Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors - Page 4

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:27:42 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No downside?  What about the economic downside?  If we went on a major
global greenhouse gas reduction program, fossil fuel based
transportation would come to an end, many inherently inefficient
industries (e.g. aluminum) would be effectively banned, and production
of most everything made from processed petroleum (e.g. plastics,
fertilizer) would be drastically reduced.  I'm sure the IPCC has
recognized this downside, which might explain their emphasis:
  "... on assessing the socio-economic
  aspects of climate change and implications for sustainable
  development, risk management and the framing of a response
  through both adaptation and mitigation."
in the 5th report, which covers the topic and should include any
downsides.  Personally, I don't see any way to make it happen without
nationalizing every industry that belches CO2, methane, or water
vapor, and putting them all on a rather restrictive diet.  Like I
said, I can't wait to hear their expert advice on adaptation and
mitigation without collateral damage.  "The operation was a success,
but the patient died" comes to mind.


--
Jeff Liebermann     snipped-for-privacy@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I did say: "No serious downside". The estimated costs, right now, are not
onerous. As we move foreward, those costs will increase. Possibly more
importantly, there are some potential upsides for many new industries.

  If we went on a major
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Which it exxentially will anyway. Oil is rapidly running out.

 many inherently inefficient
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Not at all. Aluminium smelting can utilise any electrical energy source.
Nukes, geo-thermal, Solar, wind, tidal, whatever. And, just to press the
point home, I did a little research a while back on the aluminium industry.

* Back in 1989, electricity costs were around 50% of the present level (in
Australia).
* Aluminium was around US$600.00/Tonne.
* The electricity cost to smelt 1 Tonne of aluminium in 1989 was
approximately $200.00/Tonne.
* The aluminium industry (in Australia) was profitable in 1989.
* The electricity cost to smelt 1 Tonne of aluminium today was approximately
$400.00/Tonne.
* The aluminium price today is close to US$2,500.00/Tonne.
* Even using the most pessimistic cost increases, due to greenhouse
reduction costs, the aluminium industry (in Australia) will still be very
profitable.

The aluminium industry continually bleats about high costs. They don't
menton the massive profits.

 and production
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**That would depend on the measures that are taken.

  I'm sure the IPCC has
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**There will certainly be some serious downsides in any CO2 abatement
programmes. The alternative is, however, utterly unthinkable.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:57:31 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Interesting.  I excavated some US numbers on aluminum.  Each page has
about 5 years worth of annual costs.  Sorry for the mess:
<http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/mcs-2011-alumi.pdf
<http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/alumimcs06.pdf
<http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/050302.pdf

   Price (not adjusted for inflation)
      US$ per lb
2010    1.214
2009    1.252
2008    1.205
2007    0.794
2006    1.017
2005    0.688
2004    0.649
2003    0.681
2002    0.840
2001    0.880
2000    0.771
1999    0.655
1998    0.657

Looks to me like the price of aluminum doubled between 1998 and 2010
in the US.  That's about right considering the increased cost of
industrial electricity.  However, it seems that the price in Australia
went up by 4.2 times.  Was there something that happened in Australia
during this time period to produce this difference?


--
Jeff Liebermann     snipped-for-privacy@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**The prices I cited were international ones. Hence the use of US Dollars.
Although the cost of electricity rose by a factor of approximately 2 between
1989 and now, the cost to aluminium processors is not so clear. Aluminium
processors do deals with suppliers that do not reflect the real cost of
energy. In at least one case, the producers has their own power generating
plant (here in Australia).

I'll attempt to locate my cites with the relevant information.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

If it is like everything else, permit fees, outrageous environmental
regulations, rates, taxes and other charges
are the usual suspects.

Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I note your continued inability to answer my questions and deal with the
facts presented. I accept your admission that you are wrong.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

Quoted text here. Click to load it


I accept that you are making an impossible demand, by doing the
equivalent of demanding that I provide proof that facts (in your
belief) that the easter bunny, angels, ghosts etc DON'T exist. This
cannot be 100% proven as fact, but I doubt any normal adult fully
believes in it and rightly would laugh themselves silly if you tried
to tell them otherwise that you had proof because you listened to
vested interests.

I accept that you have been over time due to either mental illness (as
told by other posters on this group in the past), or the victim of
lifelong brainwashing that you accept without question belief in
certain things that vested interests defecate out that you cannot ever
see past this, and it is always right regardless of the facts.

I guess you would have to be that way to be into the audiophile hi-fi
business. Unless you believed in the shonky claims thrown about by
some manufacturers and their "proof", it probably is much harder to
sell such stuff to the gullible.

There are loads like you in various crackpot movements be they the
greens, feminism etc.  You are not hard to see through.  The words and
manner of delivery give it away


as Phil would say.  Piss Off.



Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Absolute twaddle. I haev presented, in the form of the IPCC reports,
clear, unequivocal evidence that shows that AGW is the best explanation for
the warming we are experiencing. You, OTOH, have demonstrated that you have
not read the IPCC reports. You have also failed to answer any of my
questions WRT this issue. Your analogy, like all your previous analogies, is
utterly bereft of logic. If you feel the IPCC AR4 is faulty, then you need
to show where and how the report is faulty. A good place for you to start,
is to read the damned report.

 This
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Since there is no evidence of those things, a reasonable person can assume
that they don't exist. However, in the case of the IPCC AR4, we have:

* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is warming at a faster rate at
any time in the last 600,000 years.
* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is experiencing a rate of CO2
rise that is faster than at any time in the last 600,000 years.
* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the rate of temperature rise has been
closely linked to CO2 rise in the past.
* Clear, unequivocal evidence that Solar variability fails to account for
the temperature rise over the last 200 years.

 but I doubt any normal adult fully
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**WHAT VESTED INTERESTS? You keep claiming that people have been paid off,
that there are vested interests and that corruption is rife in the IPCC,
NASA, the US EPA, The US Academy of Sciences, The BoM, The Australian
Academy of Science, the UK MET, The Royal Swedish Academy of Science and a
host of other reputable organisations, BUT you have failed, despite repeated
requests, to provide evidence to support you wild and potentially libellous
claims.

As they say: "Put up or shut up."

If you have evidence to support your claims of corruption, present it.

As usual, you will fail to provide evidence to support your wild claims.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Bollocks. I have a logical, rational, critical thinking brain. I accept
that which has been proven by science. Nothign else. I note that you have
failed to present a single shred of scientific evidence to support your wild
claims.

Now who is being an idiot?

The one who accepts the solid science, from reputable organisations, or the
one who believes the bollocks promulgated by Alan Jones, George Pell and
Tony Abbott?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Strawman duly noted. You have zero idea of my business practices.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I'll say again: Sumbit your proof of your wild accusations.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**An expected response from a person who has no answers.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it


Submit real proof, not paid for and discredited "proof",  failing
that, go away.

Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Inability to provide even a tiny shred of supporting evidence is duly
noted.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:24:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Ahem...
<
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/All_Comp.png
from:
<http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Ahem...
<http://www.junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yep.  Track volcanoes.
<http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/scale2.html
<http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/scale1.html

Ok, I'll be the first to mention that Steven Milloy may have taken
money from Exxon (indirectly), but it has never been proven.  Decide
for yourself:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy

Since you're so sure that AGW is a proven thing, maybe you can collect
the $500,000 from Milloy?  Send a few dollars my way if you succeed:
<http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Maybe.  The problem is that none of the satellites are able to measure
planetary albedo with sufficient accuracy to make a definitive
determination.  We can do almost nothing in the way of measuring
albedo from the ground.  The plan is for the satellite to measure how
much energy is reflected by the planet (which includes atmospheric,
ocean, ice, land, etc) and also solar output.  The energy difference
is presumed to be what the planet absorbs.  Note that all the energy
is not necessarily at IR (heating).  Apparently it's sufficiently
important that NASA burned $424 million on the failed Glory launch,
and other global warming related birds.  The current assumption that
solar variations do not account for the alleged rise in average
temperatures is based on computer models with some rather serious
potential errors.

There's also a rather odd problem of just what the satellites are
actually measuring.  Temperature varies with altitude.  Satellite IR
imagers measure through all the various layers of the atmosphere.  If
there are clouds covering a land mass, the IR imager gets the
temperature of the clouds, not the ground.  So, to prevent this
obvious anomaly, the computers are set to only read numbers where
there are no clouds.  However, that discounts the effects of aerosols
and particulates (i.e. dust) in the upper atmosphere, which does a
marvelous job of reflecting sunlight into the IR imager.  Volcanoes
make it really difficult to get accurate readings.  Plenty of other
complications requiring the usual tweaks, adjustments, compensations,
normalization, and cherry picking.  Oh well.

What Malloy has done with the "global thermometer" mentioned above is
to take as much of the METAR and NOAA temperature data as possible and
average all of it.  The theory is that if you're faced with a large
number of potentially erroneous data points, and don't have the means
to reduce the errors, averaging all the bad data together will somehow
result in good data.  That's because the errors will tend to be in
random directions and hopefully cancel.  Since the IPCC uses the same
method, one can presume it to be valid.  However, I have my doubts.

Anyway, I have not attempted to debunk anything that you've offered.
What I've done it attempt to undermine your apparently unshakable
certainty in AGW and the IPCC.  If I've set you on the path of
critical thinking and academic skepticism, then I haven't wasted my
time.

--
Jeff Liebermann     snipped-for-privacy@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Er, 1978 ~ 2010 is not 600,000 years. Not even close. However, this graph
may provide a little more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Not quite 600,000 years, but considerably more than 30. Here's some more
information:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data /

And:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/index.html

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Again, a 30 year trend merely backs my claim.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**What are you trying to say? That the temerature of the planet is rising?
That CO2 levels are rising? No argument from me.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**The data presented shows:

* That CO2 levels are rising.
* That average temperatures are trending upwards.

I have no issue with that data.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I am satisfied that AGW has been shown to be the most likey explanation
for the temperature rise that has been noted, with around 95% confidence.
That is not 100% confidence and would likely not qualify for the money. It
is likely that, by the time 100% confidence has been reached, several things
will have occured:

* Milloy will be dead.
* VERY serious problems associated with global warming will be occuring and
the planet will have descended into a state of anarchy. US Dollars will
likely be virtually worthless. Food will be only currency of value.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Which is why measuring the rate of heat retention by the oceans is so
important:

http://www.bom.gov.au/inside/eiab/State-of-climate-2010-updated.pdf

Examine the graph on page 4. The planet's oceans store vastly more heat than
the troposphere does. The oceans are warming.

  We can do almost nothing in the way of measuring
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Really? Which errors? We know that the Sun output has diminished
(slightly) over the past couple of decades and yet the temperature trend of
the Earth is still up.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Which is why ocean temperature measurements are so important. It is the
planet's oceans that contain the most heat. By a considerable margin.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I do not have an "unshakable certainty in AGW and the IPCC". I accept that
the 95% certainty of AGW is a reasonable figure. What I find irrational is
the fact that many people seem to be clinging to the 5% uncertainty and
hoping that a very large number of very smart scientists are wrong.

Fundamentally, the way I see it is like this:

* If we spend a few Bucks today to mitigate CO2 emissions, we may be able to
avert the 95% probability of disaster.
* If we don't spend the money today, then it is highly probable (95%
certainty) that the cost will escalate with each passing year, to a point
where we will be unable to fund mitigation.
* If the scientists are wrong and we spend a few Bucks now, then it's cost
us some money.
* If the scientists are right and we don't spend the money, our civilisation
will not likely survive.

Make no mistake: I did not say that humans will be wiped out. Many will
survive. Anarchy is loking like a real probability.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Look at the REAL threats around you.  Including the ones posed by the
backers of this fear campaign. That is far more real and far more
certain than some religious "pay us tithes (carbon tax) or the gods of
the sky will unleash fire (Global warming) on you"

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 07:24:52 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I don't have a huge amount of time to take apart the graphs.  So, I
selected just the one above.  The first thing I noticed is that there
are no vertical grid lines, making it difficult to determine whether a
CO2 peak caused warming, or whether it was the other way around.  So,
dragging out GIMP photo editor, I added vertical grid lines.  I also
reversed the graph so that time goes from left to right.  Today is on
the right.

<
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Vostok_Petit_data_03.jpg

Note the circled peaks.  Note that the temperature peak precedes the
CO2 rise in all 3 visible peaks.  I'm not quite sure what to do about
the most recent peak.  If I get ambitious, I'll grab the raw data and
expand just that section.  It kinda looks like temp rise precedes CO2
again, but I can't be sure on such a wide scale.

(skipping down....)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

According to the trend lines, we should now be heading into another
ice age.  If true and we reduce CO2 emissions, my guess is that we'll
create our own disaster.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

True.  By limiting the shrinking list of acceptable solutions, only
the most expensive CO2 reduction schemes will be left.  For example,
extensive expansion of nuclear power is becoming increasingly
expensive due primarily to government oversight.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

"Few" bucks?  I can't think of any C02 reduction scheme that is cheap.
Switching to CFL and LED lighting might be cost effective because the
cost is spread over maybe 50 years.  Same with hybrid vehicles.
However, large scale reductions in CO2 reduction, such as eliminating
coal generated electricity, has huge associated costs.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Apocalyptic predictions of the demise of civilization have
traditionally accompanied such changes.  I recall reading one from the
ancient Greeks.  While the risks of inaction are high, the probability
of disaster is quite low.  Like the predictions of a Y2K disaster, the
modern alarmists have their limitation.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well, since we're doing a disaster movie here, I suggest you do a back
of the envelope calculation.  If we assume that the energy consumption
and greenhouse gas production per person remains constant at today's
western world levels, what would the population of the planet need to
be in order to produce a greenhouse gas stable environment?  I think
you might be amused by the result.

Incidentally, I just bought an EcoSmart LED lamp for $10 at Home
Depot.  40 watt equivalent, 9 watts consumption, 429 lumens, 3000K, 46
year life.  Works with my light dimmer.  The color accuracy 85 is not
very good.
<http://www.homedepot.com/buy/lighting-fans/light-bulbs/ecosmart/led-a19-40-watt-equivalent-light-bulb-39632.html
Prices seem to be getting down to reasonable.  One nice feature is
that the plastic "bulb" and aluminum base look sufficiently strong to
survive being dropped, something that CFL bulbs can't do.

--
Jeff Liebermann     snipped-for-privacy@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Argh.  Not so wonderful:
<
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/EcoSmart%209%20Watt%20LED.jpg

--
Jeff Liebermann     snipped-for-privacy@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it
<http://www.homedepot.com/buy/lighting-fans/light-bulbs/ecosmart/led-a19-40-watt-equivalent-light-bulb-39632.html
Quoted text here. Click to load it
Lets face it guys, there is nobody around here, myself included, who has
the mental horsepower to make a serious and realistic contribution to
the body of knowledge about global warming. Mostly it is reiteration of
set views using what ever data that has been provided by others and
which coincides with those set views of the writer. In the end nothing
changes, we still have the same people with the same views.

The debate though will have been useful if it leads to a lesser use of
fossil fuel to convert to energy. It is an inefficient process and there
ain't an infinite supply of the stuff.

Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

Quoted text here. Click to load it

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do
nothing."   Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

There's more to global warming than just contributing to the body of
knowledge.  There's the feedback, review, and criticism necessary to
validate the original research.  There's also a substantial amount of
interpretation necessary to make full use of the body of knowledge.
Just knowing the "facts" is insufficient.  One also had to know what
the fact really mean, and to do next.

As for lacking the mental horsepower necessary to contribute, please
note that during this discussion, I added one trivial item to the body
of knowledge by demonstrating how easy it is to tweak trend lines.  I
also demonstrated the global warming precedes CO2 rise, using a graph
that was apparently intended to demonstrate the reverse.

I doubt if we'll ever be able to generate a fact based determination
on AGW.  There's far too much polarization, politics and emotion
involved.  At best, we will have a consensus, based on whichever side
hires the best PR agency, and possibly which future natural disaster
is successfully blamed on AGW.  It makes me ill to think about it, but
that's probably the way it will work.

If you find it frustrating, I can sympathize.  There is enough
distorted data and odd conclusions being tossed around that it's
difficult to form a supportable opinion.  You're welcome to give up
now, and let the rest of us run your future.  Various PAC's will
gladly supply you with a prepared sample ballot to save you the effort
of forming an opinion.  A horde of elected representatives will gladly
tell you what to do, rather than attempt to represent your position
(especially if you have none).  However, methinks the AGW issue is
sufficiently important and potentially expensive, that giving up now
might be a little premature.


--
Jeff Liebermann     snipped-for-privacy@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I've studied the graphs in some considerable detail over the years and
have noted that CO2 rise sometimes precedes temperature rise and sometimes
it lags. This fits in well with current theory on how temperature changes
have occured in the past. Not all have been caused by CO2 rise. The most
important factor to note, however, is that CO2 levels and temperature levels
track each other very closely. When one goes up, the other does too.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**We SHOULD have entered an ice age quite a long time ago. But we didn't.
The temperature of the planet is rising. Our production of CO2 has prevented
the ice age from occuring.

  If true and we reduce CO2 emissions, my guess is that we'll
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**There's the rub: If we reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (by some
means, not specified), then we may precipitate an ice age. However, reducing
the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is an extremely unlikely possibility.
The VERY BEST we can hope for is to reduce emissions to zero. If we do that,
then CO2 levels would stabilise at the present level. That ain't gonna
happen. The most likely scenario is that CO2 levels will continue rising at
a faster rate than at any time in the last several hundred thousand years.
Temperatures are likely to follow (with 95% certainty).

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**That is a political issue. I'm discussing science.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Yeah. A few Bucks. Here is a reasonably comprehensive analysis of the
costs of action and the potential costs of inaction.

  I can't think of any C02 reduction scheme that is cheap.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**That would depend on what you consider to be "huge". I consider that a
temperature rise of (say) 6 degrees C (which is possible under some of the
more pessimistic estimates) is of far more concern than a (say) doubling of
electricity costs today.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**You're mixing up religion with science. The science that has been
presented is just that - science. It is based on many thousands of man-hours
of investigation and a great many of measurements. It is not wild
speculation. I leave that to guys like Roy Spencer.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Not at all. 500 million is my best guess. I've said it in the past and
that is the figure I'll stick with.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
<http://www.homedepot.com/buy/lighting-fans/light-bulbs/ecosmart/led-a19-40-watt-equivalent-light-bulb-39632.html
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I'll post some pics of my latest find a bit later. They are amongst the
most impressive LED arrays I've ever used:

http://www.dealextreme.com/p/12w-3500k-800lm-warm-white-led-emitter-metal-strip-12-14v-80310

Almost double the light output, compared to an 11 Watt, T5 fluoro.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 17:30:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Except for two very important things:  1) correlation is NOT causation. =
2)
effect cannot precede cause.   The graph is very clear on temperature
change preceding CO2 levels generally.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

No, you are not.  Effect does not precede cause.  You are an =
indoctrinated
political follower.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

And i see it quite the reverse.  Nor do i believe that the Greenland ice
sheet will all melt away and cause a calamitous ocean level rise (as
depicted is some apocalyptic projections).
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Effect does not precede cause.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I don't actually find that number unreasonable.  Though i am looking a =
lot
more factors.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
40-watt-equivalent-light-bulb-39632.html>
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I never suggested otherwise. Read my words more carefully in future.

 2)
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Duh. I suggest you study up on the sequence of events during times of high
CO2 levels.

  The graph is very clear on temperature
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Incorrect. The graphs span several hundred thousand years. The graph
clearly shows that CO2 rise precedes temperature rise several times. When
CO2 levels rise, temperature rise follows. When temperatures rise, CO2 is
outgassed from the oceans, causing rising CO2 levels. When CO2 levels rise,
temperature rise follows. And so on.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**_I_ am.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Duh.

  You are an
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**If you mean to say:

I regard science as the arbiter of this present situation and have no regard
for those who reject science and embrace the supernatural, then you'd be
correct.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Good for you. Cite your peer-reviewed science that proves the IPCC AR4
incorrect.

  Nor do i believe that the Greenland
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**You may believe in all the supernatural mumbo-jumbo you wish. I'll stick
with the scientists on this one. You may care to note that the Greenland ice
melt has accelerated in the past few years. Why do you think that is? You
may also care to note that Greenland's arable land has increased in recent
years. Why do you think that is? Given these two effects, what do you think
will cause them to cease?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Strawman. Spencer is a religious nutter.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
<http://www.homedepot.com/buy/lighting-fans/light-bulbs/ecosmart/led-a19-40-watt-equivalent-light-bulb-39632.html
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.dealextreme.com/p/12w-3500k-800lm-warm-white-led-emitter-metal-strip-12-14v-80310
Quoted text here. Click to load it


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Site Timeline