DescentBB

Seems like Al Gore was wrong
I wonder what this will do to the Carbon tax

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” he said. The planet isn't heating up, in other words.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/07/ ... z1TX0XI8VN

Heaven forbid we build a better world for no reason. Also, Fox News? I'll take this with a grain of salt.

null0010 wrote:Heaven forbid we build a better world for no reason. ...

And who has submitted a plan to do that?

I think you are confusing the shared sentiment that we should aspire to that goal with the demagoguery of a bunch of scam artists in Washington and the U.N. who are exploiting our inherent good will to fund their perpetual fraternity party and wealth redistribution plan...a plan they charge a substantial fee for managing of course.

Also, Fox News? I'll take this with a grain of salt.

you make yourself the fool when you take that view


http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-ga ... 34971.html

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

The climate will change- AS it has done in the past 4 BILLION years before our little stint on this planet.

The only issue I have is with ASSUMING that this change is completely anthropogenic in nature- and exploiting the issue to create a racket to suck more money from people by creating guilt.

Carbon 'trading' and taxing is just a racket and nothing more.

fliptw wrote:http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... -alarmism/

That sure "blows a gaping hole" in this thread.

CUDA wrote:

Also, Fox News? I'll take this with a grain of salt.

you make yourself the fool when you take that view

Look like fliptw's link has vindicated my conservative position.

null0010 wrote:

CUDA wrote:

Also, Fox News? I'll take this with a grain of salt.

you make yourself the fool when you take that view

Look like fliptw's link has vindicated my conservative position.

Flips link just disputes the Article. your position to disregard said article because it was a Fox news link is still foolish.

Yea the article sure reads like it was designed to hold the hand of the reader and make sure they jumped on the bandwagon.
The problem I have with the rebuttal is the same language they use about the source should be used toward the U.N. and many of the scientists that are saying the source is flawed!!
The source for that piece isn't the first one to use bad data or draw up false conclusions and spoon feed them to the willing...the U.N Al Gore and a number of the so called respected climate scientists have used the same tactics from the other side of the debate.

Too bad there isn't a group that could just simply say:
'Pollution is generally bad and anything we can reasonably do to reduce the anthropogenic contribution to warming will be good regardless of how the political climate change-food fight turns out. And here are some things we should do that don't involve the U.N. extorting billions of dollars from the western nations all the while turning a blind eye toward the impact of pollution caused by China, India etc. etc.
Here are some reasonable measures for all of us to get behind...'

But unfortunately the pimps and thieves have taken over the argument. Like the way the debt ceiling argument has been taken over...'No good disaster (or hyped up fear of alleged disaster) shall go to waste as long as the power hungry need your tax dollars to fund their re-elections'.

Your side bitches and moans when it's asked to change the type of lightbulb they use Will. How's that for a reasonable response to a reasonably intented measure?

Zuruck wrote:Your side bitches and moans when it's asked to change the type of lightbulb they use Will. How's that for a reasonable response to a reasonably intented measure?

The assertion that 'my side' is represented is weak considering my post was to point out the problem I find in the two sides...

But more important, show me the reasonably intended measure! The lightbulb change? That's it? For your information my house is full of those damn things and I constantly have to take the lamp shades off to bare the bulb if I want to read and I'm still not sure if I need to call a HASMAT team if one breaks in the house. According to the 'reasonable' government instructions I need to open all the windows and turn off the air conditioning system before putting on the safety suit and gloves to clean it up if one breaks! Heat index of 110 today humidity was dripping...turn off the AC if a lightbulb breaks!?! Reasonable!?!

Seriously Zuruck, go read some of the stuff the pro environment side wants, like the Kyoto Treaty and numerous recommendations issued by the U.N. and tell me if you think they are reasonable.

I read today that Cuba will be endangering the Florida coast with oil drilling....we can't drill ourselves because it is too dangerous. Good thing the Cubans have the EPA and a free press to at least keep a spotlight on any evil oil company crap...oh....wait...that's right...the EPA and free press is here in the country that isn't going to do the drilling!

Use LED bulbs.

What I'm saying is that literally the smallest token that people like you and I can do (change lightbulbs to more energy efficient types) was met was stifling resistance. And yes your side Will, everyone else here might be an idiot and believe that you represent some sort of completely unbiased middle, but I've watched your drivel for ten years now and it's always been the same.

The pro environment side has its idiots as well. When I drive through Wisconsin and see wind farms, I'm happy. At some point, a migratory pattern will be affected by our energy needs and I understand that. Something's gotta give. But to just sit there and always ★■◆● about what China and India aren't doing is boring man, how about America takes the lead on this one? Heaven forbid you have to suffer a little bit when your light intensity goes down. And my god, I'm so sorry that you might have to turn off your AC for five minutes! Humans may not be the sole cause for our climate changes, but the billions of tons of toxic chemicals spewed into the atmosphere certainly don't help the planet. Do something.

Or do what null said. Use LED bulbs. Or a candle.

I dunno what sort of bulbs you bought, Will, but we replaced our outside lights with CFLs recently, and the things are a good two or three times brighter than the ordinary incandescents they replaced...hell, they're almost too bright. Just like incandescents, you can buy them with different wattages, so you may need a more powerful bulb for reading purposes; there are also a few different "looks" for the light spectra that the bulbs put out.

(E&C drinking game: take a shot every time Will uses an interrobang equivalent in a post. )

Zuruck wrote:... But to just sit there and always ★■◆● about what China and India aren't doing is boring man, how about America takes the lead on this one? ....

It isn't what China and India are doing, it is the power hungry pimps who use what we ALL are doing to come up with regulations to "save the planet" but then give exclusions to some of the biggest polluters because their economy can't withstand the impact of the regulations!

If you make bad policy regarding air pollution, policy that is an absolute drain on a country's ability to compete and produce wealth, then excuse some of the biggest consumers of fossil fuel from following the regulations you are not saving the planet you are merely redistributing the wealth...and merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as far as the environment goes.

We do lead. We have serious regulation on pollution and countries that do not are where the industry has moved. DuPont was poisoning the desert in Mexico back in the '70's for that reason. The executive offices were in america, the cheap labor factory was in Mexico and they were dumping their waste product in plain site of the Mexican government.
Good leadership is thinking things out a little deeper than being the first lemming to go off the cliff!

Give us a reasonable change and we will embrace it. Why do you think we're using the stupid light bulbs in my house? Because I'm putting up stifling resistance?

Top Gun wrote:(E&C drinking game: take a shot every time Will uses an interrobang equivalent in a post. )

LOL -- we will all die of alcohol poisoning in no time.

And if you're really concerned with keeping your house a few degrees cooler, you'll use CFL's because they waste less energy to heat.

Jeff250 wrote:And if you're really concerned with keeping your house a few degrees cooler, you'll use CFL's because they waste less energy to heat.

I think that is what the wife has put in and they are dim. I need to step in and make some changes but that in itself can lead to global warming if not done with great care...

Jeff250 wrote:And if you're really concerned with keeping your house a few degrees cooler, you'll use CFL's because they waste less energy to heat.

That's the fun thing about incandescent bulbs: I heard a scientist accurately describe them as "space heaters that just happen to give off some light." About 90% of the energy that's pumped into an incandescent bulb is completely wasted as heat. They're woefully inefficient when you step back and look at them.

CFL's are not a good replacement for incandescent bulbs. Firstly, they're full of mercury and thus have to be treated as hazardous waste when they burn out. Ditto if one breaks on your carpet. You can't vacuum up the glass because the mercury would get blown all over the house by the vacuum cleaner, so that makes them difficult to clean up in an accident. Secondly, they can't be dimmed with a conventional dimmer switch. Thirdly, they take forever to warm up and produce their full light output. Also turning them on and off rapidly without letting them warm up shortens their life, so I tend to leave one on longer than necessary when I do turn one on. Lastly, there have been reports of some of these catching fire due to poor quality electronic components.

I'll gladly get rid of my incandescent bulbs if they get a better alternative. Right now, LED's are too expensive and have heat and longevity issues when run at the higher power required to put out useful amounts of light. I've noticed that the city of Corvallis installed all sorts of LED traffic lights. Well, just about all the green lights have burned out rows of LED's, so the city didn't get much bang for our buck.

By the way, whatever happened to OLED technology? They were supposed to make all sorts of shapes in light fixtures, like big flat panels or curved panels out of it. In the meantime, my local electric store still stocks all wattage's of incandescent bulbs and they claim they haven't stopped producing them, so I'll keep buying them for now. What I do to conserve some energy is to make sure I turn off lights when not needed and purchase 130 volt bulbs that use less energy and last longer, even though they aren't quite as bright. F**k GE and their CFL's!

tunnelcat wrote:Thirdly, they take forever to warm up and produce their full light output.

The rest of your points aside, this one is flat-out false, at least in my experience. Both our outside lights and the few CFLs at my grandparents' house come on almost instantly; at the highest, there's maybe a half-second delay, which is pretty much inconsequential. I also find the statement about flipping them off and on too frequently to be very suspect; if there is an issue, I'd imagine it would be if you were working the light switch like a rave party, not using it in normal operation.

I'll gladly get rid of my incandescent bulbs if they get a better alternative. Right now, LED's are too expensive and have heat and longevity issues when run at the higher power required to put out useful amounts of light. I've noticed that the city of Corvallis installed all sorts of LED traffic lights. Well, just about all the green lights have burned out rows of LED's, so the city didn't get much bang for our buck.

There shouldn't be any heat issues with LEDs...their main selling point is that they run extremely efficiently. An array of LEDs takes very little power to put out some very intense light. The price is admittedly high right now, but that'll definitely come down substantially over time. Also, traffic lights have been using LED arrays for a while now; I don't know what was up with your city's particular batch of them, but it's hardly representative.

Top Gun wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Thirdly, they take forever to warm up and produce their full light output.

The rest of your points aside, this one is flat-out false, at least in my experience. Both our outside lights and the few CFLs at my grandparents' house come on almost instantly; at the highest, there's maybe a half-second delay, which is pretty much inconsequential. I also find the statement about flipping them off and on too frequently to be very suspect; if there is an issue, I'd imagine it would be if you were working the light switch like a rave party, not using it in normal operation.

Modern CFLs do light up almost instantly, however if you sit around in the room and pay attention the complete warmup time to full brightness is actually a couple minutes and sometimes upwards of 5 minutes. I notice it especially when it is an array of several CFLs, like 3-4 lights in a ceiling fan or various lights spread out in a basement, they are significantly brighter a few minutes after starting up than they are in the first minute or two. Try it for yourself, it should be readily apparent in any large room lit only by CFLs.

fliptw wrote:http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... -alarmism/

Too bad the link is a blog and nothing said in it is peer reviewed. What Cuda linked is peer reviewed.

woodchip wrote:Too bad the link is a blog and nothing said in it is peer reviewed.

which links to the same article that cuda posted.

woodchip wrote:

fliptw wrote:http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... -alarmism/

Too bad the link is a blog and nothing said in it is peer reviewed. What Cuda linked is peer reviewed.

The link *is* a peer review.

I've never heard of mdpi.com. It's not clear to me what refereeing they do on papers. It is clear from their Website that you pay them to publish your paper which seems suspiciously like self-publishing.

Roy Spencer, the primary author, has also been a topic of discussion before on the dbb.net. For instance, he rejects the theory of evolution in favor of intelligent design.

heh Al Gore doesn't give a care about the environment. You Darwinists are all the same. 9_9

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:Too bad the link is a blog and nothing said in it is peer reviewed.

which links to the same article that cuda posted.

Ummm...the Discover Blog is not peer reviewed and the opinions expressed there are not. The Discover Blog does not agree with the peer reviewed article by Dr Spencer even tho the blogger links to the article Cuda posted. When someone can link a refutation of the Spencer paper and the refutation is peer reviewed, please let me know.

Top Gun wrote:There shouldn't be any heat issues with LEDs...their main selling point is that they run extremely efficiently. An array of LEDs takes very little power to put out some very intense light. The price is admittedly high right now, but that'll definitely come down substantially over time. Also, traffic lights have been using LED arrays for a while now; I don't know what was up with your city's particular batch of them, but it's hardly representative.

I don't know about the issues mentioned, but high-intensity LED bulbs and flashlights require good heat sinks in order to stay operational. I have a 180 max lumen (ANSI) pocket flashlight, with fairly good heat sinks, run by two AAs, and if I leave it on the highest brightness level for ~10 minutes it gets warm enough that you probably wouldn't want to hold on to it. They put out a lot of light for that heat, but they use a lot of power for that tiny LED face.

woodchip wrote:Ummm...the Discover Blog is not peer reviewed and the opinions expressed there are not. The Discover Blog does not agree with the peer reviewed article by Dr Spencer even tho the blogger links to the article Cuda posted. When someone can link a refutation of the Spencer paper and the refutation is peer reviewed, please let me know.

The problem with the paper isn't that it's lacking peer review. It's that the peer reviews are overwhelmingly negative.

woodchip wrote:Ummm...the Discover Blog is not peer reviewed and the opinions expressed there are not. The Discover Blog does not agree with the peer reviewed article by Dr Spencer even tho the blogger links to the article Cuda posted. When someone can link a refutation of the Spencer paper and the refutation is peer reviewed, please let me know.

Has anyone, including you, actually read the paper itself? I'm starting it right now.

Read the original article. Guy is bought and paid for by Exxon Mobil. Both his interfaith stewardship alliance and heartland institute are heavily funded by Exxon, I can't imagine that would make him write something industry-friendly.

Top Gun wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Thirdly, they take forever to warm up and produce their full light output.

The rest of your points aside, this one is flat-out false, at least in my experience. Both our outside lights and the few CFLs at my grandparents' house come on almost instantly; at the highest, there's maybe a half-second delay, which is pretty much inconsequential. I also find the statement about flipping them off and on too frequently to be very suspect; if there is an issue, I'd imagine it would be if you were working the light switch like a rave party, not using it in normal operation.

Not the ones I have. They take about a thirty seconds to reach a reasonable light output, then take about 5 minutes to reach full output, depending on room temp. I know you can buy ones that claim they take a shorter amount of time to become fully bright, but so far, every one I've bought takes a little time to reach full brightness. Where the problem really shows up is in a colder room, like a garage in winter, or a basement. They take quite a long time to get to full brightness in that case. They definitely don't like to operate in the cold, just like florescent lights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp

Wiki wrote:Starting time

Incandescents reach full brightness a fraction of a second after being switched on, although some models take several seconds to reach their rated illuminance. As of 2009, CFLs turn on within a second, but many still take time to warm up to full brightness.[39] The light color may be slightly different immediately after being turned on.[40] Some CFLs are marketed as "instant on" and have no noticeable warm-up period,[41] but others can take up to a minute to reach full brightness,[42] or longer in very cold temperatures. Some that use a mercury amalgam can take up to three minutes to reach full output.[41] This and the shorter life of CFLs when turned on and off for short periods may make CFLs less suitable for applications such as motion-activated lighting.

Top Gun wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:I'll gladly get rid of my incandescent bulbs if they get a better alternative. Right now, LED's are too expensive and have heat and longevity issues when run at the higher power required to put out useful amounts of light. I've noticed that the city of Corvallis installed all sorts of LED traffic lights. Well, just about all the green lights have burned out rows of LED's, so the city didn't get much bang for our buck.

There shouldn't be any heat issues with LEDs...their main selling point is that they run extremely efficiently. An array of LEDs takes very little power to put out some very intense light. The price is admittedly high right now, but that'll definitely come down substantially over time. Also, traffic lights have been using LED arrays for a while now; I don't know what was up with your city's particular batch of them, but it's hardly representative.

Yeah, I've got some lower output LED bulbs that don't get hot, but the light output is marginal at best. I tried some under cabinet LED strips and they only got warm, not objectionably hot, but the light output was dismal for reading. If you want a LOT of light from one source, the components to drive all that power DO get HOT. They even have cooling fins to dissipate heat, at least with the big reflector LED Phillips bulbs I've seen at Home Depot. Go to your local store display of operating high output LED bulbs and you'll see they are indeed hot.

As for my city's traffic lights, they must have gotten a really bad batch of green ones, because only that color has the failing arrays.

I don't have anything against LED's. When they get the price down, are more available in more shapes and have the light output to match incandescent bulbs, I'll switch instantly. I was really hoping for OLED technology to get going too.

woodchip wrote:
Ummm...the Discover Blog is not peer reviewed and the opinions expressed there are not. The Discover Blog does not agree with the peer reviewed article by Dr Spencer even tho the blogger links to the article Cuda posted. When someone can link a refutation of the Spencer paper and the refutation is peer reviewed, please let me know.

never said it was. I simply stated that it linked to the same page cuda did.

Jeff250 wrote:

woodchip wrote:Ummm...the Discover Blog is not peer reviewed and the opinions expressed there are not. The Discover Blog does not agree with the peer reviewed article by Dr Spencer even tho the blogger links to the article Cuda posted. When someone can link a refutation of the Spencer paper and the refutation is peer reviewed, please let me know.

The problem with the paper isn't that it's lacking peer review. It's that the peer reviews are overwhelmingly negative.

Where do you see that the peer reviewers were overwhelmingly negative during the submittal process? If that was the case then would the paper not even get published? Or are you calling subsequent reviews by acknowledged warmers as being "peer" reviewed and in a negative sense?

I never said that the reviews were overwhelmingly negative during the submittal process. We aren't privy to who refereed the paper and how the vote came down. What the acceptance of the paper says about the value of the paper depends on the venue at which it is accepted. I'm not familiar with mdpi.com, and I'm not sure what standards they have for publishing. Normally your paper is competing for space in a journal or time at a conference or workshop, not just hosted on a Web site, and normally you don't pay for your paper to be published, so there is reason to be suspicious with this venue. In any case, peer review isn't something that just happens for 10 minutes when an anonymous reviewer is typing up his email. If you want to know how good a climatology paper is, ask climatologists. They don't seem to like it.