Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

We use them in various places in our home, but so far the energy savings has not been enough to pay for the higher cost of the CFCs or for the real pain-in-the-butt process of disposing of them when they burn out.

Seems that they are a lot more expensive in the USA than elsewhere. And of a poorer quality (I haven't heard from anyone who got them burnt out, and we and the others use them since years.)

Pain-in-the-butt process of deposing? That could be have to do with your (ABQ/NM/USA) recycling process: we have special collections and/or stations for such - and as easy as recycling any other electric/electronic 'thing', you can bring it back in the shop, too.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

But nevertheless, by all means, if there is a demand and savings to be had, let people who want to use them use them.

But don't give government the power to tell us what light bulbs we can or cannot use based on something as inconclusive as anthropogenic global warming.

[/quote]

I suppose that this might be another cultural thing: we are used to such/similar: anything which might be and/or actually is dangerous is regulated here. Since ages.
But - like it happened in the past with other things: people bought the old bulbs like mad before they were banned. (Same happened decades ago, when the "coal incandescent light bulbs" [not sure what's the correct name in English] weren't sold anymore.)

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

The government is not forcing anyone to use CFLs. You can use incandescent, halogen and CFLs. All will be available when the bill is in full effect. The incandescent and halogen just have to meet an energy per lumen standard that many of the current incandescents don't meet.

Same here - I hadn'Ät thaught it was different in the USA.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Why is it suddenly different when it comes to light bulbs?

Old traditional habits. Conservativism (nothing political meat here at all!).
And actually, you don't save money in very same minute you buy a new bulb but only years later. (You don't get "old-time" fridges, washing maschines etc here anymore. And everyone looks at how many "A's" in energy saving such a machine has - others aren't sold because no-one buys them. But bulbs must be something different.)

0 Replies

We'll do one better. I will immediately sign a law that begins to phase out all incandescent light bulbs - a measure that will save American consumers $6 billion a year on their electric bills.--Barack Obama.

0 Replies

You have to hunt for non-energy efficient appliances here too, not because the government requires them, but because that is what the consumer wants and that's what the consumes are buying. So it is no longer profitable to manufacture non-energy efficient appliances.

It may be that the American consumer will also elect to go with CFCs to the point that it is no longer practical or profitable to manufacture incandescent light bulbs too. And when that happens they will disappear from the market.

But it should be the consumers' choice. Not the government's choice.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

The administration says that these changes will reduce carbon emissions by 594 million tons between 2012 and 2042 and save consumers $1 billion to $4 billion in the same amount of time.

That seems a trifle disingenuous in my book. The consumers would not be consumers if they did not use the $1 to $4 billion to facilitate consumption. For it to make sense it is necessary to show that the alternative consumption will not increase carbon emissions above the level that amount of money causes now.

Did anybody read the Dominic Lawson article? "Immoral", he said.

1 Reply

parados,

Let A = total amount of atmospheric forcings contributing to global warming.

Let B = amount of atmospheric forcings of other than CO2 contributing to global warming.

Let C = amount of atmospheric forcings of CO2 contributing to global warming.

Then: A = B + C

Let: N = B / C

B = N x C

A = N x C + C

N = (A - C) / C

N = (A / C) - 1

Solve for: N

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
The administration says that these changes will reduce carbon emissions by 594 million tons between 2012 and 2042 and save consumers $1 billion to $4 billion in the same amount of time.

That seems a trifle disingenuous in my book. The consumers would not be consumers if they did not use the $1 to $4 billion to facilitate consumption. For it to make sense it is necessary to show that the alternative consumption will not increase carbon emissions above the level that amount of money causes now.

Did anybody read the Dominic Lawson article? "Immoral", he said.

While pointing out that Politifact said that and not me, I agree that it is not only disingenous but I think it is most probably hugely dishonest, either intentionally or out of tunnel-visioned ignorance. That's my quarrel with all this stuff is that it almost never informs you what an alternate plan would accomplish or what are the hidden consequences/energy expenditures to implement to proposed plan.

If our international leaders are really tunnel-visioned and ignorant about what they are saying, do we really trust them to know what they are doing when they are imposing policy, rules, regulation on us that will erode or take away our freedoms, choices, options, opportunities?

And if they are being dishonest, is that any reasonable incentive to hand them the keys to our future? Wouldn't that suggest a huge justification for questioning all their motives?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Because a blogger used CFC doesn't make it correct.

CFL is an acronym for compact flourescent lightbulb.
What do you think CFC stands for if it is a correct usage?

Quote:

Light bulbs beware: President Barack Obama has announced major changes in lighting standards that advocates say will effectively phase out the least efficient bulbs.

That story says the same thing I said. Only the least efficient bulbs are phased out.

As to the Oct 7th speech. I don't see it listed here.
http://www.barackobama.com/speeches/index.php

I will try to track it down later.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

While pointing out that Politifact said that and not me, I agree that it is not only disingenous but I think it is most probably hugely dishonest, either intentionally or out of tunnel-visioned ignorance.

Look Foxy--forget about who said what. Anybody who reads the thread with interest knows it wasn't you who said that. And what do you care about those who don't?

It was worse than dishonest. It was an insult to your intelligence. And it was your administration. Your top brass.

And next news there's another speech about developing your full potential. As dimwits presumably.

1 Reply

@parados,

Well I used CFL as the term until I was corrected by somebody and referred to all manner of sites that were using CFC as the term. I don't care what we call them, and CFL is probably the correct term. We both know what we mean with whichever I think. But I'll agree CFL makes much more sense.

But if you couple his phrase of 'phasing out the least efficient bulbs' with his campaign pledge to phase out incandescent bulbs--which I posted in the same post--what is reasonable to conclude? That he intends to have the best of both? It's hard to draw that conclusion especially when you look at the alliances he has been forming with some major players.

GE, for instance, would love to phase out its incandescent bulb line as it can make a whole bunch more money manufacturing and selling the more expensive CFLs when everybody is required to buy them--this especially since GE holds a lot of the patents on new innovations with CFLs. It would love to make as much money as it can now before the technology is available in the public domain.

0 Replies

CFLs are dangerous when they break--mercury is released. One has to be very careful how one cleans up after a CFL breaks.

Also, CFLs are very expensive compared to comparable incandescents.

A massive switch to CFLs will not lead to less global warming, but will lead to more mercury poisoning.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

CFLs are dangerous when they break--mercury is released. One has to be very careful how one cleans up after a CFL breaks.

Also, CFLs are very expensive compared to comparable incandescents.

A massive switch to CFLs will not lead to less global warming, but will lead to more mercury poisoning.

That's why they are such a pain in the butt. You can't recycle them like you can other stuff. Well you can't recycle incandescent bulbs either because of the mix of glass and metal, but you can pitch them into the regular trash to go to the landfill where crushed and broken the glass will be ground back into sand and the metal rusted back into its original elements within a generation or two.

And who wants to stand in line at Wal-mart or some home supply warehouse trying to find somebody who can take the thing and knows what to do with it. I will do it eventually--after a lot of them accumulate, but a lot of folks won't do it, will pitch them in the trash, and that mercury will find its way into the soil or ground water or be washed into the streams and rivers. With nutritionists already warning us not to eat too much fish because of mercury exposure, that doesn't seem like a really smart plan to me.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Thanks for repeating the RW lies ican. I knew you could be relied upon.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

parados,

Let A = total amount of atmospheric forcings contributing to global warming.

Let B = amount of atmospheric forcings of other than CO2 contributing to global warming.

Let C = amount of atmospheric forcings of CO2 contributing to global warming.

Then: A = B + C

So far so good.

Quote:

Let: N = B / C

Why? There is no reason to make that equation since it has no meaning since C is not a constant.

Quote:

B = N x C

A = N x C + C

N = (A - C) / C

N = (A / C) - 1

Solve for: N

N still has no meaning since it assumes that B and C are constants

Here's one for you ican..

C=A-B
F = A-2
C = F-B-2
Solve for 2

0 Replies

Parados,
Try again! A, B, C, N are all variables:

Let A = total amount of atmospheric forcings contributing to global warming.

Let B = amount of atmospheric forcings of other than CO2 contributing to global warming.

Let C = amount of atmospheric forcings of CO2 contributing to global warming.

Then: A = B + C

Let: N = B / C

B = N x C

A = (N x C) + C

N = (A - C) / C

N = (A / C) - 1

Solve for: N

I do not know the values of any of these variables for any year over the last 108 years.
I bet the IPCC doesn't really know the value of any of these variables for any year within the last 108 years.
If I am correct, then IPCC doesn't really know what caused AAGT (i.e., Average Annual Global Temperature) to increase from 1898 to 1998, and decrease from 1998 to 2008.

CAGT = Century Average Global Temperature.
Years...Anomaly... Temperature in °K
1901 to 2000...0.000...287.060

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
Year.....Anomaly...Temperature in °K
1898.....-0.432......286.628
1998......0.546......287.606
2008......0.324......287.384

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

N= B/C but only because you defined it as such.

You are doing nothing more than playing algebraic tricks ican which have no meaning in the discussion.

3 Replies

@parados,

He's saying that the dicussion has no meaning. And it hasn't. It was a bit of indulgence on Bernie's part.

0 Replies

@parados,

PARADOS, EXACTLY WHAT CAUSED THE FOLLOWING TEMPERATURE CHANGES?

CAGT = Century Average Global Temperature.
Years...Anomaly... Temperature in °K
1901 to 2000...0.000...287.060

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
Year.....Anomaly...Temperature in °K
1898.....-0.432......286.628
1998......0.546......287.606
2008......0.324......287.384

I bet you do not know.
I bet IPCC does not know.
I know I do not know?

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know