I've got a few friends that are very vocal on the issue that over
population. I've certainly seen it discussed many times. Everyone I know
understands without question that man is the cause of the problems.
But as far as why you don't see it discussed in the context of issues like
Global Warming, isn't it obvious why it's not discussed? Who do you think
would be in favor of killing humans in order to reduce man's impact on the
Earth? Who do you think would be in favor of population controls in order
to reduce man's impact on earth? Who do you think is going to choose not
to have children because of Global Warming? There's no point to include
the topic in any public statements about Global Warming because it's the
least likely action anyone is going to be able to do anything about. It's
hard enough just to get people to consider the idea of changing a single
light bulb in their house without raising their hands and crying foul.
I use Google tool bar to spell check my posts which I write using the web
browser. It creates this really nasty side effect, that when you are in
spell check mode, if you try to click on the text and type the backspace
button to try and change the text, IE will treat the backspace as a browser
back function instead of a text erase. Now, normally, browser backspace is
harmless, because you just use the forward button, and return to the
message you were editing with nothing lost. But, when you back up while in
the Google tool bar spell check mode, all the edited text is all lost.
So every once in a while, I fall into this trap, and I see something I want
to change while trying to spellcheck. If I try to change it without
exiting spell check mode, I loose everything.
Of course, if I had ever gotten around to adding the spell check function
into the web browser interface, none of this would be a problem. So I've
only got myself to blame for both hitting the key, and for having to use
such a dangerous combination of tools in the first place.
"State of the art" may mean "Chinese SOA" which means ACAPASWWN (as
cheap as possible and still work when new). "On campus" suggest that
purchasing might decide which ones to buy.
I have four (out of four) 4' x 2 fixtures with inexpensive electronic
ballasts ($15 to $20 fixtures) from Menard's (like Home Depot) that
have been running in my shop for at least 20 years with no problem,
including at least 12 hours a day every day for the last 7 years.
I've replaced tubes a few times but the tubes lasted a long time and
were black in both ends before they finally quit.
Out of curiosity I've done post-mortems on the last five CF's that
died. In every case it was the (disposable) ballasts that croaked: the
spiral tubes were probably not past mid-life since there was no
discoloration in either end but the ballasts were definitely kaputski
with zapped transistors. I'd wondered how such dirt-simple circuits
could work for very long. Answer: they don't. The difference in cost
to make ballast circuits that would outlast the tubes would be well
under a buck -- but Wal-Mart shoppers can only see the price.
Fluorescent lighting definitely saves money by using less electricity,
even if some don't last as long as they should. My peeve is that,
while the self-appointed environmentalists yammer and bleat about what
others should do ... the bleating doesn't seem to extend to making it
reasonably easy to responsibly dispose of fluorescent tubes in the
U.S. I'm not about to drive 20 miles to and from a designated site
whose hours are a total mystery seemingly dependent on astrology or
perhaps the mating cycle of the spotted newt.
I'd be quite willing to stop by WalMart and leave them in the bin in
the parking lot -- but they don't have a bin in the parking lot. I
have thought about leaving them in a shopping cart in the parking lot,
though, along with the motor oil I replaced with oil bought there.
Problem is, there's a stiff fine for doing that if ya get caught and
the proprietor chooses to press it -- and I bet WalMart would.
It wouldn't be ecologically responsible to ballistically apply lead to
the parkinglot cameras in aid of responsibly dropping off toxic waste
(they sold) for proper disposal at end of useful life, would it? No...
It wouldn't be neighborly either, definitely not Minnesota Nice.
A ban on incandescant lightbulbs is an easy way for small minds with
big mouths to "make a statement" and feel empowered. Motivation and
education require considerably more talent and effort than bleating.
Forcing folks to use mercury-bearing fluorescents they'll toss with
the garbage for want of a better solution is not environmentally net
beneficial, and short-lived pricepoint-uber-alles products that use
less energy in short service are not net energy-conservative.
No, I'll offer no site cites. I invite y'all who dissent to do yer
own goddamned homework beyond scrounging the internet for mindless
bleats that resonate with your own.
I am already motivated to be energy-conservative and environmentally
responsible as and where it's reasonably economical and practical.
Stupid laws and rules will not make me more so. If you make a stupid
law, many if not most will find a way to artfully ignore it at least
most of the time.
Wonder what it'd cost to establish, train, arm and equip the new
Bureau of Lightbulb Enforcement?
"I got busted for peddlin' at a school, what're you in for?" "Light
bulbs". "Oooohhhh, man, git away from me, that's BAD!"
It's simpler than that.. The combined populations of the USA, the 25 countries
in the EU and Japan are a little bit less than the population of India _or_
China. Their energy consumption tends to be a little bit higher (think order
of magnitude). So population, as such, is not strongly linked with energy
consumption. Having said that, reducing the world's population to 20% of
current values by not breeding would probably make the world a more pleasant
place to live in.
Odd..according to ice core samples taken, every warming trend caused the
CO2 to rise. This of course pre SUVs, ..in fact..pre tool using
hominids in several cases.
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it
- James Burnham
bullshit. it has actually been a piece of safety information in
australia that has been around for over 30 years.
it was on my friends installation that I first saw it. ...because no
one over here uses fluoro tubes over lathes because of the safety
our supply at 50hz might be more prone to the effect btw.
In my office I have 3 ea 4' fixtures. 5 of the tubes are 40W "Cool White"
and the other is a "grow light." I like the light mixture. And unlike my
unheated and uncooled garage/shop, I haven't changed a tube in the office
for 4 years.
Iwas told of this problem about 20 years ago and the lecturer said the
machine shop flourescent lights were specifically wired in 3 banks and
powered by the 3 phases to prevent any problem with strobing.
Oh, I'll betcha that has a LOT to do with it. Especially for older
fluorescent lamp tubes that have a very low persistence phosphor mix
inside, 50 Hz is slow enough that the effect will happen.
But as I pointed out, this is old news if you use electronic
I rarely chime in on these discussions...
The raw data for the Vostok ice core sample can be found at:
The first data set measures CO2 vs. ice core depth.
The second data set actually measures the amount Deturium
(an isotope of Hydrogen) vs ice core dept.
In addition, the second data set has a column that purports
to measure global temperature as a function of ice core
depth. This number is *computed* from the the Deterium
concentration and is based a fairly complicated theory
that suggests that increases in global temperature will
cause corresponding increases in Deterium concentration.
I won't repeat the theory here because it is quite complicated
and in my opinion rather unconvincing.
You are welcome to plot the two data sets yourself. If you
run a typical Linux distro, there is a program called gnuplot
that can be used for the plotting.
My conclusion is that there *is* a correlation between Deturium
and CO2. When the CO2 concentration goes up, a while latter
the Deterium concentration goes up. Conversely, when CO2 goes
down, the Deterium contration goes down a little while later.
Whether or not CO2 tracks global temperatures depends entirely
whether or not you believe that Deturium concentrations track
global temperatures. Reasonable people can be quite skeptical
of the Deterium concentration vs global temperature correlation
The first data set pretty clearly indicates that CO2 varies all
by its little lonesome without any help from humainity (as
Gunner said above.) The climatoligists have not been very
forthcoming with a theory that explains why CO2 varies on its
own. (I wonder why?) Since every historical increase of CO2
has been followed by a decrease some time later, what is the
mechanism that causes it to decrease? and why is that mechanism
not going to kick in again? I don't know the answer to this
question, but it is a very relevant question to ask.
So far, the climatoligists have generally looked at the Vostok
ice core sample as "proving" their claims. You can look at
the data yourselves and decide for yourself. Personally, I
think the current Vostok theory is quite flawed. However,
you do not have to rely on my opinion or other peoples opinions
to analyze the data for you; you can analyze it yourself!
Start asking the hard questions. Start saying "show me the
P.S. At high pressures Hydrogen (and hence Deterium) is a metal.
obligatory metal content.)
Mostly, it was due to the use of flint by the cave men. Not to mention the
invention of the wheel. That is known to have raised CO2 levels by over
30% in the first 100 years because of all the CO2 produced by the cave men
as they pushed things around on wheels. And all that heavy breathing which
happened after the invention of sex didn't help either.
Joking aside, I really have no clue what you are saying.
Are you actually trying to argue the current rise in CO2 was not caused by
the actions of man on the environment? If so, did you even look at the
graphs? The correlation is too strong for any sane person to ignore.
Trying to understand why it is rising is a good subject for research and
debate (how much is it the burning of fuel vs the deforestation of the
land, vs other complex dynamics), but trying to deny that it was a side
effect of the industrial revolution seems unfounded to me.
The other major point of the anti-fear crowd is the argument that the rise
is not harmful - or at least not harmful enough to be concerned over yet.
That too is a valid point of debate and research. But trying to deny it's
rising as a side effect of human actions? You have lost the argument
before you even begin if you take that position.
When you write something that implies your understanding of the facts is
that weak, it makes me, and others, write off your opinion on the subject
entirely. If you want to be listened to, if you want to have some impact
on what happens in the world, you will have to do better than that.
I have _tried_ to use the 50Hz mains as a standard with fluorescent tubes when
checking the speed of an invertor drive lathe. Even with the aid of white
stripes on a black painted disk it was difficult to get a good indication when
running the pulley at synchronous speed. This was in a garage lit entirely by
fluorescent tubes on the same phase and with no daylight interference. There
is no way that one could accidentally assume that a lathe were stationary
based on stroboscopic effects from fluorescent lighting. My current workshop
lights have static ballasts and obviously aren't any good as strobes :-)
Which is akin to "I read it on the intarweb so it must be true".
If you say so. I still can't get my lathe to look like it's standing
still with the flouro lighting in my shop.
60/50 isn't that much of a difference, just changes the RPM at which
no effect whatsoever is visible.
Curt, the problem with your "heavy tax with the money going to
consumer education" is that it never works that way. The pols will
write the tax legislation that seems to offer what you suggest, but
they will shortly loophole the revenues into the "general fund" and
then spend it for what they damn well please.
Take a look at the "tobacco settlement money" that a bunch of states
extorted from the tobacco companies (not to say whether smoking is
good or bad or these companies are pure or evil.) Certainly the
settlement money in my own county has gone - pardon the expression -
up in smoke. I doubt that a penny on the dollar went where it was
Same goes with all of the state lotteries that were "to enhance the
children's education". Some years back, when Ed Koch was mayor of NYC,
I heard him propose - on the radio - applying a bunch of NYC's Lotto
revenues to a (non educational) public works project. When the
interviewer questioned this since the Lotto funds were dedicated to
education, Koch replied that he would just take the money from the
general school funds that the city normally paid to the school system
and let the school system make the amount up out of the Lotto
I keep trying to write a reply to your post without getting emotional and I
keep failing so I delete it and start over. :)
I strongly suggest you reads the URLs I posted instead of making unfounded
assumptions about what I read. For the most part, I don't read anything
about Global Warming because I really don't care that much about it. But
just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't have an opinion. :)
The charts I gave came from the wikipedia.org article on CO2 which I posted
the URL for. I love wikipedia because there's a strong motivation for
the articles to be unbiased. And as such, the information on CO2 is fairly
mundane and not littered with FUD or anti-FUD opinions as you claimed they
The third paragraph (which it seems you didn't bother to read) is:
The initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was
produced by volcanic activity; this was essential for a warm and stable
climate conducive to life. Volcanic activity now releases about 130 to
230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide
each year. Volcanic releases are about 1% of the amount which is
released by human activities.
I doubt it. :)
I'd love to see us use more nuclear power. It's far cleaner and far less
global impacting than the power stations which pump crap into the
atmosphere. It's very important that they be heavily regulated and
monitored to make sure the risks are kept to a reasonable level - but I
believe it's possible to do that.
I'd love to see better solutions than nuclear power, and I think people are
working hard to find those, but until they do, reducing our global impact
on the environment I think is more important than worrying about the
dangers of radioactive waste. If increased use of nuclear power really is
the only solution, them I'm for it.
I believe the real danger with Global Warming is that man is upsetting the
balance of something we know too little about and which we have no backup
for. I think it's best that we invest more time and money into finding
ways to reduce our impact until such time that we feel confident that we
either understand what is going to happen, or we simply have enough
advanced technology to protect us no matter what happens to the Earth's
environment. I suspect it will be at least 100 years until either of those
things could happen, so I think we need to look at how we are going to slow
down this "boat rocking" to allow us to continue for the next 100 years. I
think allowing the greenhouse gas levels to continue to grow at the current
pace is a disaster waiting to happen. I don't care if it takes 10 or 20
years to stop the growth, but we need to find a solution that will put us
on that path. It's clearly a very tough political problem because there
simply are no known easy solutions to this problem. It's likely we will
have to suffer to some extent in the short term - which is hard to accept
when the long term risk is still mostly undefined.
What I don't like to see is people trying to pretend there is no
problem. There is a problem, that we know enough to know that. The only
valid argument to me, is how much we can justify giving up to deal with it.
If your opinion is that the problem is so poorly understood that it would
be a waste of resources to do anything which effects our current lifestyle
then I can accept that view even if I don't agree with it. But if your
opinion is that everyone that talks about Global Warming is just a fear
monger, and the defense of your position is the view of a popular fiction
writer who makes his fortune creating best selling fiction, I reject your
argument as being nothing by an irrational and emotional response to a
problem that calls for rationality and reason instead of emotions.
The only thing I've actually suggested people do today, is use more CFLs.
That's hardly a big sacrifice since it's likely to save people money.
What actually is your suggestion to people? That they continue to waste
money and electricity on incandescents when they don't need to just because
doing otherwise would be giving in to the fear mongers?
Yeah, many ideas that sound good in theory fail in practice because of real
world implementation problems.
I worked for the Navy for about 8 years as a contractor. It give me a good
perspective on how ineffiecient the government was at spending money and
how much the government was able to bend the rules for self serving
purposes. Mostly it left me with the view that we should use the
government only as a last resort to problems whenever possible.
Taxes at least have the advantage of doing the job of creating motivation
without the government having to do anything other than enforce the tax.
That allows the economy to do it's job on it's own. To hope that the tax
revenue would be used for a valid purpose is probably, as you point out, a
Any solution that can be found that doesn't give the government more money
and power is clearly a better solution.
Not doing anything active and just letting people figure out on their own
the value of CFLs over time might well be the best solution. Conversations
like this thread go a long way to helping people realize there are there
are things they should look into. It was a thread in another online
discussion that triggered me to look into it and convert a lot of lights in
my home to CFLs.