Global Warming - fact or fiction (round 3!)

[jtaylor]

An interesting read:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main ... do0907.xml

[michael scuffil]

The general theme of this article is to be found in a book by Christopher Booker and someone else whose name I forget (perhaps Mr Carter), and regurgitated in the Telegraph by Mr Booker from time to time (most recently on Monday). I don't know whether it's true, but Mr Booker is quite generally not altogether in touch with reality. For example he says in the latest article that 60% of British lamp fittings cannot accommodate low-energy bulbs. As low-energy bulbs use precisely the same fittings as conventional ones, that means that the lamps cannot be used with conventional bulbs either -- shomething wrong here, shurely (as Private Eye, which Mr Booker used to edit, would say).

(On light bulbs, I can only say this: all the bulbs in my house are low-energy, and I reckon on a total saving of about 2,500 pounds over their lifetime. Quite apart from not having to change them: many will probably outlive me.)

On global warming, I think it probably exists but I'm not sure it matters. People keep confusing the future of the planet with the future of Western-style civilization. To the extent that fossil fuels are finite, and we shall probably burn them all sooner or later anyway, it doesn't really matter how fast we do it, and the global-warming problem is to this extent self-limiting. When they're gone, the problem is over. What is far, far worse is the notion that we should use nuclear. The problems caused by nuclear power (radioactive waste and/or fuel concentrations with half-lives extending into geological time) are irreversible (and of course nuclear fuel is finite too).

In other words, while global warming may or may not cause problems for people, nuclear will cause irreversible problems for the rest of the planet.

[jtaylor]

Re. lightbulbs, I don't think the issue is with the bayonet/screw bit of the fitting, but the overall length of the bulb and its base.
All of my upstairs lights cannot accomodate the low energy bulbs (the coiled flourescent tube designs) which I only realised after I'd bought them. The bulbs interfere with the shades.

Also, they can't be used in dimmer lights...??

[cstegerlewis]

Does Global Warming Exist? Yes irrefutable proof demonstrated through millenia as found in ice cores.

Does Global Cooling exist? Definitely, ice age anyone?

Does man contribute to Global Warming? Probably but the scientific proof is hardly overwhelming, and is being regularly undermined by rational theories.

Can we do anything about it? Not much, but energy conservation has always been a good idea as it costs money to make energy (mining, refining, burning, generating electricity etc)

Do the politicians have a stick to beat us with in order to put up taxes on psuedo green agendas? Well that's the whole point isn't it?

As is regularly quoted on Land Rover and 4x4 enthusiast forums "Scientific Eveidence shows there has been significant 'Global Warming' on the surface of Mars during the half century we have had the capability to measure it. To date no Land Rover's have been found there!"

[englishangel]

Re. lightbulbs, I don't think the issue is with the bayonet/screw bit of the fitting, but the overall length of the bulb and its base.
All of my upstairs lights cannot accomodate the low energy bulbs (the coiled flourescent tube designs) which I only realised after I'd bought them. The bulbs interfere with the shades.

Also, they can't be used in dimmer lights...??

I have similar problem with the size of low energy bulbs, they don't fit in uplighter ceiling shades.

They are now producing some which can be used with dimmer switches.

I remember the first bulb I bought (several years ago) was somewhere around £6.50 but in Tesco a few weeks ago they were doing 3 for the price of 2 and they actually worked out cheaper than regular bulbs.

[sejintenej]

Apart from the question of whether the new lights will actually fit existing fittings I suspect that there may be a health issue.

My understanding is that these new bulbs are fluorescent and a few years back in a study of office workers it was found by scientists that fluorescent lights actually "suck" Vitamin E (?) from the body reducing its resistance to disease. I suspect that it may also have an effect helping to cause SAD. Conveniently they don't tell you these things.

More work for the NHS?

[AndrewH]

Re. lightbulbs, I don't think the issue is with the bayonet/screw bit of the fitting, but the overall length of the bulb and its base.
All of my upstairs lights cannot accomodate the low energy bulbs (the coiled flourescent tube designs) which I only realised after I'd bought them. The bulbs interfere with the shades.

Also, they can't be used in dimmer lights...??

There is also a problem with disposal, the low energy bulbs contain much more toxic material. LED replacement bulbs are good for some low power applications, cupboard lighting etc., and produce very little heat. They also contain toxic material, but this is embedded in a block of plastic rather than dispersed over the inside of the glass.

I heard someone claim that people are using more heating when they have removed all of the conventional light bulbs! (in winter...)

[englishangel]

Re the more heating, I wouldn't have thought that made any difference to overall costs as heating per se is much more efficient than heating via a few lightbulbs.

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/clima ... s-20070807

[michael scuffil]

1) Incandescent light-bulbs are an extraordinarily inefficient way to heat anything. You might as well say that your satellite receiver on stand-by is helping to heat the room (it is; it's also helping to heat the LNB on the roof).

2) As regards SAD, you can get (with some difficulty) low-energy bulbs which mimic daylight and thus counteract SAD. These are not cheap, because most people prefer "warm white", the colour of incandescent bulbs, but I use a few all the same.

3) It is true that some lamps are not made for the older, longer sort of low-energy bulbs, but you can get pretty compact bulbs these days.

4) They are, I agree, more difficult to dispose of; like batteries, they require a dedicated collection system. But they last at least 10 years -- you don't often have to dispose of them. One or two of mine are 25 years old -- I know because when they first came out, I made a note of the date on the bulb fitting.

But my point was that Christopher Booker maintained that the FITTINGS were different. They aren't. If he can't get this right, one wonders what to make of the rest of his book (Scared to Death, co-author Richard North, publ. Nov 10 2007), which makes the same sorts of points as the Telegraph article originally referred to. He also pours cold water on renewable energy sources. As non-renewable ones are, by definition, well.. non-renewable, there will come a time when 100% of energy must be derived from renewable sources (whether or not climate change is an issue). When this time will come is disputed, but we ought to be getting some practice in. The solar panels on my roof generate enough power to cover my family's needs (admittedly not when we need it, that's why we sell it to the utility company at a very good price).

[englishangel]

I prefer the coolness of the low energy bulbs as after a few years the heat from the old ones discolours and eventually cracks the plastic of the fittings. We are on our third bathroom light fitting in 15 years.

[michael scuffil]

I prefer the coolness of the low energy bulbs as after a few years the heat from the old ones discolours and eventually cracks the plastic of the fittings.

True. You often see on lamps: max. 40 watt. This is because of the temperature. The very brightest low-energy bulbs are 22 W, so there's no problem in this respect. You can use much brighter bulbs (22 W in low energy is equivalent in brightness to 100 W incandescent).

[Mid A 15]

This might clarify what Christopher Booker was saying.....

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/search ... ight+bulbs

For those who don't wish to read the whole thing here is a particularly relevant paragraph in the context of this thread:

......"Astonishingly, according to a report on "energy scenarios in the domestic lighting sector", carried out last year for Defra by its Market Transformation Programme, "less than 50 percent of the fittings installed in UK homes can currently take CFLs"......."


I think Booker makes his assertion about light fittings based on the report for DEFRA which is not quite the same thing as getting it wrong all by himself.

[michael scuffil]

The sentence reads:

For example, many fittings (around half) installed in UK homes cannot realistically or aesthetically accept ‘stick’ CFLs, DELight, 1998; though this issue is reducing with the uptake of look-alike lamps).


Booker chooses his data selectively. "Aesthetically" is a matter of opinion. And in any case "stick" CFLs are no longer the only sort.

Also the link we have just been given gives disinformation. CFLs do not require ventilation, and they don't flicker -- the fluorescence bridges the gap between the cycles.

What I don't really understand is why people should voluntarily choose to pay several thousand pounds extra to have inefficient lighting.

[jtaylor]

So how's this for a thought on renewable energy?

If we put up enough wind turbines (HUGE numbers), wouldn't this have an overall slowing effect on the wind, and thus be removing energy from the world's weather systems?
What affect would this have?
"Global weather slow-down" as an international problem in 500 years?

It seems to me that the only truly renewable source (as far as we're aware) is anything based on gravity (i.e. tide/water-falling), or sunlight??

Slightly tongue-in-cheek.....but an interesting theoretical question??

J

[cj]

It seems to me that the only truly renewable source (as far as we're aware) is anything based on gravity (i.e. tide/water-falling), or sunlight??

Or poo (human or animal)?