New old find on global warming.

FarmerDave

FarmerDave

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
14,185
I stumbled across this interesting tidbit (and it is only a tidbit), and I figured I'd post it here. But let’s try to keep any discussion civil. This does not suggest that global warming is or is not man made. It is just interesting how old this discussion is and how warm it was early in the previous century.

I'm talking about the part titled "Before Gore"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070814/NATION02/108140063

I also like the quote by Marcus Aurelius. (under the picture, and under "Worth pondering"

Moderators, if the discussion gets out of hand, feel free to whack the thread (not that you need my permission though).
 
Interesting. I read an article the other day that said NASA's climate data had a Y2K bug and is incorrect. It turns out 1998 wasn't the warmest year on record, that honor belongs to 1934, and that five out of the ten warmest years on record were before WWII. Read it here.
 
A more important fear is the decline of our ground water levels and CHINA
 
salvelinus wrote:
Interesting. I read an article the other day that said NASA's climate data had a Y2K bug and is incorrect. It turns out 1998 wasn't the warmest year on record, that honor belongs to 1934, and that five out of the ten warmest years on record were before WWII. Read it here.
Click to expand...

If you had read farmer dave's article it said the same thing...It also said that regardless of your stance on the GW debate...they did install energy saving light sensors in the Capitol building and its saving 2.2 million dollars. So whether you believe man is contributing to global warming or not, there are things that can and should be done to conserve resources, prevent pollution, and be done in spite of the oil and energy industries profit margin.
 
Yep, especially when they are saving our money. I do have a funny feeling that we will never get any of that savings back.

You are right that many people lump all the energy discussion into global warming but energy conservation, alternative energy sources, and global warming are separate but related topics.
 
Some great responses here.

I installed some of those mini-fluorescent bulbs in my barn this year. I'll find out this winter if they can handle the cold. I've had one in my dusk to dawn post lamp for about 6 years at my last place, and since day one in the new place, but it is constructed differently and seems to handle the cold. On only my second one in 10 years where i was changing conventionals about once a year before that. I'm pretty much sold on them, and they do save money in the long run. Now, what to do with them when they burn out? They contain mercury, but i read that they contain less than what is put into the atmosphere from generating the extra power that normally would be powering the incondescents.
 
I've been using them for about 6 years. My line voltage is 126 volts so incandecents don't last long. They do tend to drop light output level and sometimes take a long time to warm up in the winter (the ones outdoors). The bulbs seem to last about 5 years.
 
I get a lot of fluctuation in my line voltage. Probably because I am the last house on the line. Therefore, I go through the incandescent way faster in this place than I did the last, so I will probably save even more money than average. I won't buy anymore except for the 3 way lamps in the living room (until they start making 3 way fluorescents), and for the chicken coop, and since I replaced the others in the barn, I have a pretty decent supply for the coop. And by the way, I use at least 3 a winter in that coop. I keep bumping my head on that stinkin light. :-x

By the way, do you know why a chicken coop only has 2 doors?


If it had 4, it would be a Sedan.
 
T
salvelinus wrote:
Interesting. I read an article the other day that said NASA's climate data had a Y2K bug and is incorrect. It turns out 1998 wasn't the warmest year on record, that honor belongs to 1934, and that five out of the ten warmest years on record were before WWII. Read it here.
Click to expand...

This is actually a bogus claim made by many but this was in fact based on NASA satelite data that has since been shown to be false and actually when corrected shows that the earths temp is well above even what was originally predicted.

The anti-global warming camp is well funded by those in the big oil and coal industry. They fund groups with quazi-environmentalist sounding names like Climate Research Group etc, and then put out articles bashing science; BUT THEY ACTUALLY DON'T PRODUCE ANY REAL DATA AND INSTEAD JUST FILL THEIR ARTICLES WITH FALSE CLAIMS AND TALKING POINTS. Its an excellent tactic that has been used in the tobacco industry for years, until they were finally forced by Congress to admit cigs cause cancer.

An excellent example of an well funded anti-global warming smear campaign is that launched by the American Enterprise Institute, which has gotten almost half of its funding from Exxon-Modil. It has been PROVEN that Exxon-Modil has given almost 19 million dollars to anti-global warming "think tanks" to dispute any climate change data.
 
I just started using them...It'll be a while before I have any opinion on savings...However, if you leave the room and don't turn either kind of bulb off, you'll save even less. Thats what the Capitol upgrade did. It automatically turned the lights off if no one was in a room.

As far as the gov't saving money and getting it back, that would be true fantasy. But if they tell me they don;t have enough money to do something else...You ask, "where did you spend the 2.2 million you saved on electricity?"
 
Well Wmass, it's not a bogus claim, you are just reading too much into it. I got my link from the Washington Post. Not exactly a conservative rag, is it? Turn down the gas a little bit.

I don't see where anything in those articles actually say Global warming is not happening. On the contrary. All it is saying is the hockey stick graph that Gore and other's have used is based on bad calculations which both sides seem to agree with. And yes, the globe is getting warmer. Why you feel a need to attack the use of the newly corrected data by one side and not the other is beyond me. Both sides are using the same data now.

If you look at the actually data now provided, it doesn’t show that global warming is not happening. In fact it shows it is happening. The charts just make more sense than before. Not a dramatic as Gore would like for shock effect, but still warming.

The new data shows that 5 of the warmest years were before WWII. But if you look, the old, incorrect data had 4. Not much difference.

The numbers still show that 4 of the top 10 years between 1990 and 2006. the only other time period that has had that many was around the 1930s. So, 1998 is no longer the warmest. It is still the second warmest and the difference is about the same, just flip flopped with 1934 (which was second).

It does make me wonder why the algorithms were not provided in the first place. It can’t be called science without knowing how it was calculated.
 
The beauty of CFLs is they use about a third to a fourth of the energy as their incandescent counterparts (depending on size), and that is savings without even changing usage. they do cost more but last longer (I'll vouch for that). Right now studies show an average savings of about 30 bucks a bulb over the life of a CLF. using them less is gravy.

I’m also thinking they will last longer than incandescent near doors where the shock and vibration of door slams limits the life of incandescent bulbs. I could be wrong.

now if I could get them to make 3 ways for the wife's fancy lamps, I'd be set.
:-D
 
FD - Actually the article is in the Washington Times, Rev. Moon's very conservative rag.
 
If I may try to lend some perspective here, I think it is important to note that the data revision being referenced here refers to temperatures in the US only. The top ten years in global average temperature have all occurred since 1989.
 
cwwbell wrote:
If I may try to lend some perspective here, I think it is important to note that the data revision being referenced here refers to temperatures in the US only. The top ten years in global average temperature have all occurred since 1989.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that. Can you provide a link to that info?

Ian, I didn't notice that. My bad. To be honest, I found the original link at Fox News. :-D

My point still stands. The data still shows warmer temps, and averages over 10 year periods? the 90s has to still be either 1 or 2. it's happening, just not like a hockey stick. I even read recent predictions of a slowdown in global warming follwed by a speed-up, and it was form the left side if you know what I mean. Now I'm thinking they were responding to this corrected info.
 
There are many places to find global temperature data. The sources section of this wikipedia page lists several: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

NASA's global data is here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
 
FarmerDave; There are some interesting developments coming on LED lights. If they pan out it may be the best of all worlds with efficient lighting that works in the cold with no warmup.

On the global warming front; The evidence from the last several thousand years shows periodic temperature cycles on the earth. Many previous cycles have exceeded the current trend. Physical evidence of this can be seen in Roman villages that are being discovered beneath retreating glaciers in the Alps and explorations in Greenland. When Vikings discovered Greenland it was forested and they cleared land and farmed it for many decades until a cooling cycle iced it over. So why is this cycle caused by man and what caused the others?

I'm an engineer who has experience in complex modeling and I have investigated some of the climate modeling approaches. There are positive feedback mechanisms being used for CO2 that can exaggerate the slightest error. In addition my brother happens to be a PhD in Fluid Dynamics and a chief scientist with one of the big bad oil companies and we share our thoughts. By far the largest component of the thermal models is water vapor. A fraction of a percent error in the water vapor component dwarfs the CO2 components. It's inconceivable to me that anyone can predict temperature changes based on CO2 to any degree (pun intended) of accuracy.

With all that said I'm not sure a warming cycle is necessarily a bad thing. Certainly the evidence shows that cycles have occurred in the past and life has adapted. We tend to view time relative to our life expectancy instead of relating to the earths life cycle. In earth time the period that man uses fossil fuels is but a nanosecond.
 
tabasco_joe wrote:
FarmerDave; There are some interesting developments coming on LED lights. If they pan out it may be the best of all worlds with efficient lighting that works in the cold with no warmup.

On the global warming front; The evidence from the last several thousand years shows periodic temperature cycles on the earth. Many previous cycles have exceeded the current trend. Physical evidence of this can be seen in Roman villages that are being discovered beneath retreating glaciers in the Alps and explorations in Greenland. When Vikings discovered Greenland it was forested and they cleared land and farmed it for many decades until a cooling cycle iced it over. So why is this cycle caused by man and what caused the others?

I'm an engineer who has experience in complex modeling and I have investigated some of the climate modeling approaches. There are positive feedback mechanisms being used for CO2 that can exaggerate the slightest error. In addition my brother happens to be a PhD in Fluid Dynamics and a chief scientist with one of the big bad oil companies and we share our thoughts. By far the largest component of the thermal models is water vapor. A fraction of a percent error in the water vapor component dwarfs the CO2 components. It's inconceivable to me that anyone can predict temperature changes based on CO2 to any degree (pun intended) of accuracy.

With all that said I'm not sure a warming cycle is necessarily a bad thing. Certainly the evidence shows that cycles have occurred in the past and life has adapted. We tend to view time relative to our life expectancy instead of relating to the earths life cycle. In earth time the period that man uses fossil fuels is but a nanosecond.
Click to expand...

I agree that LED lights will eventually be the way to go for houshold lighting. There are lots of positives.

As far as the rest goes, I'm glad I live on a hill. :-D

Seriously, I'm keeping an open mind about the greenhouse gas argument, but to some people that just makes me a denier. I don't need the greenhouse gas argument to get me to reduce my "carbon footprint." I feel our dependancy on foreign fuel is a bigger issue at this point. I'm also in favor of saving money, especially my money. ;-)
 
Dave do you have dairy cattle? I hope your keeping the lid on the methane production!
 
No, but if I did, they would all have Cattlelitic converters. :-D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top