"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong - Page 12

02-03-2007, 01:51 PM

"Bill Sornson" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:
>Rod Speed wrote:

>> Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
>> donquijote1954 <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
>> desperately attempted to bull**** its way out of its
>> predicament and fooled absolutely no one, as always.

>Irony. Good stuff.

Irony is lost on the Rodbot.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "If we let things terrify us,
X against HTML mail | life will not be worth living."
/ \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.

02-03-2007, 02:11 PM

Bill Baka wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > donquijote1954 wrote:
> >
> >> A typical 25 watt fluorescent light
> >> bulb, which replaces a 100 watt incandescent bulb, will last 8 hours
> >> on 200 watts worth of power. LEDs (light emitting diodes) are even
> >> more efficient and will last days on 200 watts worth of power."
> >
> > No, LEDs are *not* more efficient.
> >
> > Nor will most humans be able to generate a continuous 200W. That's 1/4 horse power FFS !
> >
> > If that's their sales spiel then I don't think much of them.
> >
> > Graham
>
> LEDs are better than incandescent lights,

What do you mean by better ?

> maybe on par with fluorescents,

Their efficiency in lumens / watt is currently typically no better than 50% of that of CFLs.

> and don't need a minimum voltage to run the electronic ballasts.

In exactly what way don't they ?

> I think 100 watts would be the output for an average person
> and even that might be pushing it for a person in a developing country
> who may not have enough good nutrition. At 100 watts, solar panels start
> to be a major investment and don't work too good at night or on hazy
> overcast days.

I don't rate solar panels as an intelligent solution to today's energy issues either for ppl
who live on-grid.

Graham

02-03-2007, 02:46 PM

On Feb 1, 2:19 pm, "donquijote1954" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:
> Hey, that I knew. What is missing in this report though is who among
> humans are to blame. See, NOT ALL HUMANS POLLUTE: some drive Stupid
> Unnecessary Vehicles while others ride bicycles. And how about those
> who --like me-- want to ride a bike, but find there's no safe place
> for it. It's a frightful jungle out there, you know. So we must sit
> back and swallow in disgust reports like this that blame all humans.
> But I say to these so called experts: Hey guys, it's not "humans,"
> it's the lions of the jungle that ride SUVs to satisfy their
> Napoleonic complex, and it's those who can change things, but rather
> decide to spend a fortune in extravagant projects. Well, this is
> Napoleon himself...
>
> http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/...h_napoleon.jpg
>
> (Bush and Napoleon...[Only registered and activated users can see links. ])
>
> HOW THE LION BENEFITS FROM THE LITTLE ANIMALS' POVERTY
>
> One day all the little animals went up to the King of the Jungle and
> complained about their poverty, and in particular about the fact that
> every time, during the dry season, they had to travel long distances
> to drink the precious fluid, and demanded a WATER WELL be built for
> them... They cited how the resources that they contributed to the
> kingdom were wasted in WARS and EXTRAVAGANT PROJECTS to the tastes of
> the King... He, however, replied with all kinds of excuses: the lack
> of resources, that it wasn't a matter of him not wanting it, but that
> it was a matter of "priorities" --which was one of his favorite
> words...
>
> Meanwhile, an Owl --who had very good eyes-- had been observing life
> in the jungle, and thought this way: "Every time there's a dry season
> the little animals must come to the little dirty waterhole where the
> Lion waits for them... Had they been well fed and strong, he would
> have had to run after them and even risk resistance. And, more
> importantly, the little animals are forced to fight the Lion's wars as
> the quick way out of poverty..."
>
> And that's how the Owl landed an important --and well paid-- post in
> the brand new Astronomy Department created by the King of the Jungle --
> to the effect of exploring life in other planets...
>
> ***
>
> PARIS - Officials from 113 countries agreed Thursday that a much-
> awaited international report will say that global warming was "very
> likely" caused by human activity, delegates to a climate change
> conference said. Dozens of scientists and bureaucrats are editing the
> new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in closed-
> door meetings in Paris. Their report, which must be unanimously
> approved, is to be released Friday.
>
> Two participants, speaking on condition of anonymity because the
> meetings are confidential, said the group approved the term "very
> likely" in Thursday's sessions. That means they agree that there is a
> 90 percent chance that global warming is human-caused.
>
> The last report, in 2001, said global warming was "likely" caused by
> human activity. There had been speculation that the participants might
> try to change the wording this time to "virtually certain," which
> means a 99 percent chance.
>
> The report is considered an authoritative document that could
> influence government and industrial policy worldwide.
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> WELCOME TO THE JUNGLEhttp://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
>
> THE BANANA REVOLUTION

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Reading the thread I have to laugh it's funny how cyclist of all
abilities and location on Earth are generally thinking the same. Here
is my take on the financial side of this war and global warming.
First lets take the billions of dollars invested in this war and buy
these people bikes. A) It will help reduce stress and then maybe they
can look at this dispute in a new light. B) By taking the money we
are spending on this war we could supply people all over the world
with nonpolluting means of transportation that would lower carbon
dioxide levels around the world. Okay so this is a thought of
eutopia. However, if you can't dream it you can't be it. At over 1
million dollars a day earning for exon I wonder what there take is on
this idea. A famous quote goes "I wait for the day when government
has to have a bake sale to build a bomb, and schools have money to
educate their children properly" or something like that.

02-03-2007, 05:18 PM

Bernd Felsche wrote:
> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:
>> donquijote1954 wrote:
>>> On Feb 2, 4:37 pm, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>>> The belief in human caused global warming is being used to gain
>>>> more control over the population, to consolidate wealth, to end
>>>> any sort of freedom of the masses, and put the whole world in
>>>> the control of a small group of elites.
>
>>> I thought that was the job of Globalization.
>
>>>> I will believe that human caused global warming is a serious issue when
>>>> and only when, nations like China are forced to do something about it.
>>>> Right now, things like the Kyoto treaty are designed simply to relocate
>>>> manufacturing from places where there _ARE_ environmental protections to
>>>> places where there are practically _NONE_. They expect us to believe that
>>>> CO2 released in Ohio is bad, but CO2 released in Tianjin is of no
>>>> concern. Not to mention all the pollution controls that are required in
>>>> Ohio, the limits, the regulations, all to keep the environment cleaner
>>>> but simply don't exist in other places in the world like China.
>
>>> It's not Kyoto, but America that is feeding China. Go to Walmart or
>>> the Dollar Store if you don't believe me.
>
>> Bingo.
>> Hit the nail right on the head. Bush can praise our 'progress' while we
>> are supporting a Communist country that could care less about pollution.
>> Meanwhile they are taking away our jobs while they do their thing, which
>> seems to be taking our money.
>
> This is not just consumer-driven. It's also market-driven and an
> ethical issue... beyond CO2 etc, but of the value of work.
>
> Put it this way; if you value your own work at $2/day, then feel
> free to buy products from a nation where that is the "standard" wage.
> However, don't begrudge the people of those countries the fruits of
> their labour. Fair prices need to be fair to all. That provides the
> greatest incentive and freedom of choice across the range.
>
> I know of no economic or political system that can impose the
> necessary balance. Historically; systems that try to impose fairness
> become corrupt.
>
> Consumer education is important; giving them sufficient information
> on what they are buying, how it is made and who really makes the
> money from the products that they buy. Only then can a choice based
> on equity be made.

Agreed.
The average consumer will often buy based on price alone with no regard
of where the product came from. The problem is that as long as Joe
consumer has a job, he doesn't care that by buying from another country
his is taking his neighbor's job. Then a few years later he gets the
dreaded 'pink slip' and wonders what happened.
What goes around comes around.
All of my older stuff, bicycles included came from either the U.S. or
Japan, depending on what market and how old. I remember shopping with a
friend as a kid around 1959 and the store had what we called a "Japanese
junk" section.
At that time a foreign car meant European and a foreign motorcycle meant
a BSA or Triumph.
Fast forward and the companies have folded and the people and skills
have gone too.
Progress?
Maybe for the Chinese, but not for us.
Suddenly the biggest polluter is also the biggest producer.
If we didn't buy from China we would be crippled at this point, and the
politicians don't mention the obvious fact that getting our
manufacturing base back is at least as important as the oil issue.
Too big a subject for this group, and way off the mark for bicycles, so,
umm, later.
Bill Baka

02-03-2007, 05:29 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2:19 pm, "donquijote1954" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
> wrote:
>> Hey, that I knew. What is missing in this report though is who among
>> humans are to blame. See, NOT ALL HUMANS POLLUTE: some drive Stupid
>> Unnecessary Vehicles while others ride bicycles. And how about those
>> who --like me-- want to ride a bike, but find there's no safe place
>> for it. It's a frightful jungle out there, you know. So we must sit
>> back and swallow in disgust reports like this that blame all humans.
>> But I say to these so called experts: Hey guys, it's not "humans,"
>> it's the lions of the jungle that ride SUVs to satisfy their
>> Napoleonic complex, and it's those who can change things, but rather
>> decide to spend a fortune in extravagant projects. Well, this is
>> Napoleon himself...
>>
>> http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/...h_napoleon.jpg
>>
>> (Bush and Napoleon...[Only registered and activated users can see links. ])
>>
>> HOW THE LION BENEFITS FROM THE LITTLE ANIMALS' POVERTY
>>
>> One day all the little animals went up to the King of the Jungle and
>> complained about their poverty, and in particular about the fact that
>> every time, during the dry season, they had to travel long distances
>> to drink the precious fluid, and demanded a WATER WELL be built for
>> them... They cited how the resources that they contributed to the
>> kingdom were wasted in WARS and EXTRAVAGANT PROJECTS to the tastes of
>> the King... He, however, replied with all kinds of excuses: the lack
>> of resources, that it wasn't a matter of him not wanting it, but that
>> it was a matter of "priorities" --which was one of his favorite
>> words...
>>
>> Meanwhile, an Owl --who had very good eyes-- had been observing life
>> in the jungle, and thought this way: "Every time there's a dry season
>> the little animals must come to the little dirty waterhole where the
>> Lion waits for them... Had they been well fed and strong, he would
>> have had to run after them and even risk resistance. And, more
>> importantly, the little animals are forced to fight the Lion's wars as
>> the quick way out of poverty..."
>>
>> And that's how the Owl landed an important --and well paid-- post in
>> the brand new Astronomy Department created by the King of the Jungle --
>> to the effect of exploring life in other planets...
>>
>> ***
>>
>> PARIS - Officials from 113 countries agreed Thursday that a much-
>> awaited international report will say that global warming was "very
>> likely" caused by human activity, delegates to a climate change
>> conference said. Dozens of scientists and bureaucrats are editing the
>> new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in closed-
>> door meetings in Paris. Their report, which must be unanimously
>> approved, is to be released Friday.
>>
>> Two participants, speaking on condition of anonymity because the
>> meetings are confidential, said the group approved the term "very
>> likely" in Thursday's sessions. That means they agree that there is a
>> 90 percent chance that global warming is human-caused.
>>
>> The last report, in 2001, said global warming was "likely" caused by
>> human activity. There had been speculation that the participants might
>> try to change the wording this time to "virtually certain," which
>> means a 99 percent chance.
>>
>> The report is considered an authoritative document that could
>> influence government and industrial policy worldwide.
>>
>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>>
>> WELCOME TO THE JUNGLEhttp://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
>>
>> THE BANANA REVOLUTION

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> Reading the thread I have to laugh it's funny how cyclist of all
> abilities and location on Earth are generally thinking the same. Here
> is my take on the financial side of this war and global warming.
> First lets take the billions of dollars invested in this war and buy
> these people bikes. A) It will help reduce stress and then maybe they
> can look at this dispute in a new light. B) By taking the money we
> are spending on this war we could supply people all over the world
> with nonpolluting means of transportation that would lower carbon
> dioxide levels around the world. Okay so this is a thought of
> eutopia. However, if you can't dream it you can't be it. At over 1
> million dollars a day earning for exon I wonder what there take is on
> this idea. A famous quote goes "I wait for the day when government
> has to have a bake sale to build a bomb, and schools have money to
> educate their children properly" or something like that.
>
Hell, if we had spent nearly $400 billion on alternative energy we
wouldn't need the damned oil. That much money would have bought so much
in the way of solar panels that the sheer quantity would drive down the
price. Bush has now committed us to oil that much more than before. I
remember when he said he could get in and out on ONLY $87 billion. I
wonder if he even thinks that much about how badly he screwed up.
We could have been oil independent by now if he would have instituted a
gas hog tax and added about $0.50 tax per gallon to make bicycle
pathways. If you make the SUV crowd too broke to pay for gasoline, then
you force them to buy economical cars. I saw a commercial about a week
ago bragging that their truck had an even bigger V-8 than Fords and it
was only about $45,000 to buy one. It was for Nissan or Toyota, but the
point is, "What ever happened to little economy cars??".
Bill Baka

02-03-2007, 05:31 PM

Bill Baka wrote:

> No way. The buses are going to run either way, full or empty.

If nobody rode busses, there would be no busses. Thus, it is appropriate
to allocate an energy/pollution penalty to each user. There is no free
lunch. You are either a motorist or a non-motorist, and a motorist is
either a chauffered passenger or the driver. Further, any bus with a
bike rack on it is heavier and thus gets worse gas mileage than one that
doesn't whether it gets used for carrying a bike or not. I'm quite
certain that the bike racks on any given transit system are used for
only a small percentage of the system's trip mileage.

The use of
> a bus makes perfect sense when you consider that you can take one past
> the most dangerous part of town and drop you at a safer location. Nobody
> should be so into the bike that they willfully put their life in the
> hands of motorist who could care less.
> It's called 'Survival instinct'.
> It's also nice to fall back when the weather opens up and wants to dump
> on anyone caught in the open.

There indeed may be times when one might want to be a chauffered
motorist or a driving motorist, but that does not negate the fact doing
so is being a part of the motoring system. One can justify it however
one wants, whether that be fear of boogy men behind the wheel or long
distance or foul weather or the need to carry cargo or whatever.

Wayne

02-03-2007, 05:47 PM

Eeyore wrote:
>
> Bill Baka wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> donquijote1954 wrote:
>>>
>>>> A typical 25 watt fluorescent light
>>>> bulb, which replaces a 100 watt incandescent bulb, will last 8 hours
>>>> on 200 watts worth of power. LEDs (light emitting diodes) are even
>>>> more efficient and will last days on 200 watts worth of power."
>>> No, LEDs are *not* more efficient.
>>>
>>> Nor will most humans be able to generate a continuous 200W. That's 1/4 horse power FFS !
>>>
>>> If that's their sales spiel then I don't think much of them.
>>>
>>> Graham
>> LEDs are better than incandescent lights,
>
> What do you mean by better ?

Much more mechanically robust, smaller, new and evolving technology, and
little thermal wasted on a hot filament.
>
>
>> maybe on par with fluorescents,
>
> Their efficiency in lumens / watt is currently typically no better than 50% of that of CFLs.
>
Even fluorescents make the light as a secondary effect. The ionized gas
inside makes UV which cause the phosphors to put out white light. A
black light is just a fluorescent without the white powder coating to
contain the UV and convert it to white.

>
>> and don't need a minimum voltage to run the electronic ballasts.
>
> In exactly what way don't they ?

The ballasts have a minimum workable voltage. Transistors optimized for
110 VAC rectified don't like low voltages. Same rules apply to bicycle
lights. The electronics package has to be optimum at some point.
The one thing that I can think of where voltage is of little concern is
with the new power supplies that will happily run on 80--24 VAC. They
are pretty well established in Europe but haven't shown up in the states
where we are behind the curve. Just look at the back of your computer
and see if there is a 110/220 switch.
>
>
>> I think 100 watts would be the output for an average person
>> and even that might be pushing it for a person in a developing country
>> who may not have enough good nutrition. At 100 watts, solar panels start
>> to be a major investment and don't work too good at night or on hazy
>> overcast days.
>
> I don't rate solar panels as an intelligent solution to today's energy issues either for ppl
> who live on-grid.

Why not? Even at only 20% efficiency they are better than fossil fuel.
That is the sticking point for right now. All kinds of money is being
spent on research to find a solar cell that goes to even 30%. If we
would just start buying what is available now instead of waiting for the
Nirvana of more efficient solar cells we might be digging out of our oil
problem.
>
> Graham
>
Not enough windy spots for windmills, unless of course they could be
utilized in a hurricane and suck up the power of nature on a rampage.
I know I'm dreaming on this one.
Bill Baka

02-03-2007, 05:56 PM

On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 02:18:03 GMT, Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>Bernd Felsche wrote:
>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:
>>> donquijote1954 wrote:
>>>> On Feb 2, 4:37 pm, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>>>> The belief in human caused global warming is being used to gain
>>>>> more control over the population, to consolidate wealth, to end
>>>>> any sort of freedom of the masses, and put the whole world in
>>>>> the control of a small group of elites.
>>
>>>> I thought that was the job of Globalization.
>>
>>>>> I will believe that human caused global warming is a serious issue when
>>>>> and only when, nations like China are forced to do something about it.
>>>>> Right now, things like the Kyoto treaty are designed simply to relocate
>>>>> manufacturing from places where there _ARE_ environmental protections to
>>>>> places where there are practically _NONE_. They expect us to believe that
>>>>> CO2 released in Ohio is bad, but CO2 released in Tianjin is of no
>>>>> concern. Not to mention all the pollution controls that are required in
>>>>> Ohio, the limits, the regulations, all to keep the environment cleaner
>>>>> but simply don't exist in other places in the world like China.
>>
>>>> It's not Kyoto, but America that is feeding China. Go to Walmart or
>>>> the Dollar Store if you don't believe me.
>>
>>> Bingo.
>>> Hit the nail right on the head. Bush can praise our 'progress' while we
>>> are supporting a Communist country that could care less about pollution.
>>> Meanwhile they are taking away our jobs while they do their thing, which
>>> seems to be taking our money.
>>
>> This is not just consumer-driven. It's also market-driven and an
>> ethical issue... beyond CO2 etc, but of the value of work.
>>
>> Put it this way; if you value your own work at $2/day, then feel
>> free to buy products from a nation where that is the "standard" wage.
>> However, don't begrudge the people of those countries the fruits of
>> their labour. Fair prices need to be fair to all. That provides the
>> greatest incentive and freedom of choice across the range.
>>
>> I know of no economic or political system that can impose the
>> necessary balance. Historically; systems that try to impose fairness
>> become corrupt.
>>
>> Consumer education is important; giving them sufficient information
>> on what they are buying, how it is made and who really makes the
>> money from the products that they buy. Only then can a choice based
>> on equity be made.
>
>Agreed.
>The average consumer will often buy based on price alone with no regard
>of where the product came from. The problem is that as long as Joe
>consumer has a job, he doesn't care that by buying from another country
>his is taking his neighbor's job. Then a few years later he gets the
>dreaded 'pink slip' and wonders what happened.
>What goes around comes around.
>All of my older stuff, bicycles included came from either the U.S. or
>Japan, depending on what market and how old. I remember shopping with a
>friend as a kid around 1959 and the store had what we called a "Japanese
>junk" section.
>At that time a foreign car meant European and a foreign motorcycle meant
>a BSA or Triumph.
>Fast forward and the companies have folded and the people and skills
>have gone too.
>Progress?
>Maybe for the Chinese, but not for us.
>Suddenly the biggest polluter is also the biggest producer.
>If we didn't buy from China we would be crippled at this point, and the
>politicians don't mention the obvious fact that getting our
>manufacturing base back is at least as important as the oil issue.
>Too big a subject for this group, and way off the mark for bicycles, so,
>umm, later.
>Bill Baka

There is no mechanism to force China to do anything, short of
declaring war and invading the country, and I cant see anyone wanting
to do this.
Coal fired power is with us for a long time to come,and I suggest we
all learnt to live with it.
Whether global warming is real ,or isnt real , or whether its man made
or not are all totally irrelevant.
Whats relevant is how we deal with the consequences.

China isnt the only problem.
Other large populated countries like India and Pakistan will all
follow Chinas lead as they need cheap plentiful energy for exactly the
same reasons that China does.
Expect to see many more Coal Fired Power Stations being built.

02-03-2007, 05:56 PM

Wayne Pein wrote:
> Bill Baka wrote:
>
>
>> No way. The buses are going to run either way, full or empty.
>
> If nobody rode busses, there would be no busses. Thus, it is appropriate
> to allocate an energy/pollution penalty to each user. There is no free
> lunch. You are either a motorist or a non-motorist, and a motorist is
> either a chauffered passenger or the driver.

OK, you lead the way through the ghetto on your bike and after you have
been mugged you can spout off about your ride.

Further, any bus with a
> bike rack on it is heavier and thus gets worse gas mileage than one that
> doesn't whether it gets used for carrying a bike or not.

Bull****. A bike rack is less than 0.5% of a buses weight.

I'm quite
> certain that the bike racks on any given transit system are used for
> only a small percentage of the system's trip mileage.

Around here they get used due to a lack of safe bridges over our two
rivers. Car friendly bridges yes, bike friendly, hardly.
>
>
> The use of
>> a bus makes perfect sense when you consider that you can take one past
>> the most dangerous part of town and drop you at a safer location.
>> Nobody should be so into the bike that they willfully put their life
>> in the hands of motorist who could care less.
>> It's called 'Survival instinct'.
>> It's also nice to fall back when the weather opens up and wants to
>> dump on anyone caught in the open.
>
> There indeed may be times when one might want to be a chauffered
> motorist or a driving motorist, but that does not negate the fact doing
> so is being a part of the motoring system. One can justify it however
> one wants, whether that be fear of boogy men behind the wheel or long
> distance or foul weather or the need to carry cargo or whatever.

Your mother must have dropped you on your head as a baby, repeatedly.
There are places where you would have to be nuts to ride a bike, but
maybe you would like to be the only white boy riding through a dangerous
neighborhood with 'people of color'. I popped off the freeway right into
the middle of the Watts riots in the 60's, and car or not I made a fast
U-turn over the middle divider back onto the freeway.
Some places you just don't want to be.
Does this sink into you hard head or not?
Bill Baka
>
> Wayne
>

02-03-2007, 06:30 PM

Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > Bill Baka wrote:

> > I don't rate solar panels as an intelligent solution to today's
> > energy issues either for ppl
> > who live on-grid.
>
> Why not? Even at only 20% efficiency they are better than fossil
> fuel. That is the sticking point for right now. All kinds of money is
> being spent on research to find a solar cell that goes to even 30%. If
> we would just start buying what is available now instead of waiting
> for the Nirvana of more efficient solar cells we might be digging out
> of our oil problem.

The problem is the capital cost versus the power you get out of it.
Right now, buying electricity from a utility costs you less than
interest + depreciation on a solar-panel installation. It is
improving each year, but we are not at the break-even point yet. One
thing being done to help things along is to provide tax credits, with
a goal of increasing demand in order to get economies of scale.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB