"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong

donquijote1954 wrote:
> On Feb 2, 5:12 pm, Bill Baka > wrote:
>
>> BTW, I don't drink or use drugs, except for chocolate.
>
> Chocolate is a fancy drug used by liberals given to European socialist
> ideas of biking and small cars. Real Americans eat something like
> Freedom Fries --and drive SUVs.
>
Hah,
They don't go into the bag very well for a long trip, and forget about a
'Big Mac'. I can travel a long way on chocolate power.
Give me chocolate and I will do almost anything (reasonable).
Bill Baka

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
donquijote1954 >
desperately attempted to bull**** its way out of its
predicament and fooled absolutely no one, as always.

Eeyore wrote:
>
> donquijote1954 wrote:
>
>> A typical 25 watt fluorescent light
>> bulb, which replaces a 100 watt incandescent bulb, will last 8 hours
>> on 200 watts worth of power. LEDs (light emitting diodes) are even
>> more efficient and will last days on 200 watts worth of power."
>
> No, LEDs are *not* more efficient.
>
> Nor will most humans be able to generate a continuous 200W. That's 1/4 horse power FFS !
>
> If that's their sales spiel then I don't think much of them.
>
> Graham
>
LEDs are better than incandescent lights, maybe on par with
fluorescents, and don't need a minimum voltage to run the electronic
ballasts. I think 100 watts would be the output for an average person
and even that might be pushing it for a person in a developing country
who may not have enough good nutrition. At 100 watts, solar panels start
to be a major investment and don't work too good at night or on hazy
overcast days.
How did we wind up here?
Cross posting.
Bye.
Bill Baka

donquijote1954 wrote:
> On Feb 2, 7:57 pm, Mark Hickey > wrote:
>
>>>> You said it best. There's one hope though: THE REVOLUTION (coming
>>>> soon)...
>>> Stick it.
>> I'm thinking all we gotta do is to convince everyone who's sure that
>> we're all doomed anyway to "check out early" - get it over with, why
>> wait for us all to be drowned in 10 years when the sea level jumps up
>> 10,000 feet. That'll cut down on the needs for a lot of resources,
>> and will reduce the release of hot air considerably. ;-)
>
> That's not all that hard to do. All you got to do is connect Global
> Warming with Armageddon, and that so is the will of God. Actually, I
> think they are already working hard to make Global Warming happen with
> all those SUVs with God's bumper stickers.
>
> So the connection is that the same Christian fundamentalists are
> causing Armageddon!

That isn't too unreasonable since they are also the ones whom God (the
pope) told to have as many kids as possible so they would need a big van
(SUV) to carry them all over the place.
>
> Can Humanity Survive? Want to Bet on It?
> Sixty ago years, a group of physicists concerned about nuclear weapons
> created the Doomsday Clock and set its hands at seven minutes to
> midnight. Now, the clock's keepers, alarmed by new dangers like
> climate change, have moved the hands up to 11:55 p.m.
>
> http://www.armageddononline.org/ind...t_from=&ucat=1&
>
> SEE POLL TAKING PLACE AT PRAVDA...
>
> http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread...69#post2172469
>

On Feb 3, 3:58 pm, Bill Baka > wrote:
> Wayne Pein wrote:
> > donquijote1954 wrote:
>
> >> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
> >>> Further, bus public transit is heavy and destroys the pavement,
> >>> something that is very important to bicyclists. And when the bus pulls
> >>> over to the curb, there is conflict with bicyclists.
>
> >>> Frankly, public transportation and bicycling have nothing in common.
> >>> Bicycling has much more in common with automobile travel.
>
> >>>http://www.bts.gov/publications/nati...atistics/2004/
> >>> html/table_04_20.html
>
> >>>http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...rites/fcvt_fot...
>
> >> No way. Buses with racks go a long way for bicyclists who just use the
> >> bikes for shorter distances. They are complementary...
>
> > So, the 2 bicyclists that use the bus are still chauffered energy
> > users/polluters for their bus leg.
>
> > Wayne
>
> No way. The buses are going to run either way, full or empty. The use of
> a bus makes perfect sense when you consider that you can take one past
> the most dangerous part of town and drop you at a safer location. Nobody
> should be so into the bike that they willfully put their life in the
> hands of motorist who could care less.
> It's called 'Survival instinct'.
> It's also nice to fall back when the weather opens up and wants to dump
> on anyone caught in the open.
> Bill Baka- Hide quoted text -
>

Good thinking. You should take it on the bus until you pass the
"jungle." Then you ride in fine and beautiful bike paths where the
lions (the rich and famous) live. Be careful they don't steal your
bike off the rack while traversing the jungle.

donquijote1954 wrote:
> On Feb 3, 3:58 pm, Bill Baka > wrote:
>> No way. The buses are going to run either way, full or empty. The use of
>> a bus makes perfect sense when you consider that you can take one past
>> the most dangerous part of town and drop you at a safer location. Nobody
>> should be so into the bike that they willfully put their life in the
>> hands of motorist who could care less.
>> It's called 'Survival instinct'.
>> It's also nice to fall back when the weather opens up and wants to dump
>> on anyone caught in the open.
>> Bill Baka-
>>
>
> Good thinking. You should take it on the bus until you pass the
> "jungle." Then you ride in fine and beautiful bike paths where the
> lions (the rich and famous) live. Be careful they don't steal your
> bike off the rack while traversing the jungle.
>
No rich and famous around here unless you count Chuck Yeager.

Side note: I have heard of people getting off the bus and trying to pull
a fast one by grabbing the bike off the rack while the driver, usually
clueless, waits.
Kind of like car jacking but the cyclist usually figures it out before
the bike is history.
There are all types of petty thieves running around.
Life in the city is not automagically civilized.
Bill Baka

Don Klipstein wrote:
> In article >, Joe Fischer wrote:
>> On 2 Feb 2007 09:46:18 -0800, "donquijote1954"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 2, 11:20 am, "Lee K" > wrote:
>>>> Climate Change's Carnival Atmosphere
>>>>
>>>> Showmanship, rather than facts, is driving the climate debate - and, yes,
>>>> there still is a raging debate despite pronouncements to the contrary by Al
>>>> Gore and the mainstream media.
>>> You send your resume here...
>>>
>>> US think tank offering cash to dispute UN climate panel: report
>>>
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070202...y_070202142458
>> More yahoo stuff, yahoo?
>>
>>> You could argue that you make black look white, that hot is cold,
>> No, I can't but global warming story tellers insist
>> that global warming can bring on a long hard winter,
>> and more snow.
>
> I know a couple explanations:
>
> 1) Warmer winter-storm-feeding waters can make more intense snowstorms,
> up until the time it gets too warm for those (or they move farther from
> the equator).
>
> 2) Harsher winters in the British Isles and nearby Western Europe
> are considered a possible effect of the Gulf Stream being weakened and
> pushed southward by cold freshwater runoff from melting of Greenland's
> icecap.
>
> - Don Klipstein )

The Gulf Stream theory was a subject of concern on a History or learning
channel program that I watched. The theory was that if enough non salt
water ice melted from the North pole it would de-salinate the ocean
enough to kill the North-South flow of water.
It made scientific sense, but I can't preach here. People need to be
more aware, but how???
Bill Baka

donquijote1954 wrote:
> On Feb 2, 4:37 pm, (Brent P) wrote:
>
>> The belief in human caused global warming is being used to gain more control
>> over the population, to consolidate wealth, to end any sort of freedom of the
>> masses, and put the whole world in the control of a small group of
>> elites.
>
> I thought that was the job of Globalization.
>
>> I will believe that human caused global warming is a serious issue when
>> and only when, nations like China are forced to do something about it.
>> Right now, things like the Kyoto treaty are designed simply to relocate
>> manufacturing from places where there _ARE_ environmental protections to
>> places where there are practically _NONE_. They expect us to believe that
>> CO2 released in Ohio is bad, but CO2 released in Tianjin is of no
>> concern. Not to mention all the pollution controls that are required in
>> Ohio, the limits, the regulations, all to keep the environment cleaner
>> but simply don't exist in other places in the world like China.
>
> It's not Kyoto, but America that is feeding China. Go to Walmart or
> the Dollar Store if you don't believe me.
>
>
Bingo.
Hit the nail right on the head. Bush can praise our 'progress' while we
are supporting a Communist country that could care less about pollution.
Meanwhile they are taking away our jobs while they do their thing, which
seems to be taking our money.
Bill Baka

Rod Speed wrote:
> Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
> donquijote1954 >
> desperately attempted to bull**** its way out of its
> predicament and fooled absolutely no one, as always.

Irony. Good stuff.

Eeyore > writes:

> donquijote1954 wrote:
>
> > A typical 25 watt fluorescent light
> > bulb, which replaces a 100 watt incandescent bulb, will last 8 hours
> > on 200 watts worth of power. LEDs (light emitting diodes) are even
> > more efficient and will last days on 200 watts worth of power."

Let me suggest a basic physics course, where the difference between
power and energy will be explained. :-)

> No, LEDs are *not* more efficient.

Right now, they are not more efficienct than fluorescent bulbs, but
that may change as the efficiency of LEDs is being continually
improved. The lastest technology (there are prototypes only at
this point) is comparable to fluorescent lighting.

Also, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED>:

LEDs are moderately efficient; the average commercial SSL
currently outputs 32 lumens per watt (lm/W), and new
technologies promise to deliver up to 80 lm/W. The long
lifetime of LEDs make SSL very attractive. They are also more
mechanically robust than incandescent light bulbs and
fluorescent tubes.

Also,
Due to their monochromatic nature, LED lights have great power
advantages over white lights when a specific color is
required. Unlike traditional white lights, the LED does not
need a coating or diffuser that can absorb much of the emitted
light. LED lights are inherently colored, and are available in
a wide range of colors. One of the most recently introduced
colors is the emerald green (bluish green, about 500 nm) that
meets the legal requirements for traffic signals and
navigation lights.

There are applications that specifically require light without
any blue component. Examples are photographic darkroom safe
lights, illumination in laboratories where certain
photo-sensitive chemicals are used, and situations where dark
adaptation (night vision) must be preserved, such as cockpit
and bridge illumination, observatories, etc.


>
> Nor will most humans be able to generate a continuous 200W. That's
> 1/4 horse power FFS !
>
> If that's their sales spiel then I don't think much of them.

He probably meant 200 watt-hours or something: otherwise you can't
explain why he would say it is enough to last for days.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB