American:
>>>>>>> http://www.sciam.com/sciammag/?contents=2006-09
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Especially this article:
>>>>>>> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-plan-to-keep-carbon-in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Worth a trip to the library.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe the Mayans's were right? Four years and counting is it? :>o
>>>>>>> What did the Mayan's say?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tony
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/4/08 11:33 PM, in article 47a7f891@linux, "Jamie K"
>>>>>>>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Neil wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Don, it's true that one of the expected byproducts of global
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> warming
>>>>>>>>>>> is increased extreme weather events, including winter weather
>>>>>>>>>>> events.
>>>>>>>>>> This is like saying that one of the byproducts of global
>>>>>>>>>> stupidity is that people will get more intelligent.
>>>>>>>>> We can only hope! :^)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An increase in extreme weather events is predicted by climate
>>>>>>>>> scientists
>>>>>>>>> as a consequence of the current climate change event.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It may seem counter-intuitive until you really think about it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Warmer ocean water, more evaporation, more energy in weather
>>>>>>>>> systems
>>> to
>>>>>>>>> carry the moisture farther, this can bring more snow over the
>>>>>>>>> mountains.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (And again, any single weather event can't be linked to the
>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>> climate change by itself. But over time we can measure patterns.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Another recent study shows the possibility for earlier rain and
>>>>>>>>> earlier
>>>>>>>>> snow pack melting leading to quicker snow pack degradation. So
>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>> though individual weather systems may dump a lot of moisture (hang
>>> in
>>>>>>>>> there, Deej!), it may not stay around as long or melt as slowly.
>>>>>>>>> Which
>>>>>>>>> means we may be facing possible water shortages in some areas.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://climate.weather.com/articles/watertrends020108.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "They found that up to 60 percent of changes in river flow,
>>>>>>>>> temperature
>>>>>>>>> and snow pack between 1950 and 1999 can be attributed to human
>>>>>>>>> activities, such as driving, that release emissions including
>>>>>>>>> carbon
>>>>>>>>> dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Let's see, what else can we blame on opposite-cause events like
>>>>>>>>>> this?
>>>>>>>>> Don't be confused by the term "global warming." It doesn't mean
>>>>>>>>> equal
>>>>>>>>> heat everywhere on the globe, weather doesn't work like that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's one reason to use the "climate change" label instead. It's
>>> more
>>>>>>>>> accurate and less confusing to people. Another is that as the
>>>>>>>>> surface
>>>>>>>>> warms (on average), the mesosphere cools. Both from the same
>>>>>>>>> mechanism,
>>>>>>>>> the additional heat absorption and re-radiation from additional
>>>>>>>>> greenhouse gases.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's interesting to read about this stuff.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere
>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_chemistry
>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Neil
>>>>>
>>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: How I spent my day part 1 [message #95793 is a reply to message #95581] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 11:09 |
Rich Lamanna
Messages: 316
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jamie are you a scientist? From what theories or rather maybe fantasies do
you concoct your "scientific", and I use the term loosely, rantings. It is
the height of narcissistic paranoia and ignorance to claim global warming is
irrefutably anthropogenic. There is no consensus among all scientists, that
is a fact. There is only a consensus among those who would like to shove
their ideology and mantra and polemic down the throats of those who
disagree. There is only a consensus that there is no consensus.
Michael Crichton said it best:
"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of
scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is
already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on
something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with
consensus.
"Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires
only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she
has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science
consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The
greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with
the consensus."
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/
In an article published in the Wall Street Journal Prof. Lindzen, Alfred P.
Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, discusses the controversy
around global warming. He was involved with the IPCC Report, by the way he
was a contributor to Chapter 4 of the "IPCC Second Assessment"
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
Here's a little pattern called the Milankovich Variation, which can explain
the variations in ice ages every 100,000 and 400,000 years.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/iceage_orb it_wg.html
An interesting and complicated discussion by regarding a letter published in
the journal Nature, discloses how really biased and unscientific some
arguments are regarding climate change data. And how the publishing editors
are colossal morons in disregarding criticism of colossal scientific errors,
by rejecting such criticism outright.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=782
Here's some more cherry picked info for ya Jamie. Oh, excuse me it was
written by a conservative congressman. It must be suspect! Oh and worse yet,
he's optimistic. What a stooge.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/13/19052 2.shtml
Just keeping it real,
Rich
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:47a8c1bd$1@linux...
> Neil wrote:
> > Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
> >> LOL You're kidding, right?
> >
> > Of course not - I'm actually just tring to put things in
> > perspective... it's winter, meaning: sometimes it's snows in
> > some areas - sometimes it snows a lot. What I find amazing is
> > that if it's snows only a little, you're gonna say it's due to
> > global warming... if it snows a lot - global warming.
>
> That's not at all what I said. Maybe it's what you expected me to say?
>
> What I said in my last post to you was:
>
> "And, again, no specific weather event can be tied to the current
> climate change event. But over time we can look for patterns."
>
> Which is the opposite of what you think I said. Weird.
>
> Before that I wrote:
>
> "An increase in extreme weather events is predicted by climate
> scientists as a consequence of the current climate change event.
>
> It may seem counter-intuitive until you really think about it.
>
> Warmer ocean water, more evaporation, more energy in weather systems to
> carry the moisture farther, this can bring more snow over the mountains.
>
> (And again, any single weather event can't be linked to the current
> climate change by itself. But over time we can measure patterns.)"
>
>
> Read that last paragraph again.
>
>
> > Do I think that, knowing that emissions of various types affect
> > the atmosphere in a negative way, we should ignore it & not try
> > to do something about it? No.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
> > But I also don't think we should
> > slaughter every cow in India just because their aggregate
> > greenhouse gas output in the form of methane surpasses that
> > of the five or six largest cities on the planet combined;
>
> I haven't heard anyone suggest slaughtering every cow in India. Who is
> proposing that one?
>
> Also what is the source for your methane statistic?
>
>
> > and
> > when you tend to blame everything on global warming, from the
> > fact that it's snowing in Durango, to the problem someone's
> > having with their PC overheating when they try to run five EDS
> > cards in it, you've kinda gone way past the "cry wolf" zone in
> > terms of credibility.
>
> Right. Except you're wrong. Maybe you're not reading what I wrote
> because I haven't been saying that.
>
> Maybe you're thinking of someone else. I believe it was Don N. who
> implied that DJ's snow was a result of GW, but he was being completely
> facetious.
>
> So no, I didn't blame the snow in Durango on global warming. Nor the
> thunder snow here. We won't know that about any specific event until we
> can look back and see what the pattern is, and take into account other
> cycles and patterns like (for North America) El Nino, La Nina, etc.
>
> However, it is true that an increase in extreme weather events is one
> possible consequence of the current climate change event. It's just that
> we can't look at a specific weather event and say, yeah, that one is
> from climate change.
>
> What we can do is keep track of the data and look for longer term trends.
>
> And finally, I'm pretty sure that running 5 EDS cards in one computer is
> THE major contributor to the current climate change event. FOR GOD'S
> SAKE, NEIL, UNPLUG THAT PARIS BOX!!!
>
> LOL! ;^)
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>
> > Neil
> >
|
|
|
|
| Re: How I spent my day part 1 [message #95807 is a reply to message #95793] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 16:39 |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Rich,
To try and keep this channel clear for music topics I've responded on general:
http://news.parisnewsgroup.com/cgi-bin/dnewsweb?cmd=article& amp;group=IDEA.emuensoniqparis-general&item=3074&uta g=
Cheers,
Kim.
"Rich Lamanna" <richard.lamanna@verizon.net> wrote:
>Jamie are you a scientist? From what theories or rather maybe fantasies
do
>you concoct your "scientific", and I use the term loosely, rantings. It
is
>the height of narcissistic paranoia and ignorance to claim global warming
is
>irrefutably anthropogenic. There is no consensus among all scientists, that
>is a fact. There is only a consensus among those who would like to shove
>their ideology and mantra and polemic down the throats of those who
>disagree. There is only a consensus that there is no consensus.
>
>Michael Crichton said it best:
>
>"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of
>scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is
>already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on
>something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
>
>"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with
>consensus.
>
>"Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires
>only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she
>has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science
>consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The
>greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with
>the consensus."
>http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/
>
>In an article published in the Wall Street Journal Prof. Lindzen, Alfred
P.
>Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, discusses the controversy
>around global warming. He was involved with the IPCC Report, by the way
he
>was a contributor to Chapter 4 of the "IPCC Second Assessment"
>http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
>
>Here's a little pattern called the Milankovich Variation, which can explain
>the variations in ice ages every 100,000 and 400,000 years.
> http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/iceage_orb it_wg.html
>
>An interesting and complicated discussion by regarding a letter published
in
>the journal Nature, discloses how really biased and unscientific some
>arguments are regarding climate change data. And how the publishing editors
>are colossal morons in disregarding criticism of colossal scientific errors,
>by rejecting such criticism outright.
>http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=782
>
>Here's some more cherry picked info for ya Jamie. Oh, excuse me it was
>written by a conservative congressman. It must be suspect! Oh and worse
yet,
>he's optimistic. What a stooge.
> http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/13/19052 2.shtml
>
>Just keeping it real,
>Rich
>
>"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:47a8c1bd$1@linux...
>> Neil wrote:
>> > Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> >> LOL You're kidding, right?
>> >
>> > Of course not - I'm actually just tring to put things in
>> > perspective... it's winter, meaning: sometimes it's snows in
>> > some areas - sometimes it snows a lot. What I find amazing is
>> > that if it's snows only a little, you're gonna say it's due to
>> > global warming... if it snows a lot - global warming.
>>
>> That's not at all what I said. Maybe it's what you expected me to say?
>>
>> What I said in my last post to you was:
>>
>> "And, again, no specific weather event can be tied to the current
>> climate change event. But over time we can look for patterns."
>>
>> Which is the opposite of what you think I said. Weird.
>>
>> Before that I wrote:
>>
>> "An increase in extreme weather events is predicted by climate
>> scientists as a consequence of the current climate change event.
>>
>> It may seem counter-intuitive until you really think about it.
>>
>> Warmer ocean water, more evaporation, more energy in weather systems to
>> carry the moisture farther, this can bring more snow over the mountains.
>>
>> (And again, any single weather event can't be linked to the current
>> climate change by itself. But over time we can measure patterns.)"
>>
>>
>> Read that last paragraph again.
>>
>>
>> > Do I think that, knowing that emissions of various types affect
>> > the atmosphere in a negative way, we should ignore it & not try
>> > to do something about it? No.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>
>> > But I also don't think we should
>> > slaughter every cow in India just because their aggregate
>> > greenhouse gas output in the form of methane surpasses that
>> > of the five or six largest cities on the planet combined;
>>
>> I haven't heard anyone suggest slaughtering every cow in India. Who is
>> proposing that one?
>>
>> Also what is the source for your methane statistic?
>>
>>
>> > and
>> > when you tend to blame everything on global warming, from the
>> > fact that it's snowing in Durango, to the problem someone's
>> > having with their PC overheating when they try to run five EDS
>> > cards in it, you've kinda gone way past the "cry wolf" zone in
>> > terms of credibility.
>>
>> Right. Except you're wrong. Maybe you're not reading what I wrote
>> because I haven't been saying that.
>>
>> Maybe you're thinking of someone else. I believe it was Don N. who
>> implied that DJ's snow was a result of GW, but he was being completely
>> facetious.
>>
>> So no, I didn't blame the snow in Durango on global warming. Nor the
>> thunder snow here. We won't know that about any specific event until we
>> can look back and see what the pattern is, and take into account other
>> cycles and patterns like (for North America) El Nino, La Nina, etc.
>>
>> However, it is true that an increase in extreme weather events is one
>> possible consequence of the current climate change event. It's just that
>> we can't look at a specific weather event and say, yeah, that one is
>> from climate change.
>>
>> What we can do is keep track of the data and look for longer term trends.
>>
>> And finally, I'm pretty sure that running 5 EDS cards in one computer
is
>> THE major contributor to the current climate change event. FOR GOD'S
>> SAKE, NEIL, UNPLUG THAT PARIS BOX!!!
>>
>> LOL! ;^)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>
>> > Neil
>> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: How I spent my day part 1 [message #95808 is a reply to message #95793] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 15:47 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Rich,
Thanks for asking.
Rich Lamanna wrote:
> Jamie are you a scientist?
No, although I have some scientific education and plenty of curiosity
about many things.
How about you?
> From what theories or rather maybe fantasies do
> you concoct your "scientific", and I use the term loosely, rantings.
Heh. Rantings. Fantasies. Concoct. Nice. :^)
I now concede that you are right about everything and have now put me in
my place. ;^)
> It is
> the height of narcissistic paranoia and ignorance to claim global warming is
> irrefutably anthropogenic.
If you actually read my "rantings" you'll see that I agree with the
consensus, which is that the scientific evidence shows a strong
possibility that we are contributing to the current climate change event.
There's no narcissistic paranoia and ignorance there. Maybe you're
projecting. Or maybe you have me confused with someone else.
Ignorance would be to ignore the entire breadth of scientific evidence
(a hallmark of many denialists).
Paranoia would be, for example, to think that the only reason for policy
changes is to transfer wealth from the USA to third world countries
(seems to be one of the main fears of some denialists).
Narcissism would be to prioritize the short term profits of a few
companies over the long term benefit of everyone (possibly why certain
fossil fuel companies fund denialist FUD).
> There is no consensus among all scientists, that
> is a fact.
If your plan is to wait for ALL scientists to agree about everything,
you will wait forever.
I haven't heard anyone claim that the consensus on climate change means
that every scientist agrees. Science is always full of disagreement on
various levels. Which leads to more research, generally leading to more
certainty, but rarely 100% agreement.
Where we are now is at a point where the overall evidence shows a strong
possibility for human contribution to the current climate change event.
If you want to count up who agrees with that, you'll find that it
includes most of the scientific organizations around the world. And
even, at this point, major parts of the fossil fuels industry such as
Shell and BP.
> There is only a consensus among those who would like to shove
> their ideology and mantra and polemic down the throats of those who
> disagree. There is only a consensus that there is no consensus.
That's the main meme of the lobbying effort, to "teach the controversy."
It's a distraction from decades of research that already exists.
I've seen plenty of "polemic" style of debate from denialists. Although
I'll grant you there is some of that from some of the more strident
environmental organizations.
As far as ideology goes, none of that matters to the physical processes
being studied. What matters, in studying what's _actually happening_, is
the data.
Ideology is more appropriately considered in the solutions debate, as
part of the pesky political side of that.
> Michael Crichton said it best:
Michael Chrichton is not a scientist. Now why would you believe him
instead of me? :^)
Or better yet, why would you believe him instead of the National Science
Foundation or the long list of other mainstream scientific organizations?
Could it be your own confirmation bias that prevents you from looking at
ALL the evidence?
> "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of
> scoundrels;
Actually, the claim of "controversy" is a better candidate as the first
refuge of scoundrels.
For example the Tobacco industry used that exact same delaying tactic by
denying the demonstrated health hazards of smoking. They attacked
research, amplified contrarian views and spread money around to keep the
FUD going.
> it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is
> already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on
> something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Yes, right, absolutely. LOL!
The discovery of microbes as a source of disease, and the effort to get
doctors to wash their hands in hospitals, was a horrible attempt to
steal from the public. Not.
The ozone layer consensus and change in policy to keep from losing our
protection from UV radiation was a mere grab for your money. Not.
Also, what's with this whole gravity thing? Obviously a clever con by
those evil, evil scientists. Heh.
Chrichton is not making much sense here. He's overreaching.
And BTW scientists do not deserve such general vilification.
> "Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with
> consensus.
In fact, science is a process of posing hypotheses and testing them. And
then testing the results. Of course this creates consensus and a body of
knowledge that has survived repeated testing.
If there were no consensus on how processes work, airplanes would not fly.
> "Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires
> only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she
> has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science
> consensus is irrelevant.
He's redefining words to suit his purpose. In science, consensus is the
result of testing and evidence. And it never implies that there is zero
disagreement.
> What is relevant is reproducible results. The
> greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with
> the consensus."
> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/
What he's saying is that consensus can be wrong. This is correct but he
draws the wrong conclusion from it.
For example, it was wrong when the consensus was based on an
interpretation of Catholicism that claimed earth had to be the center of
the universe. Contrary evidence was available at the time (1616) but
those in power felt the truth threatened the Catholic church, and so it
was repressed. The Pope didn't come around until 1992!
From:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE1DA1F31F 932A35752C1A964958260
"Moving formally to rectify a wrong, Pope John Paul II acknowledged in a
speech today that the Roman Catholic Church had erred in condemning
Galileo 359 years ago for asserting that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
The address by the Pope before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences closed
a 13-year investigation into the Church's condemnation of Galileo in
1633, one of history's most notorious conflicts between faith and
science. Galileo was forced to recant his scientific findings to avoid
being burned at the stake and spent the remaining eight years of his
life under house arrest.
John Paul said the theologians who condemned Galileo did not recognize
the formal distinction between the Bible and its interpretation.
"This led them unduly to transpose into the realm of the doctrine of the
faith, a question which in fact pertained to scientific investigation."
Back to the climate change topic: The consensus _used to be_ that we
could pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as much as we want with
no repercussions to the climate system.
It now looks like THAT consensus was wrong, based on the evidence. And
because of the compelling evidence for human contribution to the current
climate change event, the consensus has changed.
And yet Chrichton missed this latest validation of the one thing he's
right about (so far, from your quotes).
Ironic...
> In an article published in the Wall Street Journal
Science central.
> Prof. Lindzen, Alfred P.
> Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, discusses the controversy
> around global warming. He was involved with the IPCC Report, by the way he
> was a contributor to Chapter 4 of the "IPCC Second Assessment"
> http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
First, scientists ought not be intimidated merely because they hold a
particular theory. But any theory has to stand up on its own feet.
If you want to talk about intimidation of scientists, you don't have to
look to hard to find the opposite complaint. Scientists claiming to have
been attacked for political reasons, reports edited by non-scientist
political appointees to water down the conclusions, that sort of thing.
As long as you're looking for a conspiracy against scientists, look into
that one, too.
BTW, Lindzen is one of the most well known and oft quoted contrarians on
climate change. You're welcome to agree with him, but you should know
that most climate scientists do not, based on the evidence. Opposite of
the assertion of his article, Lindzen hasn't been "intimidated" into
silence about his position. And obviously he wasn't shut out of IPCC
participation.
> Here's a little pattern called the Milankovich Variation, which can explain
> the variations in ice ages every 100,000 and 400,000 years.
> http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/iceage_orb it_wg.html
"A little pattern" - good one. :^) The Milankovich Variation is a long
term pattern in terms of human life spans. It is one of many factors
climate scientists look at when considering what is happening now.
The MV doesn't explain the current climate change event. But if you want
to talk about when the next ice age may be coming, the MV could be a
factor. We may want to save some of our fossil fuels so that 50,000
years from now our descendants can burn them to counter the Milankovich
Variation with some good old anthropogenic global warming. :^)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
"Astronomical calculations show that 65N summer insolation should
increase gradually over the next 25,000 years, and that no 65N summer
insolation declines sufficient to cause an ice age are expected in the
next 50,000 - 100,000 years ( Hollan 2000, Berger 2002)."
> An interesting and complicated discussion by regarding a letter published in
> the journal Nature, discloses how really biased and unscientific some
> arguments are regarding climate change data. And how the publishing editors
> are colossal morons in disregarding criticism of colossal scientific errors,
> by rejecting such criticism outright.
> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=782
Interesting. The disputes between McIntyre and Mann go back a few years.
But if this is really about questioning the "hockey stick" graph, then read:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11
> Here's some more cherry picked info for ya Jamie.
You oughta make a pie! ;^)
> Oh, excuse me it was
> written by a conservative congressman. It must be suspect! Oh and worse yet,
> he's optimistic. What a stooge.
> http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/13/19052 2.shtml
That was a fun read. :^)
First, after the missile stuff, he confuses C02 output with other forms
of pollution. Weird. The rest of his attempted scientific arguments
seems to have a similar uniformed grasp on the science. The most
accurate statement in his rambling discourse is " I do not know."
Second, he's defending Bush for denying human contributions to the
current climate change event. But in 2001, Bush himself said this:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.h tml
"The issue of climate change respects no border. Its effects cannot be
reined in by an army nor advanced by any ideology. Climate change, with
its potential to impact every corner of the world, is an issue that must
be addressed by the world."
"My Cabinet-level working group has met regularly for the last 10 weeks
to review the most recent, most accurate, and most comprehensive
science. They have heard from scientists offering a wide spectrum of
views. They have reviewed the facts, and they have listened to many
theories and suppositions. The working group asked the highly-respected
National Academy of Sciences to provide us the most up-to-date
information about what is known and about what is not known on the
science of climate change.
First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming. It has
risen by .6 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years. There was a warming
trend from the 1890s to the 1940s. Cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s.
And then sharply rising temperatures from the 1970s to today.
There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming.
Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent
a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space.
Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased
substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And the
National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large
part to human activity."
If you read on, you'll see that Bush's main objection to Kyoto was that
China and India were treated differently than the USA:
"Our country, the United States is the world's largest emitter of
manmade greenhouse gases. We account for almost 20 percent of the
world's man-made greenhouse emissions. We also account for about
one-quarter of the world's economic output. We recognize the
responsibility to reduce our emissions. We also recognize the other part
of the story -- that the rest of the world emits 80 percent of all
greenhouse gases. And many of those emissions come from developing
countries.
This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the
rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse
gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements
of the Kyoto Protocol.
India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt
from Kyoto. These and other developing countries that are experiencing
rapid growth face challenges in reducing their emissions without harming
their economies. We want to work cooperatively with these countries in
their efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions and maintain economic growth."
You could accuse Bush of dragging his feet on policy. But based on his
speech you can't say he's denying the current climate change event or
the strong chance that we are contributing to it. He listens to the
National Academy of Sciences, something you might consider.
From: http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
"Climate change is real
There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as
the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that
significant global warming is occurring1.
The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air
temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such
as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and
changes to many physical and biological systems.
It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be
attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already
led to changes in the Earth's climate.
The existence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is vital to life on
Earth – in their absence average temperatures would be about 30
centigrade degrees lower than they are today. But human activities are
now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases – including
carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide – to rise
well above pre-industrial levels.
Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375
ppm today – higher than any previous levels that can be reliably
measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years). Increasing greenhouse gases
are causing temperatures to rise; the Earth’s surface warmed by
approximately 0.6 centigrade degrees over the twentieth century.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that the
average global surface temperatures will continue to increase to between
1.4 centigrade degrees and 5.8 centigrade degrees above 1990 levels, by
2100."
Consider that.
> Just keeping it real,
"Real" means looking at ALL the evidence. Anything less is surreal.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> Rich
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:47a8c1bd$1@linux...
>> Neil wrote:
>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>> LOL You're kidding, right?
>>> Of course not - I'm actually just tring to put things in
>>> perspective... it's winter, meaning: sometimes it's snows in
>>> some areas - sometimes it snows a lot. What I find amazing is
>>> that if it's snows only a little, you're gonna say it's due to
>>> global warming... if it snows a lot - global warming.
>> That's not at all what I said. Maybe it's what you expected me to say?
>>
>> What I said in my last post to you was:
>>
>> "And, again, no specific weather event can be tied to the current
>> climate change event. But over time we can look for patterns."
>>
>> Which is the opposite of what you think I said. Weird.
>>
>> Before that I wrote:
>>
>> "An increase in extreme weather events is predicted by climate
>> scientists as a consequence of the current climate change event.
>>
>> It may seem counter-intuitive until you really think about it.
>>
>> Warmer ocean water, more evaporation, more energy in weather systems to
>> carry the moisture farther, this can bring more snow over the mountains.
>>
>> (And again, any single weather event can't be linked to the current
>> climate change by itself. But over time we can measure patterns.)"
>>
>>
>> Read that last paragraph again.
>>
>>
>>> Do I think that, knowing that emissions of various types affect
>>> the atmosphere in a negative way, we should ignore it & not try
>>> to do something about it? No.
>> Agreed.
>>
>>
>>> But I also don't think we should
>>> slaughter every cow in India just because their aggregate
>>> greenhouse gas output in the form of methane surpasses that
>>> of the five or six largest cities on the planet combined;
>> I haven't heard anyone suggest slaughtering every cow in India. Who is
>> proposing that one?
>>
>> Also what is the source for your methane statistic?
>>
>>
>>> and
>>> when you tend to blame everything on global warming, from the
>>> fact that it's snowing in Durango, to the problem someone's
>>> having with their PC overheating when they try to run five EDS
>>> cards in it, you've kinda gone way past the "cry wolf" zone in
>>> terms of credibility.
>> Right. Except you're wrong. Maybe you're not reading what I wrote
>> because I haven't been saying that.
>>
>> Maybe you're thinking of someone else. I believe it was Don N. who
>> implied that DJ's snow was a result of GW, but he was being completely
>> facetious.
>>
>> So no, I didn't blame the snow in Durango on global warming. Nor the
>> thunder snow here. We won't know that about any specific event until we
>> can look back and see what the pattern is, and take into account other
>> cycles and patterns like (for North America) El Nino, La Nina, etc.
>>
>> However, it is true that an increase in extreme weather events is one
>> possible consequence of the current climate change event. It's just that
>> we can't look at a specific weather event and say, yeah, that one is
>> from climate change.
>>
>> What we can do is keep track of the data and look for longer term trends.
>>
>> And finally, I'm pretty sure that running 5 EDS cards in one computer is
>> THE major contributor to the current climate change event. FOR GOD'S
>> SAKE, NEIL, UNPLUG THAT PARIS BOX!!!
>>
>> LOL! ;^)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>
>>> Neil
>>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: How I spent my day part 1 [message #95809 is a reply to message #95807] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 15:52 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Rich,
Kim's right, so go ahead and move this to General, if you want to continue.
I'll look for your next reply there.
Thanks,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
Kim wrote:
> Rich,
>
> To try and keep this channel clear for music topics I've responded on general:
>
> http://news.parisnewsgroup.com/cgi-bin/dnewsweb?cmd=article& amp;group=IDEA.emuensoniqparis-general&item=3074&uta g=
>
> Cheers,
> Kim.
> "Rich Lamanna" <richard.lamanna@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Jamie are you a scientist? From what theories or rather maybe fantasies
> do
>> you concoct your "scientific", and I use the term loosely, rantings. It
> is
>> the height of narcissistic paranoia and ignorance to claim global warming
> is
>> irrefutably anthropogenic. There is no consensus among all scientists, that
>> is a fact. There is only a consensus among those who would like to shove
>> their ideology and mantra and polemic down the throats of those who
>> disagree. There is only a consensus that there is no consensus.
>>
>> Michael Crichton said it best:
>>
>> "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of
>> scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is
>> already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on
>> something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
>>
>> "Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with
>> consensus.
>>
>> "Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires
>> only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she
>> has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science
>> consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The
>> greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with
>> the consensus."
>> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/
>>
>> In an article published in the Wall Street Journal Prof. Lindzen, Alfred
> P.
>> Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, discusses the controversy
>> around global warming. He was involved with the IPCC Report, by the way
> he
>> was a contributor to Chapter 4 of the "IPCC Second Assessment"
>> http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
>>
>> Here's a little pattern called the Milankovich Variation, which can explain
>> the variations in ice ages every 100,000 and 400,000 years.
>> http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/iceage_orb it_wg.html
>>
>> An interesting and complicated discussion by regarding a letter published
> in
>> the journal Nature, discloses how really biased and unscientific some
>> arguments are regarding climate change data. And how the publishing editors
>> are colossal morons in disregarding criticism of colossal scientific errors,
>> by rejecting such criticism outright.
>> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=782
>>
>> Here's some more cherry picked info for ya Jamie. Oh, excuse me it was
>> written by a conservative congressman. It must be suspect! Oh and worse
> yet,
>> he's optimistic. What a stooge.
>> http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/13/19052 2.shtml
>>
>> Just keeping it real,
>> Rich
>>
>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:47a8c1bd$1@linux...
>>> Neil wrote:
>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>> LOL You're kidding, right?
>>>> Of course not - I'm actually just tring to put things in
>>>> perspective... it's winter, meaning: sometimes it's snows in
>>>> some areas - sometimes it snows a lot. What I find amazing is
>>>> that if it's snows only a little, you're gonna say it's due to
>>>> global warming... if it snows a lot - global warming.
>>> That's not at all what I said. Maybe it's what you expected me to say?
>>>
>>> What I said in my last post to you was:
>>>
>>> "And, again, no specific weather event can be tied to the current
>>> climate change event. But over time we can look for patterns."
>>>
>>> Which is the opposite of what you think I said. Weird.
>>>
>>> Before that I wrote:
>>>
>>> "An increase in extreme weather events is predicted by climate
>>> scientists as a consequence of the current climate change event.
>>>
>>> It may seem counter-intuitive until you really think about it.
>>>
>>> Warmer ocean water, more evaporation, more energy in weather systems to
>>> carry the moisture farther, this can bring more snow over the mountains.
>>>
>>> (And again, any single weather event can't be linked to the current
>>> climate change by itself. But over time we can measure patterns.)"
>>>
>>>
>>> Read that last paragraph again.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Do I think that, knowing that emissions of various types affect
>>>> the atmosphere in a negative way, we should ignore it & not try
>>>> to do something about it? No.
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>
>>>> But I also don't think we should
>>>> slaughter every cow in India just because their aggregate
>>>> greenhouse gas output in the form of methane surpasses that
>>>> of the five or six largest cities on the planet combined;
>>> I haven't heard anyone suggest slaughtering every cow in India. Who is
>>> proposing that one?
>>>
>>> Also what is the source for your methane statistic?
>>>
>>>
>>>> and
>>>> when you tend to blame everything on global warming, from the
>>>> fact that it's snowing in Durango, to the problem someone's
>>>> having with their PC overheating when they try to run five EDS
>>>> cards in it, you've kinda gone way past the "cry wolf" zone in
>>>> terms of credibility.
>>> Right. Except you're wrong. Maybe you're not reading what I wrote
>>> because I haven't been saying that.
>>>
>>> Maybe you're thinking of someone else. I believe it was Don N. who
>>> implied that DJ's snow was a result of GW, but he was being completely
>>> facetious.
>>>
>>> So no, I didn't blame the snow in Durango on global warming. Nor the
>>> thunder snow here. We won't know that about any specific event until we
>>> can look back and see what the pattern is, and take into account other
>>> cycles and patterns like (for North America) El Nino, La Nina, etc.
>>>
>>> However, it is true that an increase in extreme weather events is one
>>> possible consequence of the current climate change event. It's just that
>>> we can't look at a specific weather event and say, yeah, that one is
>>> from climate change.
>>>
>>> What we can do is keep track of the data and look for longer term trends.
>>>
>>> And finally, I'm pretty sure that running 5 EDS cards in one computer
> is
>>> THE major contributor to the current climate change event. FOR GOD'S
>>> SAKE, NEIL, UNPLUG THAT PARIS BOX!!!
>>>
>>> LOL! ;^)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Neil
>>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Dec 22 12:18:40 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01854 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
