"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong

Eeyore wrote:

donquijote1954 wrote:

A typical 25 watt fluorescent light
bulb, which replaces a 100 watt incandescent bulb, will last 8 hours
on 200 watts worth of power. LEDs (light emitting diodes) are even
more efficient and will last days on 200 watts worth of power."

No, LEDs are *not* more efficient.

Nor will most humans be able to generate a continuous 200W. That's 1/4 horse power FFS !

If that's their sales spiel then I don't think much of them.

Graham

LEDs are better than incandescent lights, maybe on par with
fluorescents, and don't need a minimum voltage to run the electronic
ballasts. I think 100 watts would be the output for an average person
and even that might be pushing it for a person in a developing country
who may not have enough good nutrition. At 100 watts, solar panels start
to be a major investment and don't work too good at night or on hazy
overcast days.
How did we wind up here?
Cross posting.
Bye.
Bill Baka

donquijote1954 wrote:
On Feb 2, 7:57 pm, Mark Hickey wrote:

You said it best. There's one hope though: THE REVOLUTION (coming
soon)...
Stick it.
I'm thinking all we gotta do is to convince everyone who's sure that
we're all doomed anyway to "check out early" - get it over with, why
wait for us all to be drowned in 10 years when the sea level jumps up
10,000 feet. That'll cut down on the needs for a lot of resources,
and will reduce the release of hot air considerably. ;-)

That's not all that hard to do. All you got to do is connect Global
Warming with Armageddon, and that so is the will of God. Actually, I
think they are already working hard to make Global Warming happen with
all those SUVs with God's bumper stickers.

So the connection is that the same Christian fundamentalists are
causing Armageddon!

That isn't too unreasonable since they are also the ones whom God (the
pope) told to have as many kids as possible so they would need a big van
(SUV) to carry them all over the place.

Can Humanity Survive? Want to Bet on It?
Sixty ago years, a group of physicists concerned about nuclear weapons
created the Doomsday Clock and set its hands at seven minutes to
midnight. Now, the clock's keepers, alarmed by new dangers like
climate change, have moved the hands up to 11:55 p.m.

http://www.armageddononline.org/ind...t_from=&ucat=1&

SEE POLL TAKING PLACE AT PRAVDA...

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread...69#post2172469

On Feb 3, 3:58 pm, Bill Baka wrote:
Wayne Pein wrote:
donquijote1954 wrote:

Wayne Pein wrote:

Further, bus public transit is heavy and destroys the pavement,
something that is very important to bicyclists. And when the bus pulls
over to the curb, there is conflict with bicyclists.

Frankly, public transportation and bicycling have nothing in common.
Bicycling has much more in common with automobile travel.

http://www.bts.gov/publications/nati...atistics/2004/
html/table_04_20.html

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...rites/fcvt_fot...

No way. Buses with racks go a long way for bicyclists who just use the
bikes for shorter distances. They are complementary...

So, the 2 bicyclists that use the bus are still chauffered energy
users/polluters for their bus leg.

Wayne

No way. The buses are going to run either way, full or empty. The use of
a bus makes perfect sense when you consider that you can take one past
the most dangerous part of town and drop you at a safer location. Nobody
should be so into the bike that they willfully put their life in the
hands of motorist who could care less.
It's called 'Survival instinct'.
It's also nice to fall back when the weather opens up and wants to dump
on anyone caught in the open.
Bill Baka- Hide quoted text -


Good thinking. You should take it on the bus until you pass the
"jungle." Then you ride in fine and beautiful bike paths where the
lions (the rich and famous) live. Be careful they don't steal your
bike off the rack while traversing the jungle.

donquijote1954 wrote:
On Feb 3, 3:58 pm, Bill Baka wrote:
No way. The buses are going to run either way, full or empty. The use of
a bus makes perfect sense when you consider that you can take one past
the most dangerous part of town and drop you at a safer location. Nobody
should be so into the bike that they willfully put their life in the
hands of motorist who could care less.
It's called 'Survival instinct'.
It's also nice to fall back when the weather opens up and wants to dump
on anyone caught in the open.
Bill Baka-


Good thinking. You should take it on the bus until you pass the
"jungle." Then you ride in fine and beautiful bike paths where the
lions (the rich and famous) live. Be careful they don't steal your
bike off the rack while traversing the jungle.

No rich and famous around here unless you count Chuck Yeager.

Side note: I have heard of people getting off the bus and trying to pull
a fast one by grabbing the bike off the rack while the driver, usually
clueless, waits.
Kind of like car jacking but the cyclist usually figures it out before
the bike is history.
There are all types of petty thieves running around.
Life in the city is not automagically civilized.
Bill Baka

Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , Joe Fischer wrote:
On 2 Feb 2007 09:46:18 -0800, "donquijote1954"
wrote:

On Feb 2, 11:20 am, "Lee K" wrote:
Climate Change's Carnival Atmosphere

Showmanship, rather than facts, is driving the climate debate - and, yes,
there still is a raging debate despite pronouncements to the contrary by Al
Gore and the mainstream media.
You send your resume here...

US think tank offering cash to dispute UN climate panel: report

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070202...y_070202142458
More yahoo stuff, yahoo?

You could argue that you make black look white, that hot is cold,
No, I can't but global warming story tellers insist
that global warming can bring on a long hard winter,
and more snow.

I know a couple explanations:

1) Warmer winter-storm-feeding waters can make more intense snowstorms,
up until the time it gets too warm for those (or they move farther from
the equator).

2) Harsher winters in the British Isles and nearby Western Europe
are considered a possible effect of the Gulf Stream being weakened and
pushed southward by cold freshwater runoff from melting of Greenland's
icecap.

- Don Klipstein )

The Gulf Stream theory was a subject of concern on a History or learning
channel program that I watched. The theory was that if enough non salt
water ice melted from the North pole it would de-salinate the ocean
enough to kill the North-South flow of water.
It made scientific sense, but I can't preach here. People need to be
more aware, but how???
Bill Baka

Mark Hickey wrote:
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

In article , Mark Hickey wrote:
(Brent P) wrote:

But it isn't about the environment, it's about power, control, and
wealth.
Couldn't agree more. And that applies at the individual level as well
- look at the funding spent on pro-global warming, and then contrast
the money spent on contrarian studies. No contest - you simply can't
get rich telling people that there's no lurking invisible monster
about to eat the earth, it seems.
Oh, those that make money in ways threatened by addressing of global
warming sure have a lot to lose and are putting money into generation of
data or "data" that we don't have a problem! For one example, I remember
something maybe about a decade ago by a major oil company saying how the
temperature has not significantly warmed at some level a few miles aloft,
which I expect to not warm up as much as the surface and lowest couple
miles of the atmosphere would as a result of adding "greenhouse gases".

I believe what you're talking about was the NOAA data that was used to
exclude the urban heat centers (relying on mid-level atmospheric
temperatures, which would obviously also have to go up in the event
there was a true global warming scenario underway). The fact that the
alarmists have to use selective and incomplete data to support their
claims tells you all you really need to know. The fact they've
singled out CO2 as the culprit just shows that they count on the
masses not having done any reading on the subject (which is probably a
safe assumption).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Funny how people will dismiss that which doesn't hit them personally as
non-existent. Try to explain why cities begin to warm up before sunrise
and you get right into the cause and effect part of things. All those
cars starting up to commute or park in a traffic jam cause the cities to
warm up a degree or two compared to the rural areas.
Explain that away.
Bill Baka

donquijote1954 wrote:
On Feb 2, 4:37 pm, (Brent P) wrote:

The belief in human caused global warming is being used to gain more control
over the population, to consolidate wealth, to end any sort of freedom of the
masses, and put the whole world in the control of a small group of
elites.

I thought that was the job of Globalization.

I will believe that human caused global warming is a serious issue when
and only when, nations like China are forced to do something about it.
Right now, things like the Kyoto treaty are designed simply to relocate
manufacturing from places where there _ARE_ environmental protections to
places where there are practically _NONE_. They expect us to believe that
CO2 released in Ohio is bad, but CO2 released in Tianjin is of no
concern. Not to mention all the pollution controls that are required in
Ohio, the limits, the regulations, all to keep the environment cleaner
but simply don't exist in other places in the world like China.

It's not Kyoto, but America that is feeding China. Go to Walmart or
the Dollar Store if you don't believe me.


Bingo.
Hit the nail right on the head. Bush can praise our 'progress' while we
are supporting a Communist country that could care less about pollution.
Meanwhile they are taking away our jobs while they do their thing, which
seems to be taking our money.
Bill Baka

Rod Speed wrote:
Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
donquijote1954
desperately attempted to bull**** its way out of its
predicament and fooled absolutely no one, as always.

Irony. Good stuff.

Eeyore writes:

donquijote1954 wrote:

A typical 25 watt fluorescent light
bulb, which replaces a 100 watt incandescent bulb, will last 8 hours
on 200 watts worth of power. LEDs (light emitting diodes) are even
more efficient and will last days on 200 watts worth of power."

Let me suggest a basic physics course, where the difference between
power and energy will be explained. :-)

No, LEDs are *not* more efficient.

Right now, they are not more efficienct than fluorescent bulbs, but
that may change as the efficiency of LEDs is being continually
improved. The lastest technology (there are prototypes only at
this point) is comparable to fluorescent lighting.

Also, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED:

LEDs are moderately efficient; the average commercial SSL
currently outputs 32 lumens per watt (lm/W), and new
technologies promise to deliver up to 80 lm/W. The long
lifetime of LEDs make SSL very attractive. They are also more
mechanically robust than incandescent light bulbs and
fluorescent tubes.

Also,
Due to their monochromatic nature, LED lights have great power
advantages over white lights when a specific color is
required. Unlike traditional white lights, the LED does not
need a coating or diffuser that can absorb much of the emitted
light. LED lights are inherently colored, and are available in
a wide range of colors. One of the most recently introduced
colors is the emerald green (bluish green, about 500 nm) that
meets the legal requirements for traffic signals and
navigation lights.

There are applications that specifically require light without
any blue component. Examples are photographic darkroom safe
lights, illumination in laboratories where certain
photo-sensitive chemicals are used, and situations where dark
adaptation (night vision) must be preserved, such as cockpit
and bridge illumination, observatories, etc.



Nor will most humans be able to generate a continuous 200W. That's
1/4 horse power FFS !

If that's their sales spiel then I don't think much of them.

He probably meant 200 watt-hours or something: otherwise you can't
explain why he would say it is enough to last for days.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Baka writes:
donquijote1954 wrote:
On Feb 2, 4:37 pm, (Brent P) wrote:

The belief in human caused global warming is being used to gain
more control over the population, to consolidate wealth, to end
any sort of freedom of the masses, and put the whole world in
the control of a small group of elites.

I thought that was the job of Globalization.

I will believe that human caused global warming is a serious issue when
and only when, nations like China are forced to do something about it.
Right now, things like the Kyoto treaty are designed simply to relocate
manufacturing from places where there _ARE_ environmental protections to
places where there are practically _NONE_. They expect us to believe that
CO2 released in Ohio is bad, but CO2 released in Tianjin is of no
concern. Not to mention all the pollution controls that are required in
Ohio, the limits, the regulations, all to keep the environment cleaner
but simply don't exist in other places in the world like China.

It's not Kyoto, but America that is feeding China. Go to Walmart or
the Dollar Store if you don't believe me.

Bingo.
Hit the nail right on the head. Bush can praise our 'progress' while we
are supporting a Communist country that could care less about pollution.
Meanwhile they are taking away our jobs while they do their thing, which
seems to be taking our money.

This is not just consumer-driven. It's also market-driven and an
ethical issue... beyond CO2 etc, but of the value of work.

Put it this way; if you value your own work at $2/day, then feel
free to buy products from a nation where that is the "standard" wage.
However, don't begrudge the people of those countries the fruits of
their labour. Fair prices need to be fair to all. That provides the
greatest incentive and freedom of choice across the range.

I know of no economic or political system that can impose the
necessary balance. Historically; systems that try to impose fairness
become corrupt.

Consumer education is important; giving them sufficient information
on what they are buying, how it is made and who really makes the
money from the products that they buy. Only then can a choice based
on equity be made.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "If we let things terrify us,
X against HTML mail | life will not be worth living."
/ \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.