[DAZZ]

The CFL bulbs were designed to make a profit for the inventor, 'cos nobody can make profit with an object (incandescent light bulbs) that has been around for a long time and is being/was being made so cheaply that there was very little incentive to try and make it cheaper...can't be done.

So someone, who recognised the fact that Flourescent tubes are much cheaper to run than burning a Tungsten filament in an inert gas which produces more heat than the light output, went and did a few sums and came up with the CFL device.....bloody marvelous, saved me a heap on my electric bill, and they were laughing all the way to the bank, me too.

Now it seems that the profit on CFL bulb manufacture has ground down to infinitessimal levels now that the Chinese are making them for wages of a dollar a day and a bowl of rice....who's making the profit now then?

Answer to the problem of profits is to rubbish the CFL bulb and reinvent the light bulb, going forwards in reverse....LOL.

I’m interested in this theory. Do you have a reference I can look at?

I don't believe in the problem of Carbon infestation that so many Green nutters are spouting, and as I won't live forever, I intend to live with all the trappings of modern day living for as long as I please, that's my prerogative, so drink up and make merry, for tomorrow we do the same....LOL.
Ian

Do you have any progeny?


Dazz

[Richard Honey]

The CFL issue is interesting.

I bought one that is turned on for say 30 minutes every day and it's worked since about 1993. It gives out a good light and doesn't flicker, etc.

The rest of the CFLs I've purchased have cashed their chips before 3 years yet the old incandescents last for 10 years or so. The reduced life of the CFLs may be because they were housed in recessed light holders in the ceiling and apparently if run in an enclosed holder, the heat from the CFL buggers up the internal electronics (and I thought they were supposed to run cool).

I think the poor life span is more due to shoddy components/manufacturing.

Given the amount of time my household lights are on and the material use, manufacturing cost, the purchase cost and flakey performance and lifetime of CFLs and their poisonous contents I'd say they haven't been a great idea overall.

Incandescents do create heat along with light but in cooler climes I'd say that the heating effect of standard bulbs reduces the need for other forms of heating.

As a measure for reducing overall energy usage including manufacturing and running costs, I'd say that the mandated use of CFLs and the phasing out of the old bulbs has been a comprehensive failure in Australia.

Clearly the lighting of choice will be LED however given the astronomical costs of what is a simple and cheaply manufactured item, the widespread adoption of that technology will be limited until the retail prices begin to reflect the actual manufacturing costs.

[handlewanker]

Well, there's LED's and there's LED's, and they can come in a range of sizes and colours, some within the same package, voltage dependent to change colour.

Even my video projector is LED powered, 50,000 hour bulb life...never change the bulb in your lifetime.

BTW, Dazz, next time you buy a CFL note the country of manufacture.....if'n it's not China...someone's lying....LOL.

But I stand corrected, there are some made in Malaysia....parts bought in from China, assembled in Malaysia...sold to you know who...also have a high failure rate, so get taken back for exchange or refund.

Incidently, while on the subject of toxicity, there are no government recomendations on the disposal of the CFL's, ie, if'n the damm things were so lethal they would have collection depots especially staffed by people in special exposure suits with sealed containers that are designed to handle hazadous waste, but the Government supplied them in the first place, in their energy efficiency promtion program, so they could be interpreted as to being suppliers of toxic substances but not collectors, unlike the asbestos removal procedures that have very strict controls as to who can handle and where the asbestos related material can be disposed of....that's toxicity awareness.

BTW again, my progeny also use CFL lighting and love it.

I get a deep warm glow steeped in the knowledge that by using the CFL's extensively I am doing my little bit to save the planet...heck if'n I was to be using incandescents, they would have to go dig a few more shovel fulls of the black coal stuff and that would pollute mor'n the disposed in land fill CFL's ever would....my CFL's get wrapped in plastic bags with the usual household rubbish and get dumped in the rubbish bin to make very interesting archaeology for one day in the dim and distant future.....who knows, they might just become collectors items, similar to highly prized Dinosaur dung...LOL.

BTW once again, anyone who considers that the heat from incandescents is part of the home heating, better consider the fact that you are partly heating the home with an incandescent filament using electricity, the most expensive home heating source known to man.

BTW for the last time, the preferred form of lighting in commercial and office environments is the.......you guessed it...the Flouro light source in strip form, and the CFL bulb is just a compact form of that type.....they do get hot because they are "supercharged" to get the output.
Ian.

[Richard Honey]

Fair comment handle.

I guess if I can't heat my home with incandescents then it will have to be a plasma screen TV ;].

Someone told me that the idea of using wood pellets has been considered as a renewable power source. Trees are pretty good at converting and storing sunlight into an energy source and it can be easily stored and accessed when required.

There's lots of land that will grow trees and little else so the whole tree could be chipped and the storage and feeding the chips into the steam generation furnace could easily be mechanised and computer controlled.

This is one way of converting sunlight into an energy source, be able to sore it and have immediate access as required. I presume the moisture content of the chips can be easily monitored and controlled and the combustion process similarly managed.

This way we could have a combustion process that is cleaner than coal and a darn sight less destructive to the environment, be renewable and emit less dangerous compounds.

[pollokbrudy]

The coming decade will thus be dominated by global efforts to cut
emissions and change over to a life less rooted in the carbon economy.
If an agreement is not reached in the next two to three years, and
carbon emissions are not reduced from 2015 onwards , the target of
limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius by 2050 will not be
achieved.
Indeed, a confidential UN document that was leaked at Copenhagen shows
that the world is headed towards a three degrees Celsius rise by 2050
unless the developed world takes much larger emission cuts than they
have been promising so far.

Fashion Designing Institute

[fizzissist]

The coming decade will thus be dominated by global efforts to cut
emissions and change over to a life less rooted in the carbon economy.
If an agreement is not reached in the next two to three years, and
carbon emissions are not reduced from 2015 onwards , the target of
limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius by 2050 will not be
achieved.
Indeed, a confidential UN document that was leaked at Copenhagen shows
that the world is headed towards a three degrees Celsius rise by 2050
unless the developed world takes much larger emission cuts than they
have been promising so far.

Fashion Designing Institute

Wow!
Horsesh!t AND Spam....all in one!!

[handlewanker]

Richard Honey, Wood will never replace coal, oil, Nuke or gas, never that is not until the Asteroid strikes and reduces the Human environment to rubble and the remnants of a dying "culture" are reduced to huddling in a cave and cooking over....a wood fire.....wheel cometh full circle.

BTW, what would you use to chip the wood once it had been cut down and dressed, because if'n wood is going to replace other energy forms you'd better have less need of it seeing as how the population is expanding and you'll need more land mass to grow the food for all those extra mouths to feed.

I don't think the people have really grasped the full meaning of alternative technology and the way it will impact on their lives......but we'll never never know for certain how 2050 will be....most of those that are 20 years old right now will not be around in 2050, not, that is unless they have solved the problem of evolution and diversification that the Virus and Bacteria population are using to protect their own interests.

That confidential UN report, "leaked" at the Copenhagen conferance, was probably a red herring put out by the UN because people will believe anything that is "leaked" to them as opposed to a full report by eminent scientists who go public and reveal all.

Anything to do with the current Climate Change theory is an interpretation of the data to hand, and it can be interpreted in many ways and for whatever vested interest.
Ian.

[handlewanker]

I think we should apply to have Pollokbrudy banned from the forum for flagrantly posting spam content links, but I expect in a 3rd world country like India that is the normal way of life....like having a population growth that exceeds the abiity to feed it in spite of the charity handouts from developed 1st world sources that they swallow without a second thought.

I noticed that he/she cited the "developed World" for voluntery punitive measures in the Carbon emmission reduction measures, which means that the undeveloped world needs to be dragged kicking and screaming to the block to ensure they also get their fair share of the crap reduction measures that they are very responsible for in no small way.....if'n it's sauce for the Goose, then it certainly needs to be saucier for the Gander.
Ian.

[arvevans]

It is well known that off-topic spam postings cause cursing and people's temperature to go up, thus causing environmental pollution and global warming.
(wrong)

[bobsch]

Looks like the next sunspot cycle may not happen.

Earth may be headed into a mini Ice Age within a decade [printer-friendly] ? The Register

[Prosper]

To survive in the future comfortably, we need to go back to basics...our life of producing poor quality items such as electronic appliances that last until the warranty expire, vehicles that consume vast amount of fuel, poorly designed machines that consume large amounts of energy for no apparent reason etc... I agree that we can still enjoy the 'luxuries' of modern living if we can just make things more efficient and wasteful. I belong to the older generation, and experienced dire poverty, had no running water, no electricity and lived simply 'off the land'. In fact, the food we grew is full of nutrition and without any insecticide or chemical fertilizers...we used chicken manure and compost...almost everything is recycled...we remain healthy because we observe normal hygiene, and don't use human waste as fertilizer... we seldom get sick which is fortunate because there was no medical services around ..yet we thrived, survived and learned a lot about our environment... modern living is a double edge sword... we can destroy ourselves so easily with too much ....I wonder if the younger generation will survive well into the next century, as they seem to live in a 'molly coddled and protective environment' and the safety of the nutrition they (we) consume nowadays is in doubt.

[fizzissist]

Daily Kos: Stop saying everything is because of climate change. Just stop it.

"I've said it a few times (much to the dismay of many), but the tornadoes this year do not indicate a growing trend. If we have numerous tornado oubreaks of this intensity in the decade, THEN it's a worrying trend. Until then, stop with the talking point positioning. We know climate change is happening, but to say that the tornadoes were a direct result without the trend of tornado outbreaks with this intensity to back it up is a really big freakin' leap.

If this **** happens again next year, and the year after that, I'll go into full mea culpa mode. But until then, stop it. It weakens our argument to scream "CLIMATE CHANGE ZOMG!" every time something bad happens. It takes trends over years to make this argument. Trends equal climate, events equal weather.

Earlier today someone posted a diary saying that the heat burst in Wichita, KS this week was "the beginning" of some more nefarious climate stuff happening. No it's not! As I said in the diary's comments, heat bursts are a well documented natural phenomenon that's happened ever since thunderstorms started. The tl;dr explanation is that dry air got into the thunderstorm as it collapsed (all the rain/hail upstairs falls down at once because the storm can't support it anymore), and the rain evaporated and made the dry air cooler. As it got cooler, it got denser, and fell to the ground. As it fell, it compressed and heated up, hit the ground, made the temperatures rise in a hurry and created 50-60 MPH winds.

That's it. That's what happened. It didn't happen because the oceans are warming or the ice caps are melting or because BP ****ing sucks. It happened because the updraft could no longer support a column of precipitation, it fell, heated up and dispersed at ground level. It's not climate change and it weakens our argument to call it climate change, so stop it. Just because you don't understand why something is happening doesn't mean you should run to the nearest public forum and shout the first thing that comes to your mind."

[handlewanker]

In reply to Prosper, how do you see the mining of brown coal and the impact the power station pollutants are having on the environment?

What exactly I'm driving at is.... if'n we go back to basics, I mean really back...like horse and cart in place of internal combustion engine powered vehicles........ candles instead of CFL electric light.... open fired wood heating and cooking (outside on the fire)....Iffy well water.......and possibly DIY dental surgery for when your teeth get pitted from lack of tooth paste and modern tooth brush technology....that really seperates the men from the boys and is guaranteed to bring a cold sweat to most people with dental problems....I won't mention pharmeceuticals and open heart surgery...or Colonic problems, and perhaps Cancer procedures better not get mentioned either.

I can't think of a more pleasant way to get from A to B than jumping into my Mercedes Benz and flooring the pedal that makes the most noise....that's pure music....on the other hand riding behind a horse that passes wind from the last hay meal is probably an exotic experience if'n you grew up on the farm, but for most townies, Equine and Bovine flatulence is a gasper.

I expect Prosper has heard of the magic box called TV....won't have that in the basic world...or the Internet...or CNC machining.....or LED decorated Christmas trees....or microwave ovens....EEEK, wake me up when the brave new world is upon us.......I looked at a TV show that tried to get enthusiastic about the retail trade from the 1900's in the village scene....that's really going back to basics, "I'll 'ave a half pound 'a tuppeny rice, please"...the good 'ol days...LOL.

You CAN'T GO BACK, trust me....those that think the future is going back to the past, as it was, are living in the past with their ideas.

We need to rethink our present application of requirements, and apply them to the available resources.

Even if'n it means driving an electric car because the availablility of enough liquid fuel for conventional IC engined cars is in short supply, then that is what it takes....not growing more horses and digging up the road system to plant more vegies to feed a growing population.

I've grown accustomed to my way of life, and it would take an act of God to fundamentally change my lifestyle just because some Green eyed monster decided the World was becoming an evil place, and misinterpreted the data from climate figures to press their case for pseudo climate control.

I'm getting confused with the information currently being fed to us.....apparently 83% of Australians surveyed indicated they WANTED the Carbon Tax to ensure that future generations were prepared for the day when the oil runs out etc.

This has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with CLIMATE CHANGE reversals from AGW, which as a former tax payer I'm led to believe is the reason we'all are being groomed to pay it.....which is why it's being called Carbon Tax and not "renewable energy for the future generations tax".

Have I misinterpreted the party line....a heretic.....possibly a non believer...bloody oath mate...the Carbon Tax is a hoax when it relates directly to ANYTHING concerning the weather.....a pseudo Green revenue iniative.

I would categorically say that I applaud the move back to the farm, but not on a horse and buggy basis.

BTW, do you know how many tons of oil it takes to move a ton of commodities from say China to USA, UK or Europe etc on a container ship?

I don't know either, but when I served as a junior engineer on a Liberty ship/general cargo carrier for the Safmarine Corporation in the mid 60's, we burned 50 tons of crude every day (14 day trip South Africa to UK) to supply the steam turbines that powerd it, and that was not for container ship carrying capacities.

Going back to basics means we're going to reinvent the age of the Windjammers, wood, sails and all.....no iron or steel for the hulls....no cheap oil energy to smelt the iron ore.

BTW again, did you ever consider that your "dire poverty" was as a result of just living off of the land?
Ian.

[Prosper]

Your quote " if'n we go back to basics, I mean really back...like horse and cart in place of internal combustion engine powered vehicles........ candles instead of CFL electric light.... open fired wood heating and cooking (outside on the fire)....Iffy well water.......and possibly DIY dental surgery for when your teeth get pitted from lack of tooth paste and modern tooth brush technology....that really seperates the men from the boys and is guaranteed to bring a cold sweat to most people with dental problems....I won't mention pharmeceuticals and open heart surgery...or Colonic problems, and perhaps Cancer procedures better not get mentioned either."
Well when I mention going back to basics, I mean the fact that we should reduce the amount of polution we create by manufacturing or using items that are very inefficient...yes, a more efficient electric car or scooter would be a better proposition than a gas guzzler. Also have a backyard garden to supplement our food etc. I am a person that uses technology where necessary, having been in an engineering environment, working on automotive engines, machining, electrical, electronics, computers and security systems etc.. I am also a certified locksmith and safe vault technician. So I am a person that uses advanced technologies to support my life. Having said that, I would not use any technology that are going to be detrimental to the environmen as far as is possible. You mentioned toothpaste etc..if you really want to clean you teeth well, look at how the majority of Indians living in villages that cannot afford toothpaste, they use a twig from the neem tree to clean their teeth. It is more reliable, is recyclable and also the neem tree contains a natural antiseptic.. I am not saying that we do that but there are simple alternatives. Travelling alone in a vehicle for a short distance is something of a habit but it is a personal choice and i am the last person to comment on that... all I am trying to covey is for us to reduce our dependency on devices and appliances that is detrimental to our environment and instead think of better ways of doing things... we can utilise LED for lighting (not CFL which contains mercury etc.) choose a better transport method, etc. Sure there are always pros and cons to whatever we decide, and sometimes there is a 'grey' area in deciding what is best. 'Going back to basics' does not mean living in the last century or denying medical assistance where needed... time and again people are moing away from patent drugs and into proven herbal remedies but that is a different story.. .Bak to basics means to find out how we survived in the past and taking that situation into account, it is thinking of how best to use available resources to achieve a favourable outcome. Going to basics does not mean abandoning new technlogies...it is using our brains to survive in comfort and safety. But of course there is a paradox...and I am really baffled by this...why does humans still insist of staying in a flood prone area or an earthquake zone, when they know fully well that these threats to life and property exist? When disasters strike, who are the people that later have to risk their lives to assist them? Why would anyone want to live at a fault line or at the foot of a volcano or so close to a tidal ocean or sea or flood prone area and risk their lives and assets? Certain areas in this World should be left alone, such as mangrove swamps, wetlands and volcanos etc. The mind boggles to understand the reasoning of some humans..... we love comfort and luxury..but that does not mean we cannot do it with better efficiency....

[Prosper]

"did you ever consider that your "dire poverty" was as a result of just living off of the land?"
The Poverty mentioned was just before we came to settle on the land...it was the end of the Japanese occupation (everyone was poor) and we had to survive on what we can grow etc. We progressed and succeeded very well while others around us were still struggling because they did not understand the concept of being independent and helping themselves to make life better... they were depending on handouts and commiting crimes to survive... With our brains, and good organisation, we managed to not only survive, improve our environment, stay healthy and enjoyed a good wholesome family life. With technology, we can improve even more...
On the subject of climate change, the only thing I can say is that this World has always experience climate change....so whatever happens we have to use our common sense to survive with whatever we have on hand. A tax is a tax, in whatever name it is, whether it is the GST (that we were promised never to have) or carbon or oxygen or surtax.....lol... but one thing we have to do is to progressively reduce our depedence on fossil fuel and search for a less polluting fuel.

[fizzissist]

Just a smidgin to whet your appetite..... :banana:

".....That release of the full report happened yesterday. And a close reading of it shows that the IPCC has made an error much more serious than the so-called Himalayagate and associated non-scandals last year – it has allowed its headline conclusion to be dictated by a campaigning NGO. Moreover, the error was spotted initially by none other than Steve McIntyre, who has been a thorn in the side of the IPCC and climate science generally for a long time. Yet this time McIntyre has got it right.

Here’s what happened. The 80% by 2050 figure was based on a scenario, so Chapter 10 of the full report reveals, called ER-2010, which does indeed project renewables supplying 77% of the globe’s primary energy by 2050. The lead author of the ER-2010 scenario, however, is a Sven Teske, who should have been identified (but is not) as a climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace International. ..."

Mark Lynas: Home » climate change » New IPCC error: renewables report conclusion was dictated by Greenpeace

This shows more evidence of the IPCC presenting bogus science, just like the Himalayan glacier claims now shown to be a total fraud.

It also shows the farce of the SPM being released prior to the full Assessment Report (AR), preventing full scrutiny.

[fizzissist]

It's the same.

"We use a database of annual maximum daily discharge time series (World Catalogue of Maximum Observed Floods, IAHS Press, 2003) and extract those with length greater than 50 years. We analyse extreme floods at several stations worldwide focusing on their long-term properties of the time series including trends and persistence (else known as Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics), which characterizes the temporal streamflow variability across several time scales. The analysis allows drawing conclusions, which have some importance, given the ongoing and intensifying discussions about worsening of climate and amplification of extreme phenomena."

"Analysis of trends and of aggregated time series on climatic (30-year) scale does not indicate consistent trends worldwide. Despite common perception, in general, the detected trends are more negative (less intense floods in most recent years) than positive. Similarly, Svensson et al. (2005) and Di Baldassarre et al. (2010) did not find systematical change neither in flood increasing or decreasing numbers nor change in flood magnitudes in their analysis."

Long-term properties of annual maximum daily river discharge worldwide

Hurricanes more intense and more frequent....or just better instrumentation and reporting? ...... You guessed it.

Why it seems that severe weather is “getting worse” when the data shows otherwise – a historical perspective | Watts Up With That?

[handlewanker]

I have always suscribed to the theory that drawing conclusions is a very exact science for some people....they spend their entire lives drawing conclusions, but with the data to hand the answers are also very varied....it comes down to interpretation....and not everyone understands or speaks the same language, metaphorically speaking.

This is very much the case with the cup half empty or half full hypothesis...for hypothesis it surely is......you are after all being asked to decide if'n the cup is..... whatever, by someone who is going to decide if'n you are negative or positive in your attitude to any situation.

Not so blinking true.

The cup contents question is a trick one, and well they know it, but it serves the purpose of reinforcing an interpretation of you and your insinuated "condition".

If'n you are pouring some liquid into a cup and pause at the half way mark, the observation is, AND CAN ONLY BE, that the cup is half full, but if'n you are presented with a full cup and drink it down to the halfway mark, the cup is then half empty.....a perfectly logical observation,not based upon your outlook to the outside World.....but you have to know in the first instance which mode you are in....filling up or drinking down.....without that groundwork to base you answer on you will be wrong on both counts.

The same goes for Climate Change...is it changing or just being variable as it always has?

To those with vested interests....it's changing, but to those whose interests are not affected by any varience in any weather, it's variable and who gives a sh!t.

Climatologists have vested interests, especially when they are very important persons, who are the guiding force for Government decision making, and derive their bloated incomes from such bodies of control.

In their guiding hands the Government categorically states that the cup is half full....better to be seen to have more than you've got....but the man in the street, who is being forced to pay a tax for weather changes that he thinks won't happen, the cup is indeed half empty (on a good day) but generally getting emptier by the day.

The truth will be out, but not in your time, and hindsight is a very exact science as all those who do research in climatic variations well know.

You have no option but to pay the piper, unless you are on the team and can blow your own trumpet, in which case you will become an advisor and in your new post will be advising others on how full or empty the cup really is.
Ian.

[handlewanker]

Prospur, by occupation by the Japanese I assume that you are from the Phillipines, South Seas area, wherever, and the inference to dire poverty was only a moment in your time frame........under "normal" circumstances, without Japanese invasion and occupation, you would have been prosperous, rich and self sustaining, and as a 3rd world country that is as far from the truth as you can possibly get.

All the 3rd World countries live from hand to mouth, without the ability to promote or enjoy the technology that the Modern World has promoted for their well being and affluentual position, and for which NOW the 3rd World are expecting the rest of the World to support them in their desire for a better lifestyle.

Without prejudice to anyone in particular, I would have to say that if'n you scratch in the soil for your sustenance, and expect to be intelligent, chances are you cannot grasp the enormity of your situation that you are making for yourselves and your future generations.

The seas will rise, just as they always have done, so move with the times, Geographically speaking of course.

Technology is a double edged sword, and in the hands of those that embrace it, also an unforgiving and unbiased executioner, and as such the techno savvy accept the risks involved, that is why the 3rd World are as they are and the rest of the world are where they are, however one sees it.....you have to not only look beyond the rim of your pail for your future, but actually decide to leave it.
Ian.

[fizzissist]

150 Years of Global Warming and Cooling at the New York Times

150 Years of Global Warming and Cooling at the New York Times | NewsBusters.org

Pick a year. Any year. Now I'll mix 'em up.
And the forecast is????? Climate Change!!