It is still a pollutant. Never in the last 650,000 has the CO2 in the air been at these levels.
The greenhouse effect is hard science. Now, is it enough to cause the problems that are attributed to it? Who knows.
We do know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that polar ice caps are melting. The evidence is unassailable. Is it because of CO2? And what will be the eventual effect? Nobody is really sure.
Some people preach that the globe is cooling, and that may be happening due to low solar emissions. But why would the ice caps melt if the world is actually cooling.
I would venture to say that none of us here is qualified to say what is really happening, because the concensus of world scientists are still debating the issue.
But the excess of CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere IS pollution.
CFLs save money in the long run. I have been using CFLs for 17 years. The early ones were not as good as the ones you buy today. The early ones did not last anywhere near their rated life. The life killer for them is on/off cycling. The first ones I installed were put in sockets that got cycled once a day (on and then off, 10 to 12 hours later). They only lasted 60% of their stated life. But they did save money (I calculated it). The early ones also put out less light than they stated (15 watt CFL for a 60 watt incandescent). The 15 watt CFL was more like a 40 watt incandescent.
Today I have 13 watt CFLs that put out light like a 60 watt incandescent (they have to "warm up" for about 15 minutes to get max light output), and have approximately 6500 hours (1.9 years) on them. I take a permanent marker and write the installation date on the base when I install them.
The new ones are cheaper to buy and the electricity is more expensive today than 17 years ago. They will save you money. Put them in low cycling locations.
60 watts - 13 watts = 47 watts (0.047 Kilowatts)
0.047 Kilowatts X 6500 hours = 305.5 Kilowatt-hours
305.5 X $0.15cdn (cost per Kilowatt-hour) = $45.83cdn
My complaint is the stinking regressive power rates in Ontario. A neighbour uses 4 times the electricity that I use and his unit cost is $0.132 per Kilowatt-hour. I pay $0.148 to $0.159 per Kilowatt-hour... 12% to 20% more than him!!! People who conserve pay more per unit!
To calculate your unit cost, take the bottom line (including the tax), on your bill, and divide it by what YOUR METER (Kilowatt-Hours) said you consumed.
Ten years ago I paid $0.085 per Kilowatt-hour. The "waster" neighbour paid $0.082.
And as usual with the brain-dead media, it hasn't noticed a 75% (3.26 times inflation per year) plus increase in the revenues collected by the "electric utility of Ontario" in the past 10 years.
Year 1998
360 mill Kilowatt-hours/day X $0.08 = $28.8 mill/day X 365 days = $10.5 billion
Year 2008
432 mill Kilowatt-hours/day X $0.137 = $59.2 mill/day X 365 days = $21.6 billion
Happy Robbie Burns Day.... and may the ghost of Robbie stick a windmill powered Tazer up the arses of all the politicians in Toronto, and pull the trigger.
Agreed. I don't like CFLs because I don't like the color of the things and the slow warm-up, but they are definitely a long-term cost savings both because of the extended life and higher efficiency. You will be very hard-pressed to find a hotel today which is using incandescent bulbs; their accountants have figured all this stuff out very carefully.
That said, in spite of the higher efficiency and lower cost, I tend not to use them. I generally use traffic light bulbs which are rated for 130V operation... at 120V they last forever but run somewhat yellow (around 2500'K instead of the 2800'K from a standard frosted white household incandescent). I like that, and I'll pay a little more money in the long run for it.
"HLS" wrote in news:t4uel.9437$ snipped-for-privacy@flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com:
So what was the climate like 650,000 years ago? Suppose you used some other date than 650,000 years?
Suppose all that extra CO2 was not man-made?
Did you even read the column I referenced?
An excerpt: "An analytical chemist who works in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing, Michael J. Myers of Hilton Head, S. C., declared, "Man-made global warming is junk science," explaining that worldwide manmade CO2 emission each year "equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration ... This results in a 0.00064% increase in the absorption of the sun's radiation. This is an insignificantly small number."
That's the point.
"Who knows" might make for a good pub debate, but it makes an awfully poor base for public policy.
Not quite...
The ARCTIC cap was melting up to last year, but is now growing. This is due to the North Atlantic Oscillation, now in decline.
The ANTarctic ice cap has been growing all along.
Hard science indeed.
That's the point.
"Who knows" might make for a good pub debate, but it makes an awfully poor base for public policy.
See above.
The scientists are quite decided. Power-wielding politicians, bureaucrats and media are quite decided as well, but from the other side.
The scientists left "man-made global warming" far behind years ago. The other guys all favor the existence of any sort of change at all, since such would give them the excuse they need to run your life in a way not seen since the reign of medieval sumptuary laws.
It is assuredly not.
"An analytical chemist who works in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing, Michael J. Myers of Hilton Head, S. C., declared, "Man-made global warming is junk science," explaining that worldwide manmade CO2 emission each year "equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration ... This results in a 0.00064% increase in the absorption of the sun's radiation. This is an insignificantly small number."
You know what the whole problem is, here? It's that this entire issue is framed within emotion and nothing else. And the operative emotion is FEAR.
Simply put, you're scared. Scared people react in emotional ways. Mass emotion tends to be immune to external input other than that which reinforces itself, which is why crowds panic, stampede and trample others to death under their feet.
This climate change thing is very much a modern mania, based upon emotion, religion, and a sort of anti-Prometheus feeling.
snipped-for-privacy@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (M.A. Stewart) wrote in news:gldtek$m55$ snipped-for-privacy@theodyn.ncf.ca:
Ah, so that's why people with CFLs tend to leave them on all the time. I thought that was just them bragging about how "green" they were (the CFL illuminating the Prius in the driveway and all).
So you can't just leave your CFL porch light off then instantly snap it on to see what pesky salesman called on you during suppertime...
I have a number of incandescent bulbs in my house that are 15 years old. I know this not because I wrote on them, but because we moved in 15 years ago and I've never had to change them.
Since I pay 30 per incandescent bulb (versus three bucks for a CFL), I'd say that's pretty cheap overall.
I remember being told long ago by my mother to turn lights off when I leave the room, advice I follow to this very day. Incandescents seem to handle this abuse quite well.
Are you suggesting I only put CFLs in places where I'd rarely use them?
Then how come all the advertising says $3 per year per bulb? They have to use a 10-year timeframe to be able to tout the apparently significant savings of $30.
Actually I shoved a "60 watt" CFL into my porch light and even in very cold weather it lights up well enough to see almost instantly. (I used it simply because that's what I had on hand when the old bulb burned out. I didn't expect it to work well, but I was pleasantly surprised.) The only ones I've noticed a significant warm up time on are the ones in my bathroom, PO of the house installed this fixture that takes those big round globe bulbs and all the CFLs I've found in that format take waaay longer to warm up than the typical spiral ones.
They tend to lag a bit when the switch is turned on.
What??? I used to get smacked upside my head if I left lights on. :-)
No... the opposite... use them where you leave the lights on for the longest time.
When did you start believing advertising?
What cost per Kilwatt-hour did they use? How many hours per year?
They save money, do the math. Replace a 60 watt bulb with a 13 watt CFL and you will save 47 watts (0.047 Kilowatts) per hour of use. Each 13 watt bulb I have that runs 9 hours a day every day (365/year) saved me about $20 a year.
1 Kilowatt = 1000 watts
9 X 0.047= 0.423 X 365= 154 X $0.15= $23.16
17 years ago I was saving about $12.00 per year (@$0.08/Kilowatt-hour)
There are places where the color of the CFLs is irritating. They are coming out with different color versions of these bulbs though, and there is no doubt they save electricity.
He's not right, even with that eruption. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing over the relatively short history of the industrial revolution, and it has been proven by Antarctic ice cores that the CO2 is now higher than for at least 650,000 years in the past.
Krakatoa, Mt. St. Helens, etc added to the load, but we really cant do much about that.
We are like a fat lady who wont stay out of the lard dip because she is already fat.
The two mile deep Antarctic ice cores gave a history back to that period. If you could core a deeper ice flow, you could perhaps go back further.
News this morning, CNN, gave some satellite photos of the melting of Antarctica with the ice shelf now within a couple of hundred metres of breaking away. These changes are enormous.
"HLS" wrote in news:jYEel.19259$ snipped-for-privacy@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com:
Ice core data are inaccurate. Zbigniew Jaworowski has proven this.
An excerpt: "But the UN does not rely on direct real-time measurements for the period prior to 1958. "The IPCC relies on icecore data -- on air that has been trapped for hundreds or thousands of years deep below the surface," Dr. Jaworowski explains. "These ice cores are a foundation of the global warming hypothesis, but the foundation is groundless
-- the IPCC has based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."
"Ice, the IPCC believes, precisely preserves the ancient air, allowing for a precise reconstruction of the ancient atmosphere. For this to be true, no component of the trapped air can escape from the ice. Neither can the ice ever become liquid. Neither can the various gases within air ever combine or separate.
"This perfectly closed system, frozen in time, is a fantasy. "Liquid water is common in polar snow and ice, even at temperatures as low as -72C," Dr. Jaworowski explains, "and we also know that in cold water, CO2 is 70 times more soluble than nitrogen and 30 times more soluble than oxygen, guaranteeing that the proportions of the various gases that remain in the trapped, ancient air will change. Moreover, under the extreme pressure that deep ice is subjected to -- 320 bars, or more than 300 times normal atmospheric pressure -- high levels of CO2 get squeezed out of ancient air."
More...
An excerpt (MWP= Medieval Warm Period):
"Prior to the past decade of climate hysteria and Kyoto hype, the MWP was a given in the scientific community. Several hundred studies of tree rings, lake and ocean floor sediment, ice cores and early written records of weather -- even harvest totals and censuses
--confirmed that the period from 800 AD to 1300 AD was unusually warm, particularly in Northern Europe.
"But in order to prove the climate scaremongers' claim that 20th-century warming had been dangerous and unprecedented -- a result of human, not natural factors -- the MWP had to be made to disappear. So studies such as Michael Mann's "hockey stick," in which there is no MWP and global temperatures rise gradually until they jump up in the industrial age, have been adopted by the UN as proof that recent climate change necessitates a reordering of human economies and societies."
And volcanoes add far more CO2 to the atmosphere each year than man's 0.00064%.
"HLS" wrote in news:Z_Eel.19260$ snipped-for-privacy@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com:
Ice shelves break off all the time. It's called "calving", and is where icebergs come from. Al Gore pulled the same melodramatic stunt in his grossly misleading movie.
Antarctic ice is GROWING, not shrinking.
An excerpt: "We hear constantly about how the Arctic sea ice is disappearing faster than expected, and this is true. But most serious scientists also allow that global warming is only part of the explanation. Another part is that the so-called Arctic Oscillation of wind patterns over the Arctic Ocean is now in a state that it does not allow build-up of old ice, but immediately flushes most ice into the North Atlantic.
"More importantly, we rarely hear that the Antarctic sea ice is not only not declining, but is above average for the past year. IPCC models would expect declining sea ice in both hemispheres, but, whereas the Arctic is doing worse than expected, Antarctica is doing better."
I imagine the MFGs use an 'average use' to get their figure. You can make the yearly savings go from $2 (1Hr per day) to $35 (24Hrs per day) using this calculator. (The other variables would also change things.)
Because they don't know what my (your) 'unit cost' is for electricity. They think it's $0.056/KwHr because the political weasels at Queens Park have told the brain dead media that 'hydro' is $0.056/KwHr in Ontario.
Calculate your 'unit cost'. It will vary billing period to billing period. And because it is super regressive (in the Province of Ontario), the less electricity you use the higher the unit cost.
Bottom line dollars of money (including the GST) that you forked over to them, divided by the number KwHrs YOUR METER (not adjusted KwHrs) said you consumed, equals your unit cost.
This method can be used for any bill anywhere in the world, going all the way back (adjusted for inflation, currency etc.) to when Edison wired N.Y.C..
It is the consumers reference point.... all the real money forked over per unit.
My next bill is coming in at $0.1416 CDN per KwHr.. My Aug/Sept bill (lower summer usage) was $0.1563 CDN per KwHr.
Sorry... I 'Homered' the above 17 years ago savings. I didn't subtract the $4.10/year outlay for the bulb. It should be $12.00 minus $4.10 equals a $7.90 per year savings.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.