It turns out that GW believers can't make these kinds of references but GW skeptics can.
I have been called everything but a heretic on the subject. So I do not think it is a one way street. Tidester would like the discussion to be based strictly on a scientific level. The whole Global Warming hysteria is based on half truths and scare tactics with a smattering of scientific data. Many of those that have contributed to the UN scientific reports, claim their studies have been altered. That is where I think GW has gone over the line. My opinion means little to anyone but me. Just as many of the opinions here mean little to anyone else. I can accept data from a scientist if I know he is not being manipulated by whomever pays his wages. I am not above using any data that refutes something I have a problem believing. That seems to be the way things are done on most forums.
Gary says, "I can accept data from a scientist if I know he is not being manipulated by whomever pays his wages."
That's where I leave paths with you, Gary. Because I don't think any scientists will put out "false data" for the sake of a paycheck. Maybe 1% of them, but not a vast number. People are basically ethical and honest.
I have a basic understanding that politics are involved in science. And I have a basic understanding that sometimes data can be "skewed" one way or another by opinions.
But do I think that there are professional, working scientists whose cooperation with an idea can be "flat out bought?"
No, I do not and cannot believe that at all.
And why would we be talking about "scaring anyone" in the first place? Global Warming is not about scaring people. And it should not have EVER crossed into an "us versus them" mentality. Ever. EVER.
It should be about getting people's attention and saying, "we need to do our part to reduce the impact of man on the planet when and where we can do so with reasonable means."
We should ALL want the ocean levels to remain constant and not cause billions of dollars in lost real estate on the coastline. We should ALL want the polar bears to survive in their natural habitats. We should ALL want the low-lying Pacific islands to survive. We should ALL want to avoid more droughts, floods, heat waves, infectious diseases and extinctions.
It's not "us versus them" at all. It's "we are all in this TOGETHER."
But the FACT that we are in a warming trend is NOT up for debate. We are.
Maybe NOT in your mind. Maybe you should tell that to the folks in Iraq, Israel & China that are suffering in one of the coldest winters on record. I guess the people that made the graphs in your post did not measure the temperature in those locations. Then again maybe they did and left them out so as to not confuse those that are on the line with GW.
Or maybe I should ask where did they take these measurements over the last 150 years? You might ask those in the cooler climes if they might not like it a degree warmer. Like that will make any difference.
Once again, you are confusing a series of "cold snaps" with Global Warming, something I would expect YOU to be knowledgeable enough to not fall for.
Go back and read my post.....No, nevermind, here it is again:
GW MEANS that there are forces at work, man-made and natural, which are driving weather patterns toward a WARMER TREND overall, across the entire planet as a whole.
It does NOT MEAN we will see the end of all blizzards, cold snaps, abnormally cold weather, snow, sleet, ice storms, Florida Citrus Freezes, etc. etc.
There will still be cold places on this planet. Places who do not normally get ice storms will still occasionally get them. West Texas will get snow in April. Florida will see Freezes in early January. The Northwest USA will get 100-inch snowstorms.
Global warming does not mean the end of cold planet-wide.
What it means is that for example:
In 2007, every single U.S. state except for Texas will be warmer than average for the year.
So yes, there will be cold snaps. That is not precluded by GW.
Show me a global weather chart that shows a cooling trend. I'm sure you can find one out in the vast WWW.
If there are "all these scientists" out there who disagree with GW, and we know there ARE, then where are their charts which dispute the warming trend?
Find me a link to a recent study which says the Earf is cooling.
Many of those that have contributed to the UN scientific reports, claim their studies have been altered
I've heard that also. I was under the impression that their results were toned down in regards to the extent that GW was occurring and the impact it might have.
I believe this debate is like most others. People form an opinion then selectively filter out the data that doesn't support their position. Maybe that's human nature in general. With all the conflicting information regarding GW it is certainly easy to find seemingly reputable sources with impressive credentials that will support either side. The people that I am most skeptical of are those that claim absolute certainty, one way or the other. In the case of GW, if man is driving it, we may not have absolute certainty until it is too late to do anything about it. It might already be too late. In which case our efforts should also be focusing on how we are going to deal with it.
My personal opinion/guess is that this current warming trend is going to accelerate over the next decade, making it harder to ignore.
Well we start off on an entirely different premise. I go along with Mark Twain and most psychiatry. We are all liars from about 6 months of age. And those that say they don't lie according to Mark Twain are D__n liars.
We should ALL want the ocean levels to remain constant and not cause billions of dollars in lost real estate on the coastline. We should ALL want the polar bears to survive in their natural habitats. We should ALL want the low-lying Pacific islands to survive.
The oceans have gone up and down forever. Not much we can do about that. The Polar bears are doing quite well except for the ones the Eskimos shoot and sell the organs to the orientals. survival of the fittest. Man had little to do with the 95% of species that have already become extinct. I am not going to worry about the snail darter or fairy shrimp. I have not noticed any rise in the ocean at the beach house we rent every year.
We should ALL want to avoid more droughts, floods, heat waves, infectious diseases and extinctions.
We could quit making rash decisions based on very little data, such as outlawing DDT and mandating corn ethanol. Those two government interventions will cause more problems than they solve.
Do you really think that man can control floods, droughts, volcanos, tornados, earthquakes, Tsunamis, heatwaves etc?
It's not "us versus them" at all. It's "we are all in this TOGETHER."
You better take that up with the people that are politicizing GW for political and financial gain. They have divided the Nation & the World on the subject. Telling kids in school that their parents are uncaring slobs if they drive an SUV.
Again you are looking at a blink-of-an-eye in the Earth's climate history. You need to consider millions of years to determine what is normal for the climate. from the following graphs you will see that the earth is abnormally cold, even as it warms. The easiest to understand graph is the 4th one down - which goes back 540 million years. The X-Axis is a log-scale with the left representing much longer periods.
From this you can conclude that the last 5 million years have been colder than normal, compared to the hundreds of millions of years before. So if the Earth is warming now all it is doing is heading back towards the average, which i would eye-ball at about 2.5-3.0 C higher than now.
So if we're headed back to the historical average that does not seem that the Earth is in that unusual of a state.
Gary says, "The oceans have gone up and down forever. Not much we can do about that.
Sure they do. But not 21 feet like they are going to in some areas if the ice keeps melting at the current rates.
Gary says, "Do you really think that man can control floods, droughts, volcanos, tornados, earthquakes, Tsunamis, heatwaves etc? "
No, of course not CONTROL. But we CAN "contribute to weather patterns which will make certain said events more severe than they would have been without our contribution." Sure we can.
We should ALL want the ocean levels to remain constant and not cause billions of dollars in lost real estate on the coastline.
That is totally unrealistic and unnatural. The climate and geography have and always will be in a constant state of change. You might consider the examples Nature provides for you to learn - 1) Kilauea, and Moana Loa deciding which land is habitable and creating new shoreline, and 2) the seismic activity along the West Coast (you do know the continents move, and bang into each? you've heard of Pangea?; well the continents haven't stopped moving!)
But we CAN "contribute to weather patterns which will make certain said events more severe than they would have been without our contribution." Sure we can.
Sure we can contribute but if it isn't much of a contribution like 1% or 2% of the change, I don't see that as something worth making major changes for. Because if mankind does contribute slightly to a temp. increase of say 1.0C, then if we make major changes, maybe the increase then is only 0.98C?
And I'll state again, I see a warmer Earth, more like what is normal to be a positive thing overall. Yes there will be negative effects, but overall there should be more positive effects. So if there is no change in the climate, I'm okay with that. If there is a warming trend, I'm happy about that. Either way we're not going to be able to change that course much, as mankind is "too weak" to have much effect on these planetary or solar forces.
But not 21 feet like they are going to in some areas if the ice keeps melting at the current rates.
That's hard to believe that will happen anytime soon, as the beaches I went to as a kid 40 years ago are still the same basically the same today. And this is during that great temperature increase you're stating is going on? Seeing the U.S. Atlantic Coast is on the same ocean as Greenland I'd think I'd be seeing it first?
How much has the ocean raised in the last 50 years?
It could be true of Greenland, but no one expects all of Greenland's ice to melt in this century. If all of Greenland's ice melted, it would cause sea levels to rise by about 21 feet, or 6.5 meters.
The good news is that this seems highly unlikely, certainly for next few thousand years. In its 2001 report on climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that melting all of Antarctica's ice would require global temperatures to be about 36 degrees F (20 C) higher than now.
This is more than three times the greatest warming seen as possible this century and is "a situation that has not occurred for at least 15 million years and which is far more than predicted by any scenario of climate change currently under consideration
There is a big difference between 8- 31 inches and 7- 23 feet. That is the kind of hysterical reporting I find almost laughable. That is if it were not for the fact that half way intelligent folks are falling for it. The latest I have read says that Antarctica ice field is growing.
Six of the 10 experts contacted by Reuters in the last 10 days stuck to projections by the U.N. Climate Panel that sea levels will rise by between about 20 and 80 cms by 2100. Four said gains could be higher because of likely bigger thawing of Antarctica and Greenland. None thought the IPCC was exaggerating the risks.
You bring forth 10 scientists. Here are 400 that have told the Senate, it just ain't so.
How do science skeptics and those introducing paradigm shifts get their papers published in the face of politically correct coercion by a dogmatic majority and lemming press? Persistence, and banding together may help. Following is a fascinating report by the US Senate that may result in a critical mass begin to form against the politically correct band wagon of man-made global warming. Perhaps we can begin to have a serious scientific debate on this issue based on evidence.
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.
Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics “appear to be expanding rather than shrinking.” Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.”
Well I wasted my entire morning at Home Depot and Lowes. First they are both supposedly "Lights of America" dealers. Neither had a single CFL from that company. I looked at CFLs from N'Vision, GE, Phillips, Sylvania and a couple other No-Name companies. Every bulb was "made in China". This energy mandate will further erode our manufacturing base. Of those two big stores neither had the round globe CFLs for use in my bathroom fixtures. Neither had the discounted CFLs that according to SDG&E are supposedly available. So I tried and came up short. I guess I continue to use my 30 recessed 85 watt floods and 18 globe type 65 watt bathroom lights. That is until Congress straightens out the mess they have made. I am far more worried about our Congress destroying our economy than San Francisco or NYC going under water.
From your last link - Maybe 1.6 ... "In the last interglacial period (134 000 to 119 000 years ago), sea levels reached around 6 m above the present rate because of the melting of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. The consortium’s results provide the first hard evidence of the sea’s rise to these levels.
So I don't see how you can read that, and still sit there and say that it would be so unusual and disastrous to the world, if GW does occur? It's happened before.
And given what we know about natural science these days, do you want us to somehow feel panic and pity for those who build along shorelines (hurricanes, tsunamis, and changing coastlines issues) or build in earthquake zones (SF, Seattle, LA) or build near volcanoes (Portland), or build oon deltas that are slipping into the sea (New Orleans). Frankly I wouldn't be surprised these cities would be quite devastated in the next few hundred years. I EXPECT these things to happen, but you for some reason think things will be the same year after year, and that the world needs to be same 500 years form now as it is. That is an UNNATURAL view. NATURE = CHANGE. Adapt, and be-smart, and you may live.
I frankly think many people make stupid decisions on where to live. But people want to live near the sea; and it's their right, but I don't feel sorry if their decision turns out to be stupid for whatever reason. I also wouldn't put a $0.10 into SF and Oakland as they are sitting on a time-bomb. Politically that could never be touched; we'll just wait for the earthquake, and then be shocked. But I digress. Let's get back to your worries about the sea-level and the people who want to live at the edge of the land and never have it change.
In addition there are places all along the CA coast that erode and fall off into the Ocean. The home owners in San Diego want the government to shore up the sea walls to protect their precious property. They know it is a risk living that close to the ocean. Most of them have two or three big fat cars in their 3 car garages. They need to downsize long before they expect the rest of us poor folks to worry or pay to keep them from sinking into the ocean.
This whole GW subject has brought out the most lame arguments against progress and change that I can even imagine. We saw what nature thinks of man's attempts to live next to the oceans with Katrina and the earthquake in the Indian Ocean on 12/26/04. That bit of poor planning cost 283,000 lives. I wonder if the spin meisters could somehow equate that earthquake and tsunami as being caused by GW.
This energy mandate will further erode our manufacturing base
Exactly what part of manufacturing a light bulb do you believe involves human intervention? Maybe someone to push a button and someone to randomly inspect the bulbs coming off a conveyer belt. It would be a real shame to lose those quality jobs to China.
Most of those twisted "spiral" energy efficient CFL lightbulbs sold in the US come from Shanghai and all are currently twisted by hand.
"Today, he employs about 3,000 "benders," who spend three months learning how to hand-shape the glass into spirals. They sit in rows, taking hot glass into their gloved hands and spinning it around a cylinder. Mr. Yan is starting to automate the process and expects benders will eventually be phased out. To guarantee supply, he bought a glass factory."
GE, Sylvania and others are building up capacity to compete. (12/28/07 WSJ).
There are several thousand GE employees that will be losing their jobs when the mandate takes affect. I guess it is just a fact that all manufacturing will end up in China or India eventually. I am making an effort to keep my fellow Americans working by avoiding any product not made in the USA. I think that is a much more noble cause than saving a few KWHs of electricity each month.
a side note. If you are going to replace your incandescents with CFLs. Get the Full Spectrum type. There are heath alerts coming out on the frequency of many florescent bulbs that can cause migraine headaches and induce epileptic seizures cause cancer etc.
I found that the fluorescent bulb that I had in my reading light by my chair exacerbated the dizzy problem terribly. We now use full spectrum bulbs in our lamps and it really helped me."
The standard fluorescent lights used in most public schools may also present a problem for kids. A member named JonB offers this insight: "I have read and seen many reports on ADD and ADHD as well as dyslexia, and there have been a number of reports from various schools on the problem of non diffused flouro's all claiming that children in class are much harder to control when fluro lights are not diffused. Full spectrum does not cause these problems. This is a major area to look at with children's behavior."
There are dozens of sites listing the health hazards of florescent lights.
The UV radiation found in fluorescent lighting is present in two forms: UVA (320 to 400 nanometers [nm]), and UVB (280-320 nm). UVB rays pose a much greater risk of causing skin cancer than UVA.
UV radiation has long been known to cause a myriad of health problems. Some sources indicate that fluorescent lights emit more UVB than the sun. In the 1992 edition of the American Journal of Epidemiology, it was found that fluorescent lights emit "10-30 times" more UVB radiation than the sun does. UVB radiation has been found to be carcinogenic (cancer causing).
Chronic effects from long-term exposure to UV include premature skin aging, stronger allergic reactions, cataracts, blood vessel damage, a weakened immune system, and skin cancer.
You should also know that there are over 125 commonly used medications classified as photosensitizers that actually make your body UV-sensitive. Photosensitizing products can cause certain autoimmune diseases, such as lupus (in which the body's auto-immune system mistakenly destroys itself) to worsen.
... [then] the logical conclusion is that mankind is having a minor impact on GW.
No, the logical conclusion is that CO2 is not the driving force behind global warming.
What you are suggesting is akin to blaming poker chips for an outbreak of gambling when, in fact, the driving force behind gambling is personal greed. Sure, poker chips facilitate gambling but banning or taxing them will certainly not make the problem go away.
Amputating your carbon foot will eliminate your carbon footprint but will not make global warming go away.
Too bad the scientists say that the results of the warming trend we likely have coming are not going to be good for us.
Which scientists? What results? There are many who see great advantages to warming such as longer growing seasons for crops and, generally, greater prosperity.
Yes Larsb is being influenced by those who see the glass 1/3 empty. Yes there are negatives in almost any action; but you need to look at and judge it versus the positives.
Instead of sitting in one of the hottest spots in the world - Phoenix, and bemoaning that the Earf can't get hotter, consider the vast stretches of Earth that are very cool, or very cold that would benefit. The Vikings had settlements back around 1100 in Greenland, but eventually couldn't make a living when the glaciers came back because of increasing cold.
First, let me say that pinholing me as a "Phoenix is too hot so Global Warming is BAD BAD BAD" kind of person is a complete inaccuracy.
I would believe what I do about GW regardless of where I live. I'm a Texas country boy by birth.
I have compassion for all the people suffering weather problems, be it cold, warm, floods, tornadoes, etc.
And I am not a gloomy, pessimistic guy either. I have always been an optimist, looking for the good side of people and remaining hopeful for the future.
My hopes for the future are EXACTLY why I live my life as a conserver and not a waster. I want my grandkids and their grandkids to have a livable, vibrant Earf on which to live and prosper. Therefore I do my share and more in whatever ways I can to help reduce my own impact on this wonderful Third Rock From The Sun on which we all live.
Look - there is NO DOUBT that the Earf goes through various warming and cooling trends as natural events. Right? Can we all agree on that point?
OK. Now. There are mountains of evidence and charts to be found if one searches for them which indicate that the Earf is WITHOUT A DOUBT right now in one of the WARMING TRENDS. That is not my opinion. I challenged Gary yesterday to find me one weather chart pattern that disputes that fact. Same goes to any of you. Produce me a chart which shows that the Earf is NOT INDEED in a warming trend over the past few years.
(insert Jeopardy song here) (insert Jeopardy song here) (insert Jeopardy song here)
OK. Now that no one can find a reputable, valid chart like that, let's move on.
Now that we know the Earf is warming, many questions remain:
Can we do anything about it? What are the root causes and the extenuating circumstances, if any? Are we hurting the situation ourselves by projecting so much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere? Is fossil fuel burning a major part of the problem? How can we cut back?
No, the logical conclusion is that CO2 is not the driving force behind global warming.
I would rephrase your position and say that in the past GHGs have not been the driving force behind global warming. The past is only an accurate predictor of the future if all the variables have remained essentially the same. I don't think that they have.
I also don't agree with your gambling analogy. Because it implies that GHG's are merely a by-product of GW and really don't affect temperatures.
The way I look at it is like a ball resting on a flat platform at the edge of a hill. I'll equate the speed of the ball to rising temperatures and the slope of the hill to rising GHG levels. In the past this ball was pushed off the edge by an event, such as a deviation in the earth's orbit. Once it got over this edge the slope (GHG levels) kicked in and further accelerated the ball. So, I'd agree, GHG levels were not the driving force. I think the situation we currently have is where mankind is now capable of increasing the GHG levels on his own, which is essentially giving this once flat platform some slope, which will cause the ball to roll off and travel down the hill.
That analogy was a little simplistic because I don't consider GHG levels to be the only factor involved in rising or falling temperatures. I'm sure there are many factors with GHG levels being one of the more important ones. This is why you can have short periods of declining temperatures even while GHG levels are rising. But I do believe that had these GHG levels not been rising these temperatures would have declined even further during these periods like 1940-1970.
There are many who see great advantages to warming such as longer growing seasons for crops and, generally, greater prosperity
Based upon that rational the most prosperous nations should be located around the equator. It seems to me the most prosperous nations live in regions with relatively mild temperatures.
Gary says, "There are dozens of sites listing the health hazards of fluorescent lights.
Yes, but almost ALL of that info you cite does not apply to CFLs, only to the older-style tube fluorescent lights. There is very little at all out there that warns about any of those type of issues with CFLs. The only major concern is the mercury inside.
From a GE website FAQ:
8. Do light bulbs (such as fluorescent and compact fluorescent bulbs) give off hazardous amounts of ultraviolet (UV) light?
Regular fluorescent light bulbs used in your home and office do not produce a hazardous amount of ultraviolet light (UV). Most light sources, including fluorescent bulbs, emit a small amount of UV, but the UV produced by fluorescent light bulbs is far less than the amount produced by natural daylight. (Ultraviolet light rays are the light wavelengths that can cause sunburn and skin damage.) Your safety is important to us. That's why, for all of our light bulbs designed for general public use, we strive to minimize the amount of UV light emitted. If you're looking for a low-UV bulb for an especially sensitive area, try our Saf-T-Gard® bulbs. They block most ultraviolet light emissions, and they're also shatter-resistant.
My advice on that is: Just don't tan with a CFL and you should be fine.
Here is some data claiming man caused the planet to cool from 1000 AD to 1900. So it makes sense that we would try to warm it back up. If the Nor'easterners see the water rising I suggest they move to higher ground.
Livermore, Calif. — Researchers in Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s Atmospheric Science Division have demonstrated a cooling of up to 2-degree Fahrenheit over land between 1000 and 1900 AD as a result of changes from natural vegetation, such as forests, to agriculture.
"The estimated temperature change in the continental United States as a result of change from forests to agriculture is up to a 2-degree Fahrenheit cooling," Caldeira said. "So, when we talk about global warming, we can no longer take for granted that this global warming is starting from some natural climate state, undisturbed by human activities."
Previous studies had attributed cooling to natural climate variations. The Livermore research, however, suggests that much of this cooling could have been the result of human activity.
Forests tend to look dark from the sky, but agricultural lands, with their amber waves of grain, tend to look much lighter. Dark colors tend to absorb sunlight, and light colors tend to reflect sunlight back out to space. Changing from forests to crops results in more sunlight reflected back to space. This reflection of solar energy to space tends to cool the Earth, especially in regions such as the eastern and mid-western United States, where huge tracts of land have been converted to crops. In the 20th century, some of this cropland has been reverting back to forest, especially in the eastern United States.
Greenhouse gas emissions in the 20th century likely overcame any cooling trends that took place up to that time. Growing more trees has been suggested as a way to soak up carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, from the atmosphere. However, earlier studies demonstrate that growing dark forests could actually heat the earth’s surface more because dark colors tend to absorb more sunlight, despite the uptake of carbon dioxide.
The two largest emerging producers of GHG China and India, made it clear at the UN conference on GW that they were not going to jeopardize their economies to facilitate the Kyoto treaty. With plans to replace MILLIONS of bicycles with little gas cars such as the Nano, I do not see any reason to believe we can change the course of nature or history. Those close to the coast should check out what Holland has done for centuries to keep the ocean from encroaching.
Yes, but almost ALL of that info you cite does not apply to CFLs,
The key word you have used is "almost". Not all CFLs are created equal. Having spent several hours reading the labels on CFLs I am now more confused than I was before. My initial adoption of CFLs was because I am very tight with my money. I would not have ever given a second thought to the health risks if I did not meet someone that suffers from florescent radiation. I am not sure if his rash is brought on by UV or radio waves. It would seem that buying the "Full Spectrum" CFLs would reduce the radiation problem with the regular CFLs. The standard CFL is 2700K where the Full Spectrum CFLs are up over 5000K, much closer to natural sunlight. I am not going to run out and replace 50 some odd recessed and globe lamps in this house until I can get solid information on the health risks. Plus finding lamps "Made in the USA".
Look at a map and consider population density. Also consider the number of plants and animals per sq. mile.
Canada is barely inhabited, with most of its citizens huddled along the southern border. Ditto for Siberia and Alaska. Greenland basically laying unused. Iceland is sparsely populated. So are the Nordic countries of Sweden, Norway, and Finland. The whole continent of Antartica is uninhabitable except for extraordinary measures for a few camps.
In this country most of the population growth and migration is in the South and SW.
If we want to aspire to perfect weather, Hawaii would be it. 65 - 95F would be a great range. Give me an average of 70-75F year round. What's the average on Earth now 59F?
FYI: When I retire it certainly isn't going to be somewhere cold; I want to enjoy the outdoors without having to wear heavy clothing 6 months of the year. Hawaii, or Costa Rica - 2 places much closer to the equator are looking pretty good.
Didn't you see the highlited part of my post that said the UV from CFLs is far, far less than natural daylight in a room?
That is just not true. This study was done on CFLs in Britain. Kind of like the EV situation. We will have alternatives in 2-3 years.
Fluorescent bulbs can exacerbate skin rashes in people with photosensitive skin conditions, experts said.
The government is planning to prevent the sale of conventional bulbs by 2011 to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
Several groups including the British Association of Dermatologists called for exemptions to allow those affected to continue using traditional bulbs.
But representatives of the lighting industry said there would be alternatives to fluorescent lighting available.
Health conditions which can involve some form of light sensitivity, include the auto-immune disease lupus, the genetic disorder Xeroderma Pigmentosum (XP), certain forms of eczema and dermatitis, photosensitivity, and porphyria.
It has been estimated about 100,000 people in the UK with these skin conditions will be affected.
Spectrum - an alliance of charities that support people with light sensitive conditions - says they have also been contacted with people suffering from ME who have had bad reactions to fluorescent light.
Other groups have warned that low-energy bulbs, which use approximately a quarter of the energy of conventional bulbs, cause migraines and increase the risk of seizures in people with epilepsy.
"These things have been taken into consideration and there will be bulbs they can still use.
"There are also halogen bulbs and LED bulbs coming in in the next two or three years."
When I retire it certainly isn't going to be somewhere cold
I'm with you there brother!
Global Warming gives us something to look forward to. It would only take a bit to make CA weather as nice as Hawaii. It is just a bit too cold here in the winter. I could go all year and not miss seeing a frosty morning. My plumeria plants hate the cold.
One of the studies published in the journal Science found that nearly 60% of the changes in river flow, snow pack and winter temperatures in the West over the past 50 years are due to warming caused by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas.
"We're headed for a potential disaster because of the lack of snowpack," says lead author Tim Barnett, a marine research physicist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego. "In California, we don't have enough reservoirs, so we rely heavily on the Sierra snowpack for our water."
Already, the changes of the past five decades have meant less snow pack and more rain in the mountains, rivers that run dry by summer, and overall drier summers in the region.
Barnett says the climate models used in the study were conservative, using only the low end of the temperature changes predicted due to global warming.
Better start working on desalination plants now !!!
Revisionist history at best!? One just needs to go back a couple of generations where the flow of water was re engineered (aka "stolen") from the colony of northern CA. :lemon: If the SO CA environmentalist's really believed their own schtick, they would simply (lobby) engineer things to stop the flow!!?? NOT !!
..."Better start working on desalination plants now !!! "...
Well if all you have to do (conceptually) is to dip an intake hose into literally an inexhaustible supply of H2O and "turn on the bubble machine" (a little Lawrence Welk TV humor), do the environmentalist really expect to put desalination plants in IOWA/Kansas!!?? (middle of the continental US)
My point is instead of the government mandating something on a whim they should research further. LEDs and Halogens present a much better model for low energy lighting. I converted to almost all LEDs this Christmas. Many of my neighbors did the same. I think LED lighting is far superior to the CFLs with their high pollution and energy usage in manufacture. Their need for hazmat disposal. You are someone that likes to jump on every environmental bandwagon. I am not that compulsive.
Do regular fluorescent lights emit ultraviolet light? If so, how does the ultraviolet level compare to what we would receive if we were outside? -- GF, Barstow, CA While the electric discharge in the tube's mercury vapor emits large amounts of short wavelength ultraviolet light, virtually all of this ultraviolet light is absorbed by the tube's internal phosphor coating and glass envelope. As a result, a fluorescent lamp emits relatively little ultraviolet light. The ultraviolet light level under fluorescent lighting is far less than that of outdoor sunlight.
So your friend who suffers from UV supposedly because of fluorescent lights? Needs to stay out of sunlight too.
LEDs are fine. They are VERY expensive and very hard to find right now. I did the same search for LED bulbs at Home Depot last week that you did for USA-made CFLs yesterday. Nothing available besides an LED night light.
I don't really "jump" onto anything unless it's a good idea. CFLs are good replacements for incandescents in almost every single case. That's why I have used them for so long.
No rashes. No broken bulbs. A few burned out before warranty and Sylvania stepped up to the plate and replaced them, no questions asked.
See this page for more info on comparing the three technologies:
I agree that LEDs are the next step in more efficient lighting. At the present time they are too expensive and don't quite produce enough light. I think that will change over time and we'll eventually have cost competitive LED lighting and I will be one of the first to transition. If these LEDs end up being primarily manufactured in China it won't really matter all that much to me. For the present CFLs are the best option.
I don't know how much energy is used to manufacture a CFL. I do know that it has to be less than the cost of the bulb. A manufacturer is not going to sell a lightbulb for $5 if it cost him $6 in energy to manufacture. What's more important is the total energy used not only in the manufacturing process but by the bulb itself. I guarantee you that over the ~8,000 hour life of a CFL far less total energy was used compared to the 10 incandescent bulbs it replaced.
I think most people would disagree with your characterization of CFLs as being highly polluting. They have a trace amount of mercury. If the power to light these bulbs comes from a coal fired power plant the net result is less pollution since less coal was burned. I do find it a little interesting how you selectively use pollution to support some of your positions. It seems contrary to your position regarding diesels and CA's strict air quality standards.
Didn't you say that you have CFLs in your reading lamps? Based on all your recent posts I've got to wonder why? If you spend a lot of time reading I'll bet your forehead is pretty well tanned by now, or do you apply some SPF 30 before settling down with a book?.
I did find "Lights of America" at Walmart this morning. They are "Made in China" just like all the rest. I did buy one flood for the recessed lights and one globe for the bathrooms to compare the light. I do believe the reason they are not made here is two fold. Labor intensive and more pollution in the process. Time will tell if LEDs will come down to a reasonable level. I do not want to dump several hundred dollars into CFLs and then do the same in a couple years to upgrade to LEDs.
It is depressing to me that this mandate will put more Americans out of work. The money will come back into the pockets of the CEOs at GE, Sylvania, Phillips and a few others.
Didn't you say that you have CFLs in your reading lamps?
Yes most of our lamps have had CFL bulbs for probably 10 years. I never thought to much about them until we met this Curtis and he was telling us about his rash from Florescent lights. My biggest complaint is the Feds sticking their nose into every aspect of our lives. I can find the most practical way to light and heat my home without the Feds telling me I have to do it their way. Same goes for CARB telling us we cannot drive an energy efficient car unless they put their blessings on it.
I am anti big government. I can see I am in the minority on this thread.
Comments
Actually, yes we are. Search for the charts - they are all over the place:
And:
PDF climate chart
And:
So, feel free to discuss all you want about the CAUSES of the warming trend - whether natural or man-assisted.
But the FACT that we are in a warming trend is NOT up for debate. We are.
I have been called everything but a heretic on the subject. So I do not think it is a one way street. Tidester would like the discussion to be based strictly on a scientific level. The whole Global Warming hysteria is based on half truths and scare tactics with a smattering of scientific data. Many of those that have contributed to the UN scientific reports, claim their studies have been altered. That is where I think GW has gone over the line. My opinion means little to anyone but me. Just as many of the opinions here mean little to anyone else. I can accept data from a scientist if I know he is not being manipulated by whomever pays his wages. I am not above using any data that refutes something I have a problem believing. That seems to be the way things are done on most forums.
That's where I leave paths with you, Gary. Because I don't think any scientists will put out "false data" for the sake of a paycheck. Maybe 1% of them, but not a vast number. People are basically ethical and honest.
I have a basic understanding that politics are involved in science. And I have a basic understanding that sometimes data can be "skewed" one way or another by opinions.
But do I think that there are professional, working scientists whose cooperation with an idea can be "flat out bought?"
No, I do not and cannot believe that at all.
And why would we be talking about "scaring anyone" in the first place? Global Warming is not about scaring people. And it should not have EVER crossed into an "us versus them" mentality. Ever. EVER.
It should be about getting people's attention and saying, "we need to do our part to reduce the impact of man on the planet when and where we can do so with reasonable means."
We should ALL want the ocean levels to remain constant and not cause billions of dollars in lost real estate on the coastline.
We should ALL want the polar bears to survive in their natural habitats.
We should ALL want the low-lying Pacific islands to survive.
We should ALL want to avoid more droughts, floods, heat waves, infectious diseases and extinctions.
It's not "us versus them" at all. It's "we are all in this TOGETHER."
Maybe NOT in your mind. Maybe you should tell that to the folks in Iraq, Israel & China that are suffering in one of the coldest winters on record. I guess the people that made the graphs in your post did not measure the temperature in those locations. Then again maybe they did and left them out so as to not confuse those that are on the line with GW.
Or maybe I should ask where did they take these measurements over the last 150 years? You might ask those in the cooler climes if they might not like it a degree warmer. Like that will make any difference.
Go back and read my post.....No, nevermind, here it is again:
GW MEANS that there are forces at work, man-made and natural, which are driving weather patterns toward a WARMER TREND overall, across the entire planet as a whole.
It does NOT MEAN we will see the end of all blizzards, cold snaps, abnormally cold weather, snow, sleet, ice storms, Florida Citrus Freezes, etc. etc.
There will still be cold places on this planet. Places who do not normally get ice storms will still occasionally get them. West Texas will get snow in April. Florida will see Freezes in early January. The Northwest USA will get 100-inch snowstorms.
Global warming does not mean the end of cold planet-wide.
What it means is that for example:
In 2007, every single U.S. state except for Texas will be warmer than average for the year.
So yes, there will be cold snaps. That is not precluded by GW.
Show me a global weather chart that shows a cooling trend. I'm sure you can find one out in the vast WWW.
If there are "all these scientists" out there who disagree with GW, and we know there ARE, then where are their charts which dispute the warming trend?
Find me a link to a recent study which says the Earf is cooling.
I've heard that also. I was under the impression that their results were toned down in regards to the extent that GW was occurring and the impact it might have.
I believe this debate is like most others. People form an opinion then selectively filter out the data that doesn't support their position. Maybe that's human nature in general. With all the conflicting information regarding GW it is certainly easy to find seemingly reputable sources with impressive credentials that will support either side. The people that I am most skeptical of are those that claim absolute certainty, one way or the other. In the case of GW, if man is driving it, we may not have absolute certainty until it is too late to do anything about it. It might already be too late. In which case our efforts should also be focusing on how we are going to deal with it.
My personal opinion/guess is that this current warming trend is going to accelerate over the next decade, making it harder to ignore.
Well we start off on an entirely different premise. I go along with Mark Twain and most psychiatry. We are all liars from about 6 months of age. And those that say they don't lie according to Mark Twain are D__n liars.
We should ALL want the ocean levels to remain constant and not cause billions of dollars in lost real estate on the coastline.
We should ALL want the polar bears to survive in their natural habitats.
We should ALL want the low-lying Pacific islands to survive.
The oceans have gone up and down forever. Not much we can do about that.
The Polar bears are doing quite well except for the ones the Eskimos shoot and sell the organs to the orientals. survival of the fittest. Man had little to do with the 95% of species that have already become extinct. I am not going to worry about the snail darter or fairy shrimp.
I have not noticed any rise in the ocean at the beach house we rent every year.
We should ALL want to avoid more droughts, floods, heat waves, infectious diseases and extinctions.
We could quit making rash decisions based on very little data, such as outlawing DDT and mandating corn ethanol. Those two government interventions will cause more problems than they solve.
Do you really think that man can control floods, droughts, volcanos, tornados, earthquakes, Tsunamis, heatwaves etc?
It's not "us versus them" at all. It's "we are all in this TOGETHER."
You better take that up with the people that are politicizing GW for political and financial gain. They have divided the Nation & the World on the subject. Telling kids in school that their parents are uncaring slobs if they drive an SUV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record
From this you can conclude that the last 5 million years have been colder than normal, compared to the hundreds of millions of years before. So if the Earth is warming now all it is doing is heading back towards the average, which i would eye-ball at about 2.5-3.0 C higher than now.
So if we're headed back to the historical average that does not seem that the Earth is in that unusual of a state.
Sure they do. But not 21 feet like they are going to in some areas if the ice keeps melting at the current rates.
Gary says, "Do you really think that man can control floods, droughts, volcanos, tornados, earthquakes, Tsunamis, heatwaves etc? "
No, of course not CONTROL. But we CAN "contribute to weather patterns which will make certain said events more severe than they would have been without our contribution." Sure we can.
That is totally unrealistic and unnatural. The climate and geography have and always will be in a constant state of change. You might consider the examples Nature provides for you to learn - 1) Kilauea, and Moana Loa deciding which land is habitable and creating new shoreline, and 2) the seismic activity along the West Coast (you do know the continents move, and bang into each? you've heard of Pangea?; well the continents haven't stopped moving!)
Sure we can contribute but if it isn't much of a contribution like 1% or 2% of the change, I don't see that as something worth making major changes for. Because if mankind does contribute slightly to a temp. increase of say 1.0C, then if we make major changes, maybe the increase then is only 0.98C?
And I'll state again, I see a warmer Earth, more like what is normal to be a positive thing overall. Yes there will be negative effects, but overall there should be more positive effects. So if there is no change in the climate, I'm okay with that. If there is a warming trend, I'm happy about that. Either way we're not going to be able to change that course much, as mankind is "too weak" to have much effect on these planetary or solar forces.
That's hard to believe that will happen anytime soon, as the beaches I went to as a kid 40 years ago are still the same basically the same today. And this is during that great temperature increase you're stating is going on? Seeing the U.S. Atlantic Coast is on the same ocean as Greenland I'd think I'd be seeing it first?
It could be true of Greenland, but no one expects all of Greenland's ice to melt in this century. If all of Greenland's ice melted, it would cause sea levels to rise by about 21 feet, or 6.5 meters.
The good news is that this seems highly unlikely, certainly for next few thousand years. In its 2001 report on climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that melting all of Antarctica's ice would require global temperatures to be about 36 degrees F (20 C) higher than now.
This is more than three times the greatest warming seen as possible this century and is "a situation that has not occurred for at least 15 million years and which is far more than predicted by any scenario of climate change currently under consideration
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/askjack/2004-11-21-melting-polar-ice_x- .htm
Melting Ice will cause sea levels to rise this century 7-23 feet and maybe more
Or this one, which is ONE BAY in ONE CITY and the ramifications of water levels rising:
"Save The Bay" becomes "Save The Land" in San Fran
Or how about:
Maybe 1.6 meters every century?
Moral of the story:
If you want to see Venice, you better plan that trip SOON !!! LOL
Six of the 10 experts contacted by Reuters in the last 10 days stuck to projections by the U.N. Climate Panel that sea levels will rise by between about 20 and 80 cms by 2100. Four said gains could be higher because of likely bigger thawing of Antarctica and Greenland. None thought the IPCC was exaggerating the risks.
You bring forth 10 scientists. Here are 400 that have told the Senate, it just ain't so.
How do science skeptics and those introducing paradigm shifts get their papers published in the face of politically correct coercion by a dogmatic majority and lemming press? Persistence, and banding together may help. Following is a fascinating report by the US Senate that may result in a critical mass begin to form against the politically correct band wagon of man-made global warming. Perhaps we can begin to have a serious scientific debate on this issue based on evidence.
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.
Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics “appear to be expanding rather than shrinking.” Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.”
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
So I don't see how you can read that, and still sit there and say that it would be so unusual and disastrous to the world, if GW does occur? It's happened before.
And given what we know about natural science these days, do you want us to somehow feel panic and pity for those who build along shorelines (hurricanes, tsunamis, and changing coastlines issues) or build in earthquake zones (SF, Seattle, LA) or build near volcanoes (Portland), or build oon deltas that are slipping into the sea (New Orleans). Frankly I wouldn't be surprised these cities would be quite devastated in the next few hundred years. I EXPECT these things to happen, but you for some reason think things will be the same year after year, and that the world needs to be same 500 years form now as it is. That is an UNNATURAL view. NATURE = CHANGE. Adapt, and be-smart, and you may live.
I frankly think many people make stupid decisions on where to live. But people want to live near the sea; and it's their right, but I don't feel sorry if their decision turns out to be stupid for whatever reason. I also wouldn't put a $0.10 into SF and Oakland as they are sitting on a time-bomb. Politically that could never be touched; we'll just wait for the earthquake, and then be shocked.
This whole GW subject has brought out the most lame arguments against progress and change that I can even imagine. We saw what nature thinks of man's attempts to live next to the oceans with Katrina and the earthquake in the Indian Ocean on 12/26/04. That bit of poor planning cost 283,000 lives. I wonder if the spin meisters could somehow equate that earthquake and tsunami as being caused by GW.
Exactly what part of manufacturing a light bulb do you believe involves human intervention? Maybe someone to push a button and someone to randomly inspect the bulbs coming off a conveyer belt. It would be a real shame to lose those quality jobs to China.
"Today, he employs about 3,000 "benders," who spend three months learning how to hand-shape the glass into spirals. They sit in rows, taking hot glass into their gloved hands and spinning it around a cylinder. Mr. Yan is starting to automate the process and expects benders will eventually be phased out. To guarantee supply, he bought a glass factory."
GE, Sylvania and others are building up capacity to compete. (12/28/07 WSJ).
a side note. If you are going to replace your incandescents with CFLs. Get the Full Spectrum type. There are heath alerts coming out on the frequency of many florescent bulbs that can cause migraine headaches and induce epileptic seizures cause cancer etc.
I found that the fluorescent bulb that I had in my reading light by my chair exacerbated the dizzy problem terribly. We now use full spectrum bulbs in our lamps and it really helped me."
The standard fluorescent lights used in most public schools may also present a problem for kids. A member named JonB offers this insight: "I have read and seen many reports on ADD and ADHD as well as dyslexia, and there have been a number of reports from various schools on the problem of non diffused flouro's all claiming that children in class are much harder to control when fluro lights are not diffused. Full spectrum does not cause these problems. This is a major area to look at with children's behavior."
There are dozens of sites listing the health hazards of florescent lights.
The UV radiation found in fluorescent lighting is present in two forms: UVA (320 to 400 nanometers [nm]), and UVB (280-320 nm). UVB rays pose a much greater risk of causing skin cancer than UVA.
UV radiation has long been known to cause a myriad of health problems. Some sources indicate that fluorescent lights emit more UVB than the sun. In the 1992 edition of the American Journal of Epidemiology, it was found that fluorescent lights emit "10-30 times" more UVB radiation than the sun does. UVB radiation has been found to be carcinogenic (cancer causing).
Chronic effects from long-term exposure to UV include premature skin aging, stronger allergic reactions, cataracts, blood vessel damage, a weakened immune system, and skin cancer.
You should also know that there are over 125 commonly used medications classified as photosensitizers that actually make your body UV-sensitive. Photosensitizing products can cause certain autoimmune diseases, such as lupus (in which the body's auto-immune system mistakenly destroys itself) to worsen.
No, the logical conclusion is that CO2 is not the driving force behind global warming.
What you are suggesting is akin to blaming poker chips for an outbreak of gambling when, in fact, the driving force behind gambling is personal greed. Sure, poker chips facilitate gambling but banning or taxing them will certainly not make the problem go away.
Amputating your carbon foot will eliminate your carbon footprint but will not make global warming go away.
Which scientists? What results? There are many who see great advantages to warming such as longer growing seasons for crops and, generally, greater prosperity.
Instead of sitting in one of the hottest spots in the world - Phoenix, and bemoaning that the Earf can't get hotter, consider the vast stretches of Earth that are very cool, or very cold that would benefit. The Vikings had settlements back around 1100 in Greenland, but eventually couldn't make a living when the glaciers came back because of increasing cold.
I would believe what I do about GW regardless of where I live. I'm a Texas country boy by birth.
I have compassion for all the people suffering weather problems, be it cold, warm, floods, tornadoes, etc.
And I am not a gloomy, pessimistic guy either. I have always been an optimist, looking for the good side of people and remaining hopeful for the future.
My hopes for the future are EXACTLY why I live my life as a conserver and not a waster. I want my grandkids and their grandkids to have a livable, vibrant Earf on which to live and prosper. Therefore I do my share and more in whatever ways I can to help reduce my own impact on this wonderful Third Rock From The Sun on which we all live.
Look - there is NO DOUBT that the Earf goes through various warming and cooling trends as natural events. Right? Can we all agree on that point?
OK. Now. There are mountains of evidence and charts to be found if one searches for them which indicate that the Earf is WITHOUT A DOUBT right now in one of the WARMING TRENDS. That is not my opinion. I challenged Gary yesterday to find me one weather chart pattern that disputes that fact. Same goes to any of you. Produce me a chart which shows that the Earf is NOT INDEED in a warming trend over the past few years.
(insert Jeopardy song here)
(insert Jeopardy song here)
(insert Jeopardy song here)
OK. Now that no one can find a reputable, valid chart like that, let's move on.
Now that we know the Earf is warming, many questions remain:
Can we do anything about it? What are the root causes and the extenuating circumstances, if any? Are we hurting the situation ourselves by projecting so much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere? Is fossil fuel burning a major part of the problem? How can we cut back?
I would rephrase your position and say that in the past GHGs have not been the driving force behind global warming. The past is only an accurate predictor of the future if all the variables have remained essentially the same. I don't think that they have.
I also don't agree with your gambling analogy. Because it implies that GHG's are merely a by-product of GW and really don't affect temperatures.
The way I look at it is like a ball resting on a flat platform at the edge of a hill. I'll equate the speed of the ball to rising temperatures and the slope of the hill to rising GHG levels. In the past this ball was pushed off the edge by an event, such as a deviation in the earth's orbit. Once it got over this edge the slope (GHG levels) kicked in and further accelerated the ball. So, I'd agree, GHG levels were not the driving force. I think the situation we currently have is where mankind is now capable of increasing the GHG levels on his own, which is essentially giving this once flat platform some slope, which will cause the ball to roll off and travel down the hill.
That analogy was a little simplistic because I don't consider GHG levels to be the only factor involved in rising or falling temperatures. I'm sure there are many factors with GHG levels being one of the more important ones. This is why you can have short periods of declining temperatures even while GHG levels are rising. But I do believe that had these GHG levels not been rising these temperatures would have declined even further during these periods like 1940-1970.
Based upon that rational the most prosperous nations should be located around the equator. It seems to me the most prosperous nations live in regions with relatively mild temperatures.
Yes, but almost ALL of that info you cite does not apply to CFLs, only to the older-style tube fluorescent lights. There is very little at all out there that warns about any of those type of issues with CFLs. The only major concern is the mercury inside.
From a GE website FAQ:
8. Do light bulbs (such as fluorescent and compact fluorescent bulbs) give off hazardous amounts of ultraviolet (UV) light?
Regular fluorescent light bulbs used in your home and office do not produce a hazardous amount of ultraviolet light (UV). Most light sources, including fluorescent bulbs, emit a small amount of UV, but the UV produced by fluorescent light bulbs is far less than the amount produced by natural daylight. (Ultraviolet light rays are the light wavelengths that can cause sunburn and skin damage.) Your safety is important to us. That's why, for all of our light bulbs designed for general public use, we strive to minimize the amount of UV light emitted. If you're looking for a low-UV bulb for an especially sensitive area, try our Saf-T-Gard® bulbs. They block most ultraviolet light emissions, and they're also shatter-resistant.
My advice on that is: Just don't tan with a CFL and you should be fine.
LOL.
Livermore, Calif. — Researchers in Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s Atmospheric Science Division have demonstrated a cooling of up to 2-degree Fahrenheit over land between 1000 and 1900 AD as a result of changes from natural vegetation, such as forests, to agriculture.
"The estimated temperature change in the continental United States as a result of change from forests to agriculture is up to a 2-degree Fahrenheit cooling," Caldeira said. "So, when we talk about global warming, we can no longer take for granted that this global warming is starting from some natural climate state, undisturbed by human activities."
Previous studies had attributed cooling to natural climate variations. The Livermore research, however, suggests that much of this cooling could have been the result of human activity.
Forests tend to look dark from the sky, but agricultural lands, with their amber waves of grain, tend to look much lighter. Dark colors tend to absorb sunlight, and light colors tend to reflect sunlight back out to space. Changing from forests to crops results in more sunlight reflected back to space. This reflection of solar energy to space tends to cool the Earth, especially in regions such as the eastern and mid-western United States, where huge tracts of land have been converted to crops. In the 20th century, some of this cropland has been reverting back to forest, especially in the eastern United States.
Greenhouse gas emissions in the 20th century likely overcame any cooling trends that took place up to that time. Growing more trees has been suggested as a way to soak up carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, from the atmosphere. However, earlier studies demonstrate that growing dark forests could actually heat the earth’s surface more because dark colors tend to absorb more sunlight, despite the uptake of carbon dioxide.
The two largest emerging producers of GHG China and India, made it clear at the UN conference on GW that they were not going to jeopardize their economies to facilitate the Kyoto treaty. With plans to replace MILLIONS of bicycles with little gas cars such as the Nano, I do not see any reason to believe we can change the course of nature or history. Those close to the coast should check out what Holland has done for centuries to keep the ocean from encroaching.
The key word you have used is "almost". Not all CFLs are created equal. Having spent several hours reading the labels on CFLs I am now more confused than I was before. My initial adoption of CFLs was because I am very tight with my money. I would not have ever given a second thought to the health risks if I did not meet someone that suffers from florescent radiation. I am not sure if his rash is brought on by UV or radio waves. It would seem that buying the "Full Spectrum" CFLs would reduce the radiation problem with the regular CFLs. The standard CFL is 2700K where the Full Spectrum CFLs are up over 5000K, much closer to natural sunlight. I am not going to run out and replace 50 some odd recessed and globe lamps in this house until I can get solid information on the health risks. Plus finding lamps "Made in the USA".
In other words, it's less harmful to you than standing by a window.
Canada is barely inhabited, with most of its citizens huddled along the southern border. Ditto for Siberia and Alaska. Greenland basically laying unused. Iceland is sparsely populated. So are the Nordic countries of Sweden, Norway, and Finland. The whole continent of Antartica is uninhabitable except for extraordinary measures for a few camps.
In this country most of the population growth and migration is in the South and SW.
If we want to aspire to perfect weather, Hawaii would be it. 65 - 95F would be a great range. Give me an average of 70-75F year round. What's the average on Earth now 59F?
FYI: When I retire it certainly isn't going to be somewhere cold; I want to enjoy the outdoors without having to wear heavy clothing 6 months of the year. Hawaii, or Costa Rica - 2 places much closer to the equator are looking pretty good.
That is just not true. This study was done on CFLs in Britain. Kind of like the EV situation. We will have alternatives in 2-3 years.
Fluorescent bulbs can exacerbate skin rashes in people with photosensitive skin conditions, experts said.
The government is planning to prevent the sale of conventional bulbs by 2011 to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
Several groups including the British Association of Dermatologists called for exemptions to allow those affected to continue using traditional bulbs.
But representatives of the lighting industry said there would be alternatives to fluorescent lighting available.
Health conditions which can involve some form of light sensitivity, include the auto-immune disease lupus, the genetic disorder Xeroderma Pigmentosum (XP), certain forms of eczema and dermatitis, photosensitivity, and porphyria.
It has been estimated about 100,000 people in the UK with these skin conditions will be affected.
Spectrum - an alliance of charities that support people with light sensitive conditions - says they have also been contacted with people suffering from ME who have had bad reactions to fluorescent light.
Other groups have warned that low-energy bulbs, which use approximately a quarter of the energy of conventional bulbs, cause migraines and increase the risk of seizures in people with epilepsy.
"These things have been taken into consideration and there will be bulbs they can still use.
"There are also halogen bulbs and LED bulbs coming in in the next two or three years."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7170246.stm
I'm with you there brother!
Global Warming gives us something to look forward to. It would only take a bit to make CA weather as nice as Hawaii. It is just a bit too cold here in the winter. I could go all year and not miss seeing a frosty morning. My plumeria plants hate the cold.
One of the studies published in the journal Science found that nearly 60% of the changes in river flow, snow pack and winter temperatures in the West over the past 50 years are due to warming caused by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas.
"We're headed for a potential disaster because of the lack of snowpack," says lead author Tim Barnett, a marine research physicist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego. "In California, we don't have enough reservoirs, so we rely heavily on the Sierra snowpack for our water."
Already, the changes of the past five decades have meant less snow pack and more rain in the mountains, rivers that run dry by summer, and overall drier summers in the region.
Barnett says the climate models used in the study were conservative, using only the low end of the temperature changes predicted due to global warming.
Better start working on desalination plants now !!!
So, they don't go into banks? Stores? Work?
I'm not sure what your point is.
It could not possibly be "since CFLs cause a certain tiny portion of the population a skin problem they should be banned?"
What exactly is your point, Gary?
..."Better start working on desalination plants now !!! "...
Well if all you have to do (conceptually) is to dip an intake hose into literally an inexhaustible supply of H2O and "turn on the bubble machine" (a little Lawrence Welk TV humor), do the environmentalist really expect to put desalination plants in IOWA/Kansas!!?? (middle of the continental US)
While the electric discharge in the tube's mercury vapor emits large amounts of short wavelength ultraviolet light, virtually all of this ultraviolet light is absorbed by the tube's internal phosphor coating and glass envelope. As a result, a fluorescent lamp emits relatively little ultraviolet light. The ultraviolet light level under fluorescent lighting is far less than that of outdoor sunlight.
So your friend who suffers from UV supposedly because of fluorescent lights? Needs to stay out of sunlight too.
I don't really "jump" onto anything unless it's a good idea. CFLs are good replacements for incandescents in almost every single case. That's why I have used them for so long.
No rashes. No broken bulbs. A few burned out before warranty and Sylvania stepped up to the plate and replaced them, no questions asked.
See this page for more info on comparing the three technologies:
Comparing Bulbs types
I don't know how much energy is used to manufacture a CFL. I do know that it has to be less than the cost of the bulb. A manufacturer is not going to sell a lightbulb for $5 if it cost him $6 in energy to manufacture. What's more important is the total energy used not only in the manufacturing process but by the bulb itself. I guarantee you that over the ~8,000 hour life of a CFL far less total energy was used compared to the 10 incandescent bulbs it replaced.
I think most people would disagree with your characterization of CFLs as being highly polluting. They have a trace amount of mercury. If the power to light these bulbs comes from a coal fired power plant the net result is less pollution since less coal was burned. I do find it a little interesting how you selectively use pollution to support some of your positions. It seems contrary to your position regarding diesels and CA's strict air quality standards.
Didn't you say that you have CFLs in your reading lamps? Based on all your recent posts I've got to wonder why? If you spend a lot of time reading I'll bet your forehead is pretty well tanned by now, or do you apply some SPF 30 before settling down with a book?.
It is depressing to me that this mandate will put more Americans out of work. The money will come back into the pockets of the CEOs at GE, Sylvania, Phillips and a few others.
Yes most of our lamps have had CFL bulbs for probably 10 years. I never thought to much about them until we met this Curtis and he was telling us about his rash from Florescent lights. My biggest complaint is the Feds sticking their nose into every aspect of our lives. I can find the most practical way to light and heat my home without the Feds telling me I have to do it their way. Same goes for CARB telling us we cannot drive an energy efficient car unless they put their blessings on it.
I am anti big government. I can see I am in the minority on this thread.