Well boys and girls, what a hornets'nest last week's channel 4
programme stirred up!

As a teacher, I have to try and put both sides of an argument, and in
this debate this is difficult because all texts, even at A2 level
support the argument for AGW without ant dissent. However, TV
programmes like this, books like "State of Fear", some articles posted
on the internet and in newspapers have offered the chance to at least
attempt a balanced presentation.

However, as the various threads on this learned NG domonstrate, there
*ARE* some entrenched views, and some of us do get "hot under the
collar at times in our exasperation at an alternative view. I hold my
hat up to Gianna for some spirited points of view however, and there
should be more room to debate natural cycles of GW.
Too many are afraid to stick their head above the parapet because of
potential abuse from the 'other side'.

Anyway, some things are undeniable IMHO;

1. Global warming is a fact.
2. Greenhouse gases heat the atmosphere and preserve life on earth.
3. Man has burnt fossil fuels almost to exhaustion, so there are more
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere today.
4 The climate has been warmer than this many times in the geologic
past.
5 Whether Man is responsible for GW or not, burning fossil fuels in
such profusion ia harmful and unsustainable.
6 The media have over-hyped the AGW scenarioa big time.
7 Governments are now driving energy policies into the 21st century
(like building more nuclear plants in the UK) to combat that overused
term 'climate change'.
8. Climate change is blamed for every "freak" natural atmospheric
hazard from flooding, to hurricanes, to heavy snowfall, to heatwaves,
to gales, to heavy rain, atcetera ad nauseam.
9. Global warming has forced us to implement energy conservation
measures and planning a sustainable future.
10. My last one, to give others a chance, neither side can yet offer
positive proof to the other that their arguments/
eveidence is incontravertible.

Personally, I'm getting sick to death of GW on TV and in the press,
but as an academic debate, this still has a lot of mileage in it just
yet.

Anyone else care to add to my 10 "undeniable points"?

Or will you take issue with my 10 points?

Steve Jackson
Bablake weather Station
Coventry UK
www.bablakeweather.co.uk

On 13 Mar, 18:16, "Steve J" wrote:

Personally, I'm getting sick to death of GW on TV and in the press,...snip

So too am I. It's become like a worn out gramophone record and if it
keeps being replayed, in the end, no-one will bother to listen any
more.

Now what would encourage me to use less electricity would be
information just how much that TV on standby (for example) is actually
using. It cannot be difficult to devise a "master panel" that can be
fitted into home circuits so you can see just what each appliance/
light, etc is using. Once we see the cost of our "toys" then we might
take some action. But as it is, we haven't a clue and frankly, there
is a temptation not to be bothered.

Jack

In message .com
"Jack )"
wrote:

On 13 Mar, 18:16, "Steve J" wrote:

Personally, I'm getting sick to death of GW on TV and in the press,...snip

So too am I. It's become like a worn out gramophone record and if it
keeps being replayed, in the end, no-one will bother to listen any
more.

Now what would encourage me to use less electricity would be
information just how much that TV on standby (for example) is actually
using. It cannot be difficult to devise a "master panel" that can be
fitted into home circuits so you can see just what each appliance/
light, etc is using. Once we see the cost of our "toys" then we might
take some action. But as it is, we haven't a clue and frankly, there
is a temptation not to be bothered.

Jack


Except that there is a little thing called the law of conservation of
energy. Energy cannot be "used".

So where does the extra energy go when we leave our TVs on standby, or
use a conventional light bulb? The answer is it is converted to heat.
Which warms the rooms in your house. which means that your
thermostaically controlled central heating system uses correspondingly
less fuel to maintain your chosen temperature.

So by reducing the heat generated by your lighting and entertainment
systems, you increase the fuel required by your heating system. I
fail to see how this will reduce carbon emissions.

Martin





--
Created on the Iyonix PC - the world's fastest RISC OS computer.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.dixon4/

In message ,
writes
In message .com
"Jack )"
wrote:

On 13 Mar, 18:16, "Steve J" wrote:

Personally, I'm getting sick to death of GW on TV and in the press,...snip

So too am I. It's become like a worn out gramophone record and if it
keeps being replayed, in the end, no-one will bother to listen any
more.

Now what would encourage me to use less electricity would be
information just how much that TV on standby (for example) is actually
using. It cannot be difficult to devise a "master panel" that can be
fitted into home circuits so you can see just what each appliance/
light, etc is using. Once we see the cost of our "toys" then we might
take some action. But as it is, we haven't a clue and frankly, there
is a temptation not to be bothered.

Jack


Except that there is a little thing called the law of conservation of
energy. Energy cannot be "used".

So where does the extra energy go when we leave our TVs on standby, or
use a conventional light bulb? The answer is it is converted to heat.
Which warms the rooms in your house. which means that your
thermostaically controlled central heating system uses correspondingly
less fuel to maintain your chosen temperature.

So by reducing the heat generated by your lighting and entertainment
systems, you increase the fuel required by your heating system. I
fail to see how this will reduce carbon emissions.

Martin


Quite possible the energy savings of not leaving electronic devices on
standby are less that the headline figures, for the reason you give. But
during the summer the waste heat is not offset by reduced heating bills,
and may require additional expenditure of energy on air-conditioning.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

wrote:


So where does the extra energy go when we leave our TVs on standby, or
use a conventional light bulb? The answer is it is converted to heat.
Which warms the rooms in your house. which means that your
thermostaically controlled central heating system uses correspondingly
less fuel to maintain your chosen temperature.

So by reducing the heat generated by your lighting and entertainment
systems, you increase the fuel required by your heating system. I
fail to see how this will reduce carbon emissions.


Perhaps you should try it, and then check your fuel bills. I have saved quite a
lot of money, and my house is no warmer, or cooler.



--
Gianna

http://www.buchan-meteo.org.uk
* * * * * * *

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:33:22 GMT, wrote in

snip
So by reducing the heat generated by your lighting and entertainment
systems, you increase the fuel required by your heating system. I
fail to see how this will reduce carbon emissions.

And in the 8 (soon to rise as GW kicks in) months of the year when I have
no need for a heating system on?

--
Mike Tullett - Coleraine 55.13°N 6.69°W posted 13/03/2007 22:23:46 GMT

On Mar 13, 8:33 pm, wrote:
In message .com
"Jack )"
wrote:

Now what would encourage me to use less electricity would be
information just how much that TV on standby (for example) is actually
using. It cannot be difficult to devise a "master panel" that can be
fitted into home circuits so you can see just what each appliance/

Except that there is a little thing called the law of conservation of
energy. Energy cannot be "used".

So where does the extra energy go when we leave our TVs on standby, or
use a conventional light bulb? The answer is it is converted to heat.
Which warms the rooms in your house. which means that your
thermostaically controlled central heating system uses correspondingly
less fuel to maintain your chosen temperature.

If all our electricity was nuclear or hydroelectric then it would be
fair game. But since the electricity was almost certainly made by
burning fossil fuels with a thermodynamic efficency of 36% (45% very
best case). So in using electricity to generate heat in your house you
burn 2 to 3x the amount of fossil fuel somewhere and emit a
correspondingly larger amount of CO2.

So by reducing the heat generated by your lighting and entertainment
systems, you increase the fuel required by your heating system. I
fail to see how this will reduce carbon emissions.

Because of the inherent inefficiency of the power station and
electricity grid transmission.

That said there are some well designed standby consumer devices that
draw only a few microwatts. And others like cheap cordless phone
chargers that draw stupid amounts of current continuously to no good
end.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Mar 13, 6:53 pm, "Jack )"
wrote:
On 13 Mar, 18:16, "Steve J" wrote:

Personally, I'm getting sick to death of GW on TV and in the press,...snip

So too am I. It's become like a worn out gramophone record

What do you suggest then. Taking the ostrich appproach and burying
your head in the sand?

Now what would encourage me to use less electricity would be
information just how much that TV on standby (for example) is actually
using.

It depends. Some use only a miniscule leakage current and others have
several watts wasted as heat. The only way to find out is to measure
it.

It cannot be difficult to devise a "master panel" that can be
fitted into home circuits so you can see just what each appliance/
light, etc is using. Once we see the cost of our "toys" then we might
take some action. But as it is, we haven't a clue and frankly, there
is a temptation not to be bothered.

Such meters already exist but to my eyes they look vastly overpriced
at £350 !!!
eg.
http://www.bettergeneration.co.uk/id...ty-meters.html

Regards,
Martin Brown

On 13 Mar 2007 11:53:13 -0700, "Jack )"
wrote:

Now what would encourage me to use less electricity would be
information just how much that TV on standby (for example) is actually
using. It cannot be difficult to devise a "master panel" that can be
fitted into home circuits so you can see just what each appliance/
light, etc is using. Once we see the cost of our "toys" then we might
take some action. But as it is, we haven't a clue and frankly, there
is a temptation not to be bothered.

Here's a simple one:-

http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?...e=1&doy=14 m3

--
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather

Alan White wrote:
On 13 Mar 2007 11:53:13 -0700, "Jack )"
wrote:

Now what would encourage me to use less electricity would be
information just how much that TV on standby (for example) is actually
using. It cannot be difficult to devise a "master panel" that can be
fitted into home circuits so you can see just what each appliance/
light, etc is using. Once we see the cost of our "toys" then we might
take some action. But as it is, we haven't a clue and frankly, there
is a temptation not to be bothered.

Here's a simple one:-

http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?...e=1&doy=14 m3


On the other hand, try the manual that came with the kit. Most show the power
consumption for when an item is in use, and on standby.
My network printer, for example, uses 8w on standby if memory serves.

If everything was 8 watts, and I left all my audio/video stuff on standby, that
would be close on 100w ... a significant saving to be had there then.

--
Gianna

http://www.buchan-meteo.org.uk
* * * * * * *