Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

ph

? t

ngs

nd

e

han

of

R

hat

s

to

t

ion

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"

LOL - if they did a presentation for Trev by someone in a lab coat pretending to look intelligent, and could "prove" that he would be damned for eternity if he didnt get fully involved, then he would be sucked right on :)

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.

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....)

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

**Yes. I've been reading Spencer's stuff for several years. On the surface, much sounds plausible. His arguments have some serious holes in them, however.

What do you think about Spencer's supernatural beliefs? Does that cause you to consider his statements with a more critical eye? What do you think of Spencer's affiliations (with the fossil fuel industry)? Does that cause you to consider his statements with a more critical eye? Have you looked at the cites I provided? Have you read IPCC AR4?

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Argh. Not so wonderful:

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

**Scientolgy was set up as a tax dodge by a 2nd rate science fiction writer. It relies on the same ignorance damanded by the Catholics, the Muslims, the Jews and all the other religions. Scientology actively seeks to isolate it's adherents from normal society. This is a stanadrd ploy by religious and quasi-religious sects. Like every other religion, Scientology needs to be:

• Taxed.

• Subjected to the normal consumer regulations that surround any other product or service.

That should sort them out.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

How ironic. They also propagate an unending stream of unsupported information claiming them to be facts.

Jeff

--
"Everything from Crackers to Coffins"

Hmmmm ...

I feel zero compuction in stting them down, offering them a

Nope, I couldn't care less about his religious views, neither do I care in the least about the religious views of the members of the IPCC.

Spencer's own words:-

"Dr. Spencer?s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil."

Do you have any cites to prove him a liar?

Yes, it worries me that they start out from the point of view that he is wrong, and then go looking for evidence to support that. That is not the scientific method.

Some of it, unfortunately, I am not in a position to confirm or dispute their modelling, but I am by nature suspicious of the results of computer modelling, basically it tends to be high speed guessing. The problem is extremely complex and all attempts to model climate have been gross simplifications. Even the models to predict tomorrows weather rarely agree with each other.

I have an open mind on the subject (which probably puts me in a minority of one) global warming is without doubt, but the cause is very much open to question.

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.

**A person that holds 'Intelligent Design' as some kind of rational view is seriously suspect. In fact, I would be concerned about any person, that claims to be a scientist, who hold any kind of supernatural beliefs.

Spencer is part of this organisation:

Here is part of their platform:

An excerpt:

1.. We believe Earth and its ecosystems?created by God?s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence ?are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth?s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history. 2.. We believe abundant, affordable energy is indispensable to human flourishing, particularly to societies which are rising out of abject poverty and the high rates of disease and premature death that accompany it. With present technologies, fossil and nuclear fuels are indispensable if energy is to be abundant and affordable. 3.. We believe mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, achievable mainly by greatly reduced use of fossil fuels, will greatly increase the price of energy and harm economies. 4.. We believe such policies will harm the poor more than others because the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on energy and desperately need economic growth to rise out of poverty and overcome its miseries. Disturbing stuff. Spencer is listed as a prominent signer:

It seems clear that Spencer STARTS from a theological POV and moulds his science to fit that view. Are you certain you want to get on this idiot's train of thought?

**Certainly, but it gets very messy. Probably easier to refer you to the organisation that has unravelled the paper trail:

And here:

And:

And, of course, here is where he has worked for the Heartland Institute:

The Heartland Institute is a 'front' for big tobacco and big oil (along with big guns):

In short, Spencer is a religious nutter, who is (partly) paid by big oil.

**No, I do not. Spencer is a religious fruit-cake. ANYTHING he says must be viewed with deep suspicion.

That is

**Indeed. Which is why I supplied a number of cites that criticise Spencer's claims. Did you look at them? **This present discussion is not specifically about the modelling. It's about the fact that AGW is occuring. IOW: We only need look at the historical data.

but I am by nature suspicious of the results

**Indeed. And the modelling of climate is improving all the time. **Bullshit. The BoM has a very impressive success rate with determining weather over a 24 hour period. It is less successful over 48 hours and even less so over 72 hours and so on. However, we are not discussing weather. We're discussing climate. BIG difference. **Well, no, it is not "Very much open to question". There is a small amont of doubt about why it is occuring. Around 5% at present.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"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     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

**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. **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

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

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

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

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Well, a majority of several on here, it would seem. You could at least add me to that sentiment, so that's two of us ... :-)

Arfa

Dictionaries reflect usage. They are not rule-books.

Good dictionaries do, Macquarie lists words before they become common enough therefore hastening change.

=20

sometimes=20

changes=20

=20

levels=20

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.

didn't.=20

prevented=20

some=20

reducing=20

possibility.=20

that,=20

at=20

years.=20

No, you are not. Effect does not precede cause. You are an = indoctrinated political follower.

=20

the=20

of=20

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).

man-hours=20

Effect does not precede cause.

=20

I don't actually find that number unreasonable. Though i am looking a = lot more factors.

the=20

l-strip-12-14v-80310

"Fuckwit Murtz"

** What absolute bollocks.

.... Phil

**I never suggested otherwise. Read my words more carefully in future. 2) **Duh. I suggest you study up on the sequence of events during times of high CO2 levels.

The graph is very clear on temperature

**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. **_I_ am.

**Duh.

You are an

**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.

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

Nor do i believe that the Greenland

**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? **Strawman. Spencer is a religious nutter.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au