"Signal" wrote in message
...

No - it's fact, and patently absurd to suggest otherwise.

Circuit components transfer much of their heat through matter to
regions of lower temperature - conduction. This means they are not
efficient sources of heat (for heating your environment). You could
perhaps snuggle up to the chassis of your amplifier to maximize the
potential.

Also consider airflow. Take lightbulbs for example. Are they located
in floors or ceilings? Heat rises, by the way.

Whatever!

Still, the fact remains that virtually all the current passing through most
electrical equipment is directly or indirectly dissipated as heat.

So the TV's power supply does get "a bit warm", you accept that? Well if the
room (ambient temperature) is cooler than the circuitry then thermodynamics
require that that heat will transfer to the cooler surroundings increasing
their temperature.

There is a principal in thermodynamics that states that eventually all the
energy in the universe will have "decayed" into heat. There will be no more
energy potential left any where. It's called the "Heat Death". It's going to
take a long while something like 10^10^23 years.

Paulus

On Mar 13, 6:16 pm, "Steve J" wrote:
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.

That is because the scientific evidence is now strong enough to make
it the only tenable position.

There is a world of difference between having genuine disagreements
about the science and showing the arguments both for and against a
particular interpretation of the data and setting out to deliberately
mislead and misinform the public which is precisely what that program
set out to do.

It might be instructive if it is an A level class to have them look
for the falacious arguments and deliberate half truths used in the
program to give the impression that the anthropegenic component of
global warming was nil.

attempt a balanced presentation.

Balanced in what way? The evidence is pretty clear. You choose not to
look at it and remain wilfully ignorant.

The Economist did a pretty well balanced review on the evidence for
global warming 2-3 years ago. I suggest that you look for article that
if you want some accessible balanced material for your class to look
at.

Are you also going to insist on balanced presentation of both
evolution and Young Earth Creationism in science classes, alien
abduction, flat earth theory in geography. Where do you want to draw
the line?

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.

It is pretty clear that *some* of the global warming *is* due to
changes in the suns output. This is not and has never been in dispute.
The point is that the biggest changes during the past few decades
coincide with a period where the sun has been monitored by satellite
and so no handwaving argument that "it must all be the sun" holds
water.

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.

So far so good. Although it would be better to say that there is good
observational evidence for global warming.

2. Greenhouse gases heat the atmosphere and preserve life on earth.

Trap more heat in the atmosphere by making it more opaque to outgoing
long wave radiation.

3. Man has burnt fossil fuels almost to exhaustion, so there are more
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere today.

No. There are plenty more fossil fuel reserves to go probably still a
fair multiple of everything we have burnt so far. It just gets
progressively more difficult and expensive to extract. And we can tell
that the build up is from the stuff we are burning because not only is
the atmospheric concentration of CO2 rising, but the isotopic pattern
is changing as more fossil carbon is being added. This would not
happen if natural CO2 were being released from the sea by warming.

4 The climate has been warmer than this many times in the geologic
past.

Although this is true we were never around to witness it. And you
should be careful what you wish for - sudden glitches in global
temperature are almost always associated with serious species
extinction events in the fossil record.

5 Whether Man is responsible for GW or not, burning fossil fuels in
such profusion ia harmful and unsustainable.

The best estimates at present are that in the past few decades our
greenhouse gas forcing has pushed up global temperatures by about the
same amount as the suns change in luminosity over the previous
century. See for example:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...7ffe fc531242
or if you prefer something by a known AGW sceptic
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...7ffe fc501179
(but note exactly what they are forced to conclude from the
observational evidence despite their well known political bias)

6 The media have over-hyped the AGW scenarioa big time.

They may not have done in terms of ultimate long term damage. The
problem is that it will be many decades before the effects of what we
release into the atmosphere now really take full effect.

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'.

At the moment that is our least bad option. Wind power might work for
the UK, but the ones near me are a joke. 2 out of 3 are dead/idle
most days and on one notable occassion the A19 had to be closed after
one self immolated. The UKs largest offshore wind farm has been
offline for ages without anyone noticing. Apparently it cost too much
to bury the cable connecting it to the mainland properly and so it
failed.

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.

Bound to happen even though it may well be incorrect. It may not be
such a bad thing if it pushes the issue up the agenda in America where
GW denial is still very much mainstream and cars do 20mpg. Warm air
carries considerably more water vapour so there is good reason to
think that it will fuel more powerful storms in the future.

9. Global warming has forced us to implement energy conservation
measures and planning a sustainable future.

I disagree. There were far more convincing "Save It" energy
conservation campaigns during the OPEC induced oil crises of the
1970s. The time is long past for taking all available (and generally
highly cost effective) no-regrets energy saving measures.

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.

One side is claiming this with their eyes shut and their fingers in
their ears. There is a scientific concensus.

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.

The science is clear cut - AGW is real. A few mavericks with huge
political axes to grind and the oil lobbyists make so much noise that
it may seem to the general public that there is still disagreement.
You may recall that the tobacco industry did and does a similar thing
to make sure the suckers all keep on smoking cigarettes.

It is still possible to buy a scientist to testify under oath that
smoking tobacco does not cause cancer - using a carefully crafted set
of words constructed by very sophisticated lawyers. I fully expect the
anti-GW lobby groups to go the same way and that at some stage when
the sea is lapping at the steps of the White House there will still be
someone there being paid to say that you can't prove that it was down
to greenhouse gasses.

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

11. Governments of whatever political shade will all seek to use GW as
an excuse for new taxes.

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 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

Martin Brown wrote:

At the moment that is our least bad option. Wind power might work for
the UK, but the ones near me are a joke. 2 out of 3 are dead/idle
most days and on one notable occassion the A19 had to be closed after
one self immolated.

I am sure that looks good on the page, but unless you are attributing some sort
of human or religious characteristics to a windmill, it did not do that.

It may have broken, fallen down, exploded, or done any number of unfortunate
things but it did not sacrifice itself for the benefit of the other windmills,
or the deity of windmills, or to generate a headline that would impress the
illiterate.


--
Gianna

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

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
oups.com...

1. Global warming is a fact.

So far so good. Although it would be better to say that there is good
observational evidence for global warming.

The observational "evidence" is the weakest link in the AGW story. After
that there is only spin, political desire and scientist's career ambitions
to prop it up.

What is observed are climate conditions that have been both warmer and
cooler in recent history. For there to be any variation there must be a
trend one way or the other and most likely a historical plot of average
global temperature, measured at the same resolution as we are measuring now,
would have trends and hockey sticks all over the place. Always have been,
always will be. The rest is conjecture.

Paulus

On Mar 14, 12:24 am, "Dave Cornwell"
wrote:
There are some very fair comments in there yet all you do is seek to
insult.

2. Greenhouse gases heat the atmosphere and preserve life on earth.

How the **** do inert gasses do that?

More trolling from ClimateLiar...

------------------
I think you'll find inert gases are more yer Helium (He), Neon (Ne), Argon
(Ar), Krypton (Kr), Xenon (Xe), and Radon (Rn) than yer greenhouse gases

These days they prefer the title Noble gases after it was found
possible to react them with fluorine under extreme conditions to get
some pretty wacky compounds.

such as methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2). But I'll leave it to you
armchair scientists to decide about "the facts"

It is perhaps worth pointing out here that it requires a gas molecule
with at least 3 atoms like CO2, H2O, N2O, NO2, O3 and CH4 to have a
significant absorption band in the right part of the infra red
spectrum.

The bulk of the atmosphere is N2 and O2 being diatomic do not have
significant visible or IR absorption.

It is worth pointing out here that the idea that the Earth is warmer
than you would expect from basic thermodynamic balance of suns
radiation dates back to the Swedish chemist Arrhenius and since he
published his paper "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon
the Temperature of the Ground" in 1896 (that is *not* a typo) you can
hardly accuse him of jumping on the GW bandwagon:

http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Arrhenius.html

Regards,
Martin Brown

"Steve J" wrote in message
ups.com...
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

Just look at what happens when some scientists express an alternative view.







Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'


By Tom Harper, Sunday Telegraph

Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have
received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the
scientific community.

They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a
powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who
have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of
carbon dioxide emissions.

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of
Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since
raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate
change.
advertisement

One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would
not live to see further global warming.

"Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and
institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor.

"I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should
be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the
connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really
nasty and personal."

Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming
Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed
the theory of man-made global warming had become a "religion", forcing
alternative explanations to be ignored.

Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts
Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the documentary -
recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen
their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as
industry stooges.

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they
fly in the face of the science."

Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: "The Green
movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to
suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro
managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to
do."

Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: "Governments are
trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees.
Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."

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

in 222040 20070314 145549 "Tiger" wrote:

Just look at what happens when some scientists express an alternative view.

Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'

By Tom Harper, Sunday Telegraph

snipped

What is the relevance of that article to the current discussion?
Do you think that when people get death threats it proves them right?