^ Actually, I just repeated what Gavin S (an actual climate scientist at NASA) was saying on RealClimate.org. If you have a problem with the PEER REVIEWED research he was citing, you should probably take it up with him.

Personally, I am not a climate scientist. Last I heard, you were not either. So for any additional queries you can probably refer to my posts to TKE-Teg and arronburro concerning people that insist they can distinguish between good climate science and bad climate science with ZERO training in the subject matter.

[Edited on June 30, 2009 at 8:45 PM. Reason : ``]

6/30/2009 8:22:16 PM

^ yea i hate how the science on this issue ends up getting fucked up by politics like it is interpreting shakespeare or some shit.

6/30/2009 8:36:47 PM

No need. Occam's razor, it is far more likely that you have misunderstood the statements the scientist was making. He was probably addressing the assertion that ground stations are discredited by UHI effects, which I can imagine being wrong. My assertion is different: changes in land use on a global scale has caused temperatures to rise, an assertion which does not require any fancy training, any engineer capable of passing the FE should do. My assertion need not be in conflict with his.

Where I do probably disagree with him is when it comes to positive environmental feedbacks, where my engineering background is probably more valuable than his climate science degree (I have studied the operation of far more non-self destructive machines than he has).

7/1/2009 12:01:39 AM

It never ceases to amaze me how people underestimate the effects of the massive amount of energy that this beast releases onto the Earth.

7/1/2009 1:51:15 AM

Quote :

"No need. Occam's razor, it is far more likely that you have misunderstood the statements the scientist was making."

Well, the link was provided. So anytime you feel like correcting me, feel free. In the mean time, I will go about my business discussing climate change policy as if the climate science community actually knows they're talking about. Sooooooo...

7/1/2009 6:09:40 AM

I've been meaning to post this for a while, but got distracted.

A couple of weeks ago, the Synthesis Report of the Copenhagen Congress was published. This is really sort of a highlights was the largest climate change conference this year and over 2,000 scientists attended from all research areas . You can find a copy here:
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/files/synthesis-report-web.pdf

Boxes throughout the document call out specific research that was presented. The first box is probably the most interesting to readers here. It discusses how two researchers used satellite measurements to estimate the amount of mass lost by large polar ice sheets sheet through ice discharge. They then use this data to update projections of sea-level rise over the next century.

Quote :

"The new observations of the increasing loss of mass from glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets lead to predictions of global mean sea level rises of 1 m (±0.5 m) during the next century. The updated estimates of the future global mean sea level rise are about double the IPCC projections from 2007"

I am personally not too hung up on sea-level projections in themselves. Even if they are accurate, I think there are other aspects of climate change that are more concerning (like what the net impact will be on food production and fresh water availability in poor countries). But, sea level projections do seem to get the most press and they also seem to drive AGW skeptics crazy. So I figured I'd throw it out there.

[Edited on July 1, 2009 at 8:31 AM. Reason : ``]

7/1/2009 8:10:26 AM

why would sea level rise predictions bother me? the seas have been rising and falling long before humans were around, and they will continue to do so long after we're gone. Given that ice mass on Antartica is increasing, and that ice formation in the artic is at a 30 year high, as well as the fact that sea level rise has all but stopped the last few years, its not hard to see there's no reason to worry.

7/1/2009 8:48:25 AM

Quote :

"Real Climate’s Misinformation Filed under: Uncategorized — Roger Pielke Sr. @ 7:00 am Real Climate posted a weblog on June 21 2009 titled “A warning from Copenhagen”. They report on a Synthesis Report of the Copenhagen Congress which was handed over to the Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen in Brussels the previous week. Real Climate writes “So what does it say? Our regular readers will hardly be surprised by the key findings from physical climate science, most of which we have already discussed here. Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago - such as rising sea levels, the increase of heat stored in the ocean and the shrinking Arctic sea ice. “The updated estimates of the future global mean sea level rise are about double the IPCC projections from 2007?, says the new report. And it points out that any warming caused will be virtually irreversible for at least a thousand years - because of the long residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere.” First, what is “physical climate science”? How is this different from “climate science”. In the past, this terminology has been used when authors ignore the biological components of the climate system. More importantly, however, the author of the weblog makes the statement that the following climate metrics “are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago” ; 1. “rising sea levels” NOT TRUE; e.g. see the University of Colorado at Boulder Sea Level Change analysis. Sea level has actually flattened since 2006. 2. “the increase of heat stored in the ocean” NOT TRUE; see Update On A Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions. Their has been no statistically significant warming of the upper ocean since 2003. 3. “shrinking Arctic sea ice” NOT TRUE; see the Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly from the University of Illinois Cyrosphere Today website. Since 2008, the anomalies have actually decreased. These climate metrics might again start following the predictions of the models. However, until and unless they do, the authors of the Copenhagen Congress Synthesis Report and the author of the Real Climate weblog are erroneously communicating the reality of the how the climate system is actually behaving. Media and policymakers who blindly accept these claims are either naive or are deliberately slanting the science to promote their particular advocacy position. "

Oh look, Realclimate.org being proven wrong with peer reviewed studies. Naturally, this is just the most recent example. All links to mentioned studies are at the below link.

http://climatesci.org/2009/06/30/real-climates-misinformation/

7/1/2009 9:47:25 AM

Quote :

"1. “rising sea levels” NOT TRUE; e.g. see the University of Colorado at Boulder Sea Level Change analysis. Sea level has actually flattened since 2006."

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.pdf

Please tell me how this chart shows that sea levels have "flattened" since 2006. You can't because you don't know what you're talking about. He doesnt even provide the study it came from to show whether the researchers share his position. And you ate it right up.

7/1/2009 1:49:39 PM

Yeah....



okay.



It's plain as day, but sure...

7/1/2009 1:58:42 PM

Polar bear expert barred by global warmists
Mitchell Taylor, who has studied the animals for 30 years, was told his views 'are extremely unhelpful’ , reveals Christopher Booker.



According to the world's leading expert on polar bears, their numbers are higher than they were 30 years ago Photo: AP

Quote :

"Over the coming days a curiously revealing event will be taking place in Copenhagen. Top of the agenda at a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission) will be the need to produce a suitably scary report on how polar bears are being threatened with extinction by man-made global warming. This is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN's major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December. But one of the world's leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week's meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with those of the rest of the group. Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined. Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea. He has also observed, however, how the melting of Arctic ice, supposedly threatening the survival of the bears, has rocketed to the top of the warmists' agenda as their most iconic single cause. The famous photograph of two bears standing forlornly on a melting iceberg was produced thousands of times by Al Gore, the WWF and others as an emblem of how the bears faced extinction – until last year the photographer, Amanda Byrd, revealed that the bears, just off the Alaska coast, were in no danger. Her picture had nothing to do with global warming and was only taken because the wind-sculpted ice they were standing on made such a striking image."

http://tinyurl.com/mv8rbj

Typical.

7/1/2009 2:01:18 PM

^^I see a trend line that continues to rise as plain as day. But, then I don't know what I'm talking about. Could you help me?

7/1/2009 2:09:24 PM

^the argument he is pushing is that since 2006 sea level rise has stopped. If you isolate the data from that graph from 2006 forward, your best fit trend line would more or less be flat.

Here ya go:


[Edited on July 1, 2009 at 2:15 PM. Reason : k]

7/1/2009 2:14:53 PM

forest/trees

7/1/2009 2:26:07 PM

TKE-Teg

Interestingly enough, that is a picture where inverse barometer is not applied. The Univ of Colorado has another picture where the inverse barometer HAS been applied. Guess what? It doesn't look so flat. Of course, I have no clue what any of that fucking means and neither do you (at least not without your google brain). So what are you doing arguing about pictures you don't fully understand?



[Edited on July 1, 2009 at 2:31 PM. Reason : ``]

7/1/2009 2:26:14 PM

this thread makes me laff

7/1/2009 2:32:45 PM

Inverse barometer effect - the potential response of the water column from atmospheric changes.

Thanks for compelling me to learn what it means. Doesn't discount our argument though.

7/1/2009 2:32:49 PM

Quote :

"If you isolate the data from that graph from 2006 forward, your best fit trend line would more or less be flat."

actually, the slope of that appears to be 1.58 -- so 'flatter' than the overall trend but not 'flat'

not sure why 2006 was picked, it's actually 'flatter' (1.17) from 2005 forward so if i was cherry-picking points that probably would've been my choice

of course, we could look at the data from just 2008+ and the slope would be 3.69, greater than the overall trend and clearly a sign that we should all be buying our soon-to-be oceanfront property in arizona...

7/1/2009 2:35:34 PM

If you isolate the data between 1992 and 1995 the trend line is flat, if you isolate the data between 97 and 99, its negative.

That isn't how statistics and forecasting works, especially ones that track slowly changing bodies like global climate. you cant look at the last two years and claim there isn't an upward trend without looking at the last 10, or 50

7/1/2009 2:36:57 PM

If 2006 to 2008 is "flat," isn't 1994 to 1996 flat, too? It kind of looks flat if you draw a trend line between those two points. Also, there wasn't really any rise between 1998 and 2000.

But, it's "flat" from 2006, so that must mean global warming doesn't exist. Do I have it right?

7/1/2009 2:37:15 PM

TKE-TEG, um it kinda does. Should the inverse barometer be applied or not? Because it looks like applying it blows your "pictorial inference" out of the water.

Sounds to me like it should be applied:

Quote :

"The Inverse Barometer (IB) is the correction for variations in sea surface height due to atmospheric pressure variations (atmospheric loading)."

http://earth.esa.int/brat/html/alti/dataflow/processing/geophys_corr/inverse_barometer_en.html

I mean, hey, you don't want to not correct for that atmospheric pressure variations. It might give you an inaccurate picture of what sea levels really are. Or something. I don't fucking know and neither do you. THAT'S the fucking point I'm making.

[Edited on July 1, 2009 at 2:38 PM. Reason : ``]

7/1/2009 2:37:16 PM

POTENTIAL


seeing as its a POTENTIAL it doesn't really strengthen what you said. But I'm not a scientist, so I don't know what potential means either.

Guess what else it doesn't take into effect? Sinking land masses.

[Edited on July 1, 2009 at 2:39 PM. Reason : oh nos]

7/1/2009 2:38:26 PM

Quote :

"actually, the slope of that appears to be 1.58 -- so 'flatter' than the overall trend but not 'flat' not sure why 2006 was picked, it's actually 'flatter' (1.17) from 2005 forward so if i was cherry-picking points that probably would've been my choice of course, we could look at the data from just 2008+ and the slope would be 3.69, greater than the overall trend and clearly a sign that we should all be buying our soon-to-be oceanfront property in arizona..."

Quote :

"If you isolate the data between 1992 and 1995 the trend line is flat, if you isolate the data between 97 and 99, its negative. That isn't how statistics and forecasting works, especially ones that track slowly changing bodies like global climate. you cant look at the last two years and claim there isn't an upward trend without looking at the last 10, or 50"

ding ding ding

I like these arguments better. I was mostly trying to show up TKE again as knowing jack about climate science. But I think these might drive home the point even to him.

You can't just cherry pick the data you like.

[Edited on July 1, 2009 at 2:41 PM. Reason : ``]

7/1/2009 2:40:18 PM

Quote :

"Why would sea level rise predictions bother me? the seas have been rising and falling long before humans were around"

This statement is one of the biggest problems with people who are not concerned about GW, or accept that it may be happening but don't care, or even are glib about it and say things like "hey, i sure wouldn't mind if winters were a bit warmer around here!"

Yes, sea levels have been rising and falling for as long as the earth has been here, but you really called yourself out on the 2nd part of the sentence - "long before humans were around" - yes, exactly! Seas have been rising and falling a long time before humans were around and built gigantic cities right on the edge of said seas for easy access to trade routes!

So 10,000 years ago, say the seas rose, naturally, 1-2M. And? Well, any animals, including humans, that happened to be living near the sea would gradually move inland as the waters rose over the decades and centuries. Any semi-permanent dwellings that may have existed certainly were of no significance that they couldn't be moved or rebuilt by future generations a few miles inland.

But today, in the 2000's? There are billions of people living within a stones throw of an ocean coastline, with trillions of dollars of buildings and infrastructure that can't simply be "moved inland". If the ocean does rise a couple meters, some of the largest cities in the world will become uninhabitable. Now, if this is going to happen naturally anyway, over the coming centuries, I guess we'll have to figure something out to do about it. But if there is any contribution to the rise by man, then we'd better cut it the hell out if possible.

7/1/2009 2:47:08 PM

Quote :

"So what if the vast majority of climate scientists say I'm wrong? I'm smart enough to sort good science from bad science because I was an engineer major at NCSU!!!""

So what if a lot of these guys have been pressured to put out what they do because they will be FIRED if they report the opposite. That kind of a "consensus" really does mean "jack shit." Every time Sadaam Hussein was up for "re-election," he got 100% of the vote and a 100% approval rating. I'm not an Iraqi, so I guess I'm not qualified to comment, and I should just take it at face value that Sadaam was a great leader, right Socks?

Quote :

"That's incredible. You're both smart enough to earn climatology PhD's on the weekend AND read people's minds."

No, but I can spot bad science when I see it. The kind of science that fails the prediction test, like AGW. The kind of science that won't release its data or methodology, except to favoured people, like the major AGW proponents. The kind of science that won't listen to any dissent, like AGW. I would ask you why in the fuck you trust the "consensus" when the "consensus" scientists so blatantly fail the basic tests of, you know, scientific integrity.

Quote :

"Actually, I just repeated what Gavin S (an actual climate scientist at NASA) was saying on RealClimate.org. If you have a problem with the PEER REVIEWED research he was citing, you should probably take it up with him."

I have a problem with someone trying to claim that an asphalt roof won't be hotter than a grassy field. Mainly because our experiences tell us otherwise.

7/1/2009 5:46:22 PM

Quote :

"If the ocean does rise a couple meters, some of the largest cities in the world will become uninhabitable."

Cities become uninhabitable for only one reason ever: the people gave up trying to keep it habitable. Civil engineers exist for a reason.

7/1/2009 6:10:03 PM

^^^just so we're clear: seas naturally rising and falling over time + people building cities on the coast = seas rising b/c of CO2 emissions


It don't add up bro

[Edited on July 1, 2009 at 9:47 PM. Reason : j]

7/1/2009 9:47:37 PM

no, he's saying that we should care about sea-level rise because we now have major cities that would be affected.

what doesn't add up is the massive leap to blame CO2, which, again, he isn't really doing. However, it seems logical, if CO2 is actually a problem that is affecting sea levels, to attempt to contain the problem. But, I'd say that if CO2 isn't the cause, then we are fucked if we focus solely on CO2. Instead, maybe we should invest in technologies that would actually help the cities cope with the problem, no matter the cause.

7/1/2009 10:11:52 PM

fuck, i had a big response and I lost it all because of a shitty connection.

anyway, ^ is right w/r/t ^^.

I was not making a claim as to why or if sea levels are rising now. All i'm saying is that just because "____ event happened in the past" (sea levels rose/fell, temps rose by 3C, whatever) doesn't mean that we can go along happily with our lives and let them happen again (or at least, contribute to them happening sooner or more severely than the otherwise naturally would have) and just chalk it up to "hey, it's natural - humans survived before, we'll survive again."

It's true that whatever happens, humans will survive, but in our modern times, we have a much lower threshold of acceptable damages to our lifestyles and populations. In the past (x-thousand years ago), if sea levels rose or drought struck an area, then people would either move gradually to other areas over years or decades, and lots of them would probably die. Today, though? Well, try moving NYC or Mumbai a few miles inland to avoid rising oceans and see how that works out.

7/1/2009 11:18:00 PM

^I'm not an unreasonable person. For those reasons you recently stated yes I'm concerned about sea level rise. I agree with you. But I don't blame AGW on sea level rise. Considering that the sea level has been increasing ever since the last ice age I find it hard to blame on humans.


slightly OT, but I read something pretty interesting in an article less than a month back. Apparently sea level rise is more severe on the North Atlantic Seaboard b/c the continent is actually sinking a little bit. During the last ice age the enormous weight of glaciers in North America pushed up the part of N. America not under glaciers (like a see-saw). So ever since they melted the continent has been slowly sinking back to where it should be. I dunno if this is common knowledge to the average geologist geek, but I found it pretty cool.

7/2/2009 9:01:07 AM

Quote :

"Yesterday we wrote about Environmental Protection Agency economist Al Carlin, the author of a report that casts doubt on climate change. Carlin's study wasn't taken as seriously by the agency as he'd been hoping -- perhaps because he's not a scientist, and because his bosses never asked him to produce it. But his cause has become a favorite of right-wingers, who suddenly believe science to be sacred, and are charging that the Obama administration is "suppressing" a report whose conclusions it dislikes. The anti-regulatory Competitive Enterprise Institute first publicized Carlin's report last week. Since then, Carlin has discussed his "findings" with Glenn Beck on Fox News, and on Monday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) called for a criminal investigation into the issue. Now, Rep. Joe Barton is taking the outrage to a new level. This morning on America's Newsroom, the industry-friendly Texas Republican accused the EPA of suppressing the report, and declared that "just as Nixon had Watergate, Obama now has Carbongate to deal with." "

- http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/rep_barton_obama_should_be_worried_about_carbongat.php?ref=fpblg

Wow, the right is surely betting on a winning horse with this one.

7/2/2009 4:44:54 PM

and how many other people who worked on that EPA report were scientists? But, I know, HOW DARE an employee speak out when his employer is engaging in political chicanery. By all means, lets let that dirty bastard be fired.

I guess it's OK to fire people now who are whistleblowers if it isn't their job to blow the whistle.

7/2/2009 6:40:44 PM

Quote :

"“Surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean" Abstract: Excerpted Abstract of the Paper appearing in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Time series for the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) and global tropospheric temperature anomalies (GTTA) are compared for the 1958-2008 period. GTTA are represented by data from satellite microwave sensing units (MSU) for the period 1980–2008 and from radiosondes (RATPAC) for 1958–2008. After the removal from the data set of short periods of temperature perturbation that relate to near-equator volcanic eruption, we use derivatives to document the presence of a 5- to 7-month delayed close relationship between SOI and GTTA. Change in SOI accounts for 72% of the variance in GTTA for the 29-year-long MSU record and 68% of the variance in GTTA for the longer 50-year RATPAC record. Because El Niño-Southern Oscillation is known to exercise a particularly strong influence in the tropics, we also compared the SOI with tropical temperature anomalies between 20°S and 20°N. The results showed that SOI accounted for 81% of the variance in tropospheric temperature anomalies in the tropics. Overall the results suggest that the Southern Oscillation exercises a consistently dominant influence on mean global temperature, with a maximum effect in the tropics, except for periods when equatorial volcanism causes ad hoc cooling. That mean global tropospheric temperature has for the last 50 years fallen and risen in close accord with the SOI of 5–7 months earlier shows the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation."

full press release here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/23/surge-in-global-temperatures-since-1977-can-be-attributed-to-a-1976-climate-shift-in-the-pacific-ocean/#more-9538

And yes, it's a peer reviewed study

7/24/2009 10:34:57 AM

A response to the report:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/old-news/

7/24/2009 2:02:35 PM

Michael Tobis already beat me to this point but my first thought when reading about this study was, "Ah, so now we can stop having this stupid argument about the sun driving recent warming."

7/24/2009 8:22:45 PM

^what exactly do you mean recently? The sun's been highly active for the last 150 years (ending in the late 90s)


COMING SOON TO A COUNTRY NEAR YOU:

Quote :

"Germans Hoarding Traditional Light Bulbs The staggered phase out of energy-wasting light bulbs begins on Sept. 1 in Germany. The unpopularity of the energy-saving compact fluorescent bulbs that will replace them is leading consumers and retailers to start hoarding the traditional bulbs. As the Sept. 1 deadline for the implementation of the first phase of the EU's ban on incandescent light bulbs approaches, shoppers, retailers and even museums are hoarding the precious wares -- and helping the manufacturers make a bundle. Germans are hoarding traditional incandescent light bulbs as their planned phase out -- in favor of energy-saving compact flourescent bulbs -- approaches. . The EU ban, adopted in March, calls for the gradual replacement of traditional light bulbs with supposedly more energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL). The first to go, on Sept. 1, will be 100-watt bulbs. Bulbs of other wattages will then gradually fall under the ban, which is expected to cover all such bulbs by Sept. 1, 2012 (see graphic below). Hardware stores and home-improvement chains in Germany are seeing massive increases in the sales of the traditional bulbs. Obi reports a 27 percent growth in sales over the same period a year ago. Hornbach has seen its frosted-glass light bulb sales increase by 40-112 percent. When it comes to 100-watt bulbs, Max Bahr has seen an 80 percent jump in sales, while the figure has been 150 percent for its competitor Praktiker. ... In fact, in creating this legislation, the EU failed to address consumer preferences and the reservations of a number of other groups. For example, many have complained that the light emitted by a CFL bulb is colder and weaker and that its high-frequency flickering can cause headaches. Then there are complaints about the mercury the CFL bulbs contain, how there is no system for disposing of them in a convenient and environmentally friendly way, and how they allegedly result in exposure to radiation levels higher than allowed under international guidelines. For some, the issue is also one of broken promises. For example, manufacturers of CFL bulbs justify their higher prices by claiming that they last much longer than traditional bulbs. But a recent test by the environmentally-oriented consumer-protection magazine Öko Test found that 16 of the 32 bulb types tested gave up the ghost after 6,000 hours of use -- or much earlier than their manufacturers had promised. ..."

I know there's been constant talk of this being enacted in this US, can anyone else shed any light on that? (pun intended)

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,638494,00.html

7/30/2009 3:46:24 PM

My point is that there is a certain incoherence of thought if you accept both ENSO driving recent climate trends and solar forcing driving recent temperature trends. I suppose in some convoluted way you could combine them but it won't make a very clean story.
Anyway, it's nice to see even some skeptics are calling the McLean et al. ENSO paper crap. Mostly climate auditors are so asymmetrical in their auditing they make a joke out of themselves.

[Edited on July 30, 2009 at 8:57 PM. Reason : x]

7/30/2009 8:57:14 PM

So I'm curious if the global temperatures are higher this year than last year or the year before that? It seems this global warming theory or consensus has dragged on for quite a while now. I'm just curious to see if there is any recent data available to the public to suggest it's truthfulness.

7/30/2009 9:31:37 PM

^lol, its absolutely available and probably posted a page or two back. Satellite data is readily available for the last 10 years, and will show you roughly 7 years of no gain followed by 3 years of declining temp.

[Edited on July 31, 2009 at 7:30 AM. Reason : hj]

7/31/2009 7:29:48 AM

I would support the flourescent bulb thing. Incandescent bulbs are incredibly inefficient, and it's something we can do right now to improve our greedy energy consumption. It's also throwing a bone to environmentalists.

7/31/2009 9:28:13 AM

In many instances buying a CFL will use more energy over its lifetime than buying an incandescent bulb. Remember, not all bumps wind up being left on all day in the living room. Some get put into atics, closets, or spare rooms and then only get used a few hours. Meanwhile, just manufacturing a CFL consumed quite a bit more energy (and resources) than their brethren. They cost ten times more for a reason.

7/31/2009 11:07:26 AM

Quote :

"CFLs have a horrible power factor. Their current draw is almost as high as an incadescent bulb, but the current is out of phase with the voltage so your meter doesn't record the reactive part. They force the utility to have to install switched capacitor banks down line to carry the load, and the additional current results in additional losses in all of the wiring, transformers, and other devices in the line between the lights and the capacitor banks. If the utility doesn't have enough capacitors between the load and the source, then the extra reactive energy must be generated by burning more coal or natural gas. I think some of the newer and more expensive CFLs have built in capacitors to correct this, but not many people are going to pay that extra money if they don't have to. I think there should have been regulations forcing people to manufacture the bulbs with the correction capacitor already built in, but that probably would have made the payback math not work out and would have prevented people from buying them."

I'm no expert on light bulbs, but this is what eleusis posted in a thread in the Lounge recently.

7/31/2009 11:30:20 AM

I wonder if or how much the proposed Human induced effect on global climate is actually changing the amplitude and/or frequency of the ecosystem's natural oscillations and patterns as pertaining to global temperatures. Usually for simplification purposes the proposed global warming "effects" are described as an overall offset, increasing global temperatures.

Due the huge number of variables and cycles that relate to climate I could see the human "interference" causing more of a ripple than a ramp over the long term.

If you do not understand the terms i use in paragraph one or grasp the idea in paragraph two, than you probably do not deserve voice in the global climate change debate and should go back to listening Rush Limbaugh on your radio.

Quote :

"CFLs have a horrible power factor. Their current draw is almost as high as an incadescent bulb, but the current is out of phase with the voltage so your meter doesn't record the reactive part. They force the utility to have to install switched capacitor banks down line to carry the load, and the additional current results in additional losses in all of the wiring, transformers, and other devices in the line between the lights and the capacitor banks. If the utility doesn't have enough capacitors between the load and the source, then the extra reactive energy must be generated by burning more coal or natural gas."

This post is an epic fail. Your Refridgerator, A/C, and room fan are far more detremental to your power factor than a few CFL bulbs in your house. Please leave the electrical analysis to the electrical engineers of TWW.

[Edited on July 31, 2009 at 11:47 AM. Reason : a]

7/31/2009 11:41:49 AM

It was in the context of CFLs vs Incandescent bulbs

Quote :

"In many instances buying a CFL will use more energy over its lifetime than buying an incandescent bulb. Remember, not all bumps wind up being left on all day in the living room. Some get put into atics, closets, or spare rooms and then only get used a few hours. "

I think you forgot to make sense. You're going to have to explain why using a bulb sparingly causes it to be inefficient.

[Edited on July 31, 2009 at 4:51 PM. Reason : .]

7/31/2009 4:50:51 PM

it doesn't cause the bulb to be inefficient, and he's not claiming that. Rather, he's saying that all of the energy put in to making the bulb, which is significantly higher for CFLs than for incandescents, is wasted, because the higher efficiency of the bulb isn't used. That you failed to comprehend this is, frankly, telling

7/31/2009 8:57:47 PM

I like how there are so many fucking armchair electrical engineers in this thread now.

8/1/2009 12:22:57 PM

Quote :

"It's true that whatever happens, humans will survive, but in our modern times, we have a much lower threshold of acceptable damages to our lifestyles and populations. In the past (x-thousand years ago), if sea levels rose or drought struck an area, then people would either move gradually to other areas over years or decades, and lots of them would probably die. Today, though? Well, try moving NYC or Mumbai a few miles inland to avoid rising oceans and see how that works out."

I know this is from a month ago, but I still want to chime in. Back in the day, when a storm struck and damaged the regions crops, people handled the problem by starving to death. Today, we just dig into our bank accounts and there is no discernible effect upon our living standards as all the food needed is imported from around the world. Rising sea levels are not a slow problem, it manifests when storm surges occur, suddenly flooding urban areas. Back in the day when storms struck without warning, primitive means of transportation would trap people and poor construction would kill them. Today, we can flee a disaster and be half way across the continent in a day or so, checking into a hotel and buying food the whole way with readily negotiable assets such as credit cards. Such was impossible in the past when most families barely owned land and housing.

8/1/2009 12:47:10 PM

not to mention the sea level isn't rising much at all, and at less of rate than it historically has for the last several thousands of years.

8/1/2009 2:24:36 PM

part of this could be due to the offset that higher temperatures allow for increased moisture content in the atmosphere.

Both sides of the debate imho are idiots and do not fully grasp the complexity of the system.

[Edited on August 1, 2009 at 5:22 PM. Reason : l]

8/1/2009 5:22:03 PM

yes, but only one side is screaming that the sky is falling. The other side is, for the most part, saying that we don't fully comprehend the system. oh wait, isn't that what you just said?

8/1/2009 5:47:46 PM