[huskerlug] Re: give me a F*&^#ing break
- From: tw <techworld.mail@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: huskerlug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:27:38 -0500
Surely you wouldn't be arguing points on a link you haven't even read.
I thought it was us skeptics that were supposed to be the uninformed
ones :p
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
That link is talking about the very first, detailed study of the oceans
including ocean temperatures on a scale never before taken. In the past
5 years, ocean temperatures are dropping.
NPR is a little on the left side of things anyway. For them to be
sitting scratching their heads about *big* missing elements of models
publicly shows that, *gasp* we're still learning and jumping to
conclusions is unscientific at best, and much more often, foolish.
Unless we've had instruments in place for those 650,000 years and have
measured accordingly, you're right. It simply isn't debatable. It's
simply scientific guesses.
Now, on your other part of the _undebatable_ facts, is the second link
from earlier in this thread, that reveals a very critical flaw that
destroys the very model you're claiming as infallible!
Like I said, you're simply following the tradition of hundreds of years
of doomsday prophets. None of their predictions have come true, I'm
guessing that yours won't, either.
On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 12:19 -0500, Joseph Smith wrote:
> Climate change is exactly wait it is.. the earth isn't a big linear
> system. There will be areas that will get colder due to aberrations in
> ocean currents. Also, I still can't find any evidence of the mean
> ocean temperatures dropping..
>
> As more ice melts (and you simply _cannot_ deny that the ice caps are
> disappearing. JUST LOOK) the more dark ocean there is to absorb heat
> from sunlight rather than reflect it back out into space.
>
> Also, in some regions the ocean temperature has dropped slightly,
> causing small-- but statistically insignificant amounts of new ice to
> form. Much of this is ironically caused by _very_ large chunks of ice
> from melting ice shelves dropping into the ocean.
>
> Another _undebatable_ fact is that CO2 in our atmosphere is at an all-
> time high for the past 650,000 years and there is no shortage of
> evidence that links higher CO2 levels with a overall climate warming
> effect (which, because the earth is a large differential system, in
> this case causes temperatures near the poles to rise faster than
> temperatures at the equator)
>
> The previously high for CO2 in our atmosphere in the past 650,000
> years was around 320ppm; we are currently at 370ppm. These numbers
> fluctuate depending on season (less in summer, more in winter), but
> the overall trend is _undeniable_.
>
> Finally, your right. There is no point in debating this. The facts are
> in, and, thank god, fsm, whatever, you are not making the important
> decisions.
>
>
>
> Where is this "link"?
>
> -Joe
>
>
> On Apr 8, 2008, at 9:55 PM, tw wrote:
>
> > Sorry Joseph,
> >
> > Since 2003, the first year that network from my link was put in place
> > temperatures are dropping. It's mostly bunk science and politically
> > motivated at best. I mean, you can disagree with that all you want
> > but
> > you're parroting the lines that people have used for the past hundred
> > years to 'prove' their claims of both disastrous global warming and
> > cooling. None of their claims have come true yet. There's a reason
> > for
> > that.
> >
> > On the entire reputable scientific community, I'd point out that the
> > second that any scientist goes out and speaks out against global
> > warming, global cooling, or whatever politically popular topic it
> > happens to be, he's instantly declared insignificant. It's pretty sad
> > actually.
> >
> > Debating this is a waste of time, but I would point out that even
> > liberal media is calling it climate change now, not global warming.
> > It's time has come and I guess the future will reveal the truth.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 20:37 -0500, Joseph Smith wrote:
> >> Decided I better go research this cooling you were talking about. I
> >> won't bore you with the details, if you really want to know, you'd go
> >> research it yourself.
> >>
> >> Ocean temperatures fluctuate--- BUT, all evidence shows that the
> >> trend
> >> over the course of the last 40 years is rising ocean temperatures.
> >>
> >> for example...
> >> 4 5 8 10 9 6 8 11 12 10 8 9 14 15 10 13.... see the trend?
> >>
> >> so while that last 10 might look a lot smaller than its neighboring
> >> 14, 15 and 13... its still warming.*
> >>
> >>
> >> *if you feel this insults your intelligence, maybe you should
> >> consider
> >> what "spin" has been placed on what you read before you go and
> >> disagree with the entire reputable scientific community.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mar 30, 2008, at 10:39 PM, tw wrote:
> >>
> >>> If the oceans are cooling as a whole then ice probably isn't melting
> >>> as
> >>> a result. Wouldn't the responsible thing to do before committing a
> >>> huge
> >>> amount of our nations time and energy (time + energy that should be
> >>> spent upon technological innovation) is to be sure we know exactly
> >>> *what* is going on and why? And, once we understand that we need to
> >>> understand exactly what needs to happen to make changes if
> >>> *indeed* we
> >>> are responsible for anything or can even affect anything!
> >>>
> >>> Because, lets face it, people for the past century have said the
> >>> exact
> >>> same things, and the polar opposite of what you're describing and
> >>> use
> >>> some version of bastardized science to prove their point.
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, 2008-03-30 at 22:18 -0500, Joseph Smith wrote:
> >>>> I find it irresponsible to justify our carbon footprint because
> >>>> countries like China and India have large ones too...
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm#Glaciers
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mar 30, 2008, at 3:35 PM, Jim Worrest wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> My, I wish I had said it that well. If one looks at the 1930's
> >>>>> we're
> >>>>> in a
> >>>>> cooling period. We could get secondary climate benefits if we
> >>>>> stop
> >>>>> depending
> >>>>> so much on foreign energy, I would reduce the dependence for
> >>>>> reasons
> >>>>> other
> >>>>> than climate, but it should have a little benefit there. I
> >>>>> emphasize "little"
> >>>>> since countries like India and China would take up the slack in
> >>>>> our
> >>>>> purchases
> >>>>> of foreign energy, and they have no intention of controlling their
> >>>>> own
> >>>>> coal industries.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As I pointed out, the last I heard, UNL climatologists, were not
> >>>>> jumping off
> >>>>> of buildings because of global warming. There are sound political
> >>>>> reasons to
> >>>>> stop our dependence on foreign energy, and it would have some
> >>>>> environmental
> >>>>> benefits as well. ---Jim
> >>>>>
> >>>>> tw wrote:
> >>>>>> I'd agree with that. I'd also totally believe in global
> >>>>>> warming if
> >>>>>> it
> >>>>>> amounted to more than it does. Gravity is something that we can
> >>>>>> find in
> >>>>>> experiments. We can eliminate variables, tweak variables and
> >>>>>> explore
> >>>>>> them fully. Global warming directly requires variables that we
> >>>>>> simply
> >>>>>> do not understand yet. We can make guesses but as the links
> >>>>>> below
> >>>>>> show
> >>>>>> there are constant surprises that drastically alter what we
> >>>>>> thought
> >>>>>> we
> >>>>>> know about it. Surprises that call into question the models
> >>>>>> themselves.
> >>>>>> Read the second link, it's interesting.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Global warming, by it's very nature isn't something that we can
> >>>>>> chart
> >>>>>> variables. We can make guesses but to have the variable that
> >>>>>> matters
> >>>>>> most, we'd have to have instruments in place for millions of
> >>>>>> years to
> >>>>>> get the scope necessary to make such judgments. Sure, it's
> >>>>>> possible to
> >>>>>> make guesses on what it was, but that requires models based upon
> >>>>>> something that we don't understand. It's circular logic :p
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm just hesitant to do things that only make sense if we
> >>>>>> understand the
> >>>>>> picture fully. Things like sinking tens of trillions of dollars
> >>>>>> into
> >>>>>> changing the way we live that could very well be entirely
> >>>>>> unnecessary.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The whole movement behind global warming is, if we don't act now,
> >>>>>> it'll
> >>>>>> be too late. It's too pushy, it seems too much like the chicken-
> >>>>>> little
> >>>>>> scares that people have had on this exact subject for the past
> >>>>>> hundred
> >>>>>> years. I'd be unimpressed back then, and I'm unimpressed now.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Anyway, here's one reason why I'm so skeptical about global
> >>>>>> warming:
> >>>>>> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This specifically addresses the modeling analogy you brought up.
> >>>>>> http://ace.mu.nu/archives/258152.php
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That's about all I have to say on the subject, I actually came
> >>>>>> here
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>> learn about Linux and technology, not rehash tired political
> >>>>>> debates.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sat, 2008-03-29 at 22:21 -0500, Mark Bauer wrote:
> >>>>>>> Models are just that, some are better than others, I don't
> >>>>>>> believe
> >>>>>>> that we understand gravity yet, but I trust the models that we
> >>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>> to be close enough that I don't want to jump out of a window.
> >>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>> concept of global change is easy, it is (and always has been)
> >>>>>>> happening.
> >>>>>>> The impact on society of these changes is the question. With
> >>>>>>> such
> >>>>>>> a large part of the population living along costal regions they
> >>>>>>> might be
> >>>>>>> impacted greatly if the sea levels rise by any significant
> >>>>>>> amount. I
> >>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>> not personally read the reports, but I believe that most of the
> >>>>>>> models
> >>>>>>> indicate that if the latest trend continues, this will be a
> >>>>>>> problem.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Models improve with time (and work). If everyone has the
> >>>>>>> attitude
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>> they will refuse to change until we know for sure, how will we
> >>>>>>> prove it
> >>>>>>> to them. If you don't believe the models we have today, what
> >>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>> it take to convince you. If we wait until the change has
> >>>>>>> occurred
> >>>>>>> before
> >>>>>>> we act, why model at all.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Nobody is claiming they fully understand anything.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I don't think that calling these models chicken-little theories
> >>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>> help.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Mark
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mar 29, 2008, at 9:42 PM, tw wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Actually, oceans have been cooling over the past decade, etc,
> >>>>>>>> etc.
> >>>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>> problem with the chicken-little theories is that they assume
> >>>>>>>> they
> >>>>>>>> fully
> >>>>>>>> understand the model of the earth, weather patterns and even
> >>>>>>>> solar
> >>>>>>>> patterns. We don't. There's a bunch of articles going on
> >>>>>>>> right
> >>>>>>>> now
> >>>>>>>> about how a bunch of our weather models are falling apart. On
> >>>>>>>> top of
> >>>>>>>> that, saying that climate change is bad assumes that this is
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> only
> >>>>>>>> climate that's good. I'd argue that that's a bit silly
> >>>>>>>> especially
> >>>>>>>> given
> >>>>>>>> all of the climate changes that have already happened over the
> >>>>>>>> course of
> >>>>>>>> the earths past.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So, I'd agree with you that climate-change occurs. You only
> >>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> have the smallest glimmer of intelligence and understand the
> >>>>>>>> smallest
> >>>>>>>> bit of history to understand that. The problem with all the
> >>>>>>>> other
> >>>>>>>> things you have is that they are theories, we don't have all
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> facts
> >>>>>>>> and we're still learning. When we fully understand what is
> >>>>>>>> going
> >>>>>>>> on,
> >>>>>>>> THEN it is time to act. But guessing about what is happening
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> trying
> >>>>>>>> to push through legislation honestly just hurts us as people.
> >>>>>>>> Since we
> >>>>>>>> don't understand what we're doing it's like cavemen trying to
> >>>>>>>> build a
> >>>>>>>> computer. They simply don't understand.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It simply amazes me that people get so swept up in emotion over
> >>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>> topic that they lose reason.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As far as the gravy train, as with the debate going on right
> >>>>>>>> now
> >>>>>>>> regarding earmarks, politicians clearly send money where it
> >>>>>>>> helps
> >>>>>>>> their
> >>>>>>>> cause. Make no mistake, the politicians cause is to get re-
> >>>>>>>> elected.
> >>>>>>>> Make no mistake, they want do push every political hot-button
> >>>>>>>> right
> >>>>>>>> now
> >>>>>>>> there is and global warming right now clearly is one. That
> >>>>>>>> generates
> >>>>>>>> funding for scientists who claim they can help us understand it
> >>>>>>>> better
> >>>>>>>> or how to prevent it. That weeds out scientists who are
> >>>>>>>> skeptical
> >>>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>> it or that are publishing different data.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If you don't think that scientists are being funded to provide
> >>>>>>>> expected
> >>>>>>>> (politically motivated) results you simply don't understand how
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> process works. The entire process is markedly unscientific.
> >>>>>>>> It's
> >>>>>>>> political. It's also ironic how quickly scientists who
> >>>>>>>> disagree
> >>>>>>>> aren't
> >>>>>>>> respected they're ridiculed and dismissed. That should set off
> >>>>>>>> warning
> >>>>>>>> bells with anyone.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> All of that being said, here in a few decades/centuries/
> >>>>>>>> millennium we
> >>>>>>>> may understand things to the point that we can understand these
> >>>>>>>> causes.
> >>>>>>>> Then we act but right now, it's all speculation and
> >>>>>>>> politics. If
> >>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>> disagree to THAT, you're being rather unscientific.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 2008-03-29 at 21:21 -0500, Joseph Smith wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> it amazes me that people still think climate change isn't
> >>>>>>>>> real.
> >>>>>>>>> You
> >>>>>>>>> have ignore a great wealth of evidence- not the least of which
> >>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>> measurable sea level increases, increased global temperature
> >>>>>>>>> averages,
> >>>>>>>>> mass extinction of amphibians (upwards of 50% of all amphibian
> >>>>>>>>> species), etc..
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> and some consequences that are already playing out:
> >>>>>>>>> Longterm droughts in the southwest of the US, Africa, and
> >>>>>>>>> Australia
> >>>>>>>>> possible shutdown of the gulf stream, which will result in a
> >>>>>>>>> cooler
> >>>>>>>>> Europe
> >>>>>>>>> a few islands that are actually underwater now (remember that
> >>>>>>>>> one
> >>>>>>>>> evacuated last year, over 75,000 people-- i don't want to take
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> time to find a lin, you all can use google)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> etc, etc
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> AND WHAT GRAVY TRAIN?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> seriously... there is a hell of a lot more money to be made in
> >>>>>>>>> destroying the environment then saving it. Politicians have
> >>>>>>>>> plenty of
> >>>>>>>>> reasons NOT to cap carbon emissions and research grants pale
> >>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>> comparison even to the money spent lobbying against carbon cap
> >>>>>>>>> measures.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I really hope governments start listening to experts and not
> >>>>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>>>> average american idiot that doesn't understand the dynamics of
> >>>>>>>>> climate
> >>>>>>>>> change short of the crap he/she reads in the news and on "will
> >>>>>>>>> post
> >>>>>>>>> anything for shock value" internet news sites.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -Joe
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 29, 2008, at 3:22 PM, Jim Worrest wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, it would be a good idea to get a 10 watt laptop to
> >>>>>>>>>> replace
> >>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>> 100 watt
> >>>>>>>>>> one! ;-) Now, I am all for saving money when it come to the
> >>>>>>>>>> utility
> >>>>>>>>>> bill, and
> >>>>>>>>>> one shouldn't be wasteful with resources, but are you sure
> >>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>>>> this global
> >>>>>>>>>> warming won't go away when the political season is over and
> >>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>> only
> >>>>>>>>>> have to
> >>>>>>>>>> suffer the usual amount of hot air from politicians when the
> >>>>>>>>>> main
> >>>>>>>>>> election is
> >>>>>>>>>> over? 8-) By the way, a lot of this global warming may be
> >>>>>>>>>> fueled by
> >>>>>>>>>> politicians and by the scientists who enjoy being on the
> >>>>>>>>>> grants
> >>>>>>>>>> gravy train?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Another Ice Age?"
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/
> >>>>>>>>>> Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The chicken littles do get the most feed.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It seems that UNL climatologists, haven't joined the fire
> >>>>>>>>>> breathers
> >>>>>>>>>> yet?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> This is something of a repeat of another message which didn't
> >>>>>>>>>> seem
> >>>>>>>>>> to make
> >>>>>>>>>> it to the list? ---Jim
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Joseph Smith wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Apple seems to be more 'green' than your average computer
> >>>>>>>>>>> company.
> >>>>>>>>>>> All =20=
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> apple computer- notebooks through desktops- automatically go
> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> sleep =20=
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> after a preset amount of time. Sleep mode has all the
> >>>>>>>>>>> advantages of
> >>>>>>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>>>>> just leaving your system on and none of the disadvantages.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> -Sleep mode consumes a very small fraction of the power
> >>>>>>>>>>> having
> >>>>>>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>>>>> computer 'on' does.
> >>>>>>>>>>> -When asleep it can be 'woken up' by LAN activity so your
> >>>>>>>>>>> computer
> >>>>>>>>>>> is =20=
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> still available for remote connections.
> >>>>>>>>>>> -At least on Macs it won't go to sleep if you have a program
> >>>>>>>>>>> actually =20=
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> doing something (for most people, their computers sit idle
> >>>>>>>>>>> most of
> >>>>>>>>>>> the =20=
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> day acting as dumb loads)
> >>>>>>>>>>> -Computers generally 'wake up' in less than 5 seconds
> >>>>>>>>>>> -All your open programs will still be there!
> >>>>>>>>>>> Even if the cost of electricity isn't a concern to you
> >>>>>>>>>>> consider the
> >>>>>>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>>>>> amount of power that would be saved (and CO2 that wouldn't
> >>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>>>>> released) if Windows and other OSs besides OSX had sleep
> >>>>>>>>>>> mode as
> >>>>>>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>>>>> default behavior of an idling system.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Where I work all of the Windows and Linux severs stay ON
> >>>>>>>>>>> 24/7/365.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I =20
> >>>>>>>>>>> guess I should do my part and bring up the benefits of
> >>>>>>>>>>> changing
> >>>>>>>>>>> a =20
> >>>>>>>>>>> couple of simple settings in windows..
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> -Joe
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 28, 2008, at 8:00 PM, GreyGeek wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Excellent comments, Charles!
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I went out to Amazon to see what a "Kill-a-watt" would cost
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> saw =20=
> >>>>>>>>>>>> some
> >>>>>>>>>>>> interesting comments. Here is one:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "If you are a "Miser," this device will be your best
> >>>>>>>>>>>> friend. I
> >>>>>>>>>>>> bought
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the "Kill-A-Watt" because I suspected that our old Fridge
> >>>>>>>>>>>> was
> >>>>>>>>>>>> shooting
> >>>>>>>>>>>> up the electric bill. I plugged the Fridge into the meter
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> left
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>> for 3 days. I was very surprised to find out the the fridge
> >>>>>>>>>>>> was
> >>>>>>>>>>>> only
> >>>>>>>>>>>> burning about 1.5 KWH (Kilowatt Hours) per day, which is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>>>> what it
> >>>>>>>>>>>> should.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Now I am going around the house and plugging other
> >>>>>>>>>>>> appliances
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> for a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> couple days. The real shocker was that my "economical"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> eMachines PC
> >>>>>>>>>>>> along with a CRT monitor was using more energy than the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> fridge!
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>>>>>> computer was burning almost 2 KWH per day. I made changes
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>> energy
> >>>>>>>>>>>> saver software in Windows, so that the monitor
> >>>>>>>>>>>> automatically
> >>>>>>>>>>>> shuts
> >>>>>>>>>>>> off
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in 10 minutes and the computer hibernates in 1 hour. This
> >>>>>>>>>>>> has
> >>>>>>>>>>>> brought
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the daily consumption down to 1 KWH.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> For those of you who don't understand KWH, its a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> measurement of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>> electric
> >>>>>>>>>>>> usage by the power company. To be simple, using a KWH is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> about .
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 08=A2 =
> >>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> our area. So, if you save 1 KWH per day, you save .08=A2
> >>>>>>>>>>>> After a =
> >>>>>>>>>>> month's
> >>>>>>>>>>>> time, it's about $2.48. After a year it's about $30 bucks.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>>>>>> savings
> >>>>>>>>>>>> add up over time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> With the Kill-A-Watt, I've found out lots of interesting
> >>>>>>>>>>>> things:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> My Mac Mini with a LCD monitor uses about 1/2 the power
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of my
> >>>>>>>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>> eMachines
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Tower with CRT. That's 70 Watts vs. 140 Watts.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> My Electric Blanket which I though was "economical" pulls
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 120
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Watts
> >>>>>>>>>>>> during operation. It actually uses 1 KWH per day. I even
> >>>>>>>>>>>> found out
> >>>>>>>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the blanket burns 10 Watts when the power switch is off!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I found many "power bandits" in my home. These are devices
> >>>>>>>>>>>> like
> >>>>>>>>>>>> cellphones, scanners, routers, modems that have those
> >>>>>>>>>>>> little
> >>>>>>>>>>>> black
> >>>>>>>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>> power
> >>>>>>>>>>>> blocks. Most of these devices use 5 to 10 watts with the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> power
> >>>>>>>>>>>> switch
> >>>>>>>>>>>> off. With the Kill-A-Watt, I was able to find the biggest
> >>>>>>>>>>>> offenders =20=
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> plug them into a timer that shuts off each night when they
> >>>>>>>>>>>> are not
> >>>>>>>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in use.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you are truly obsessive about your electrical bill like
> >>>>>>>>>>>> me, you
> >>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>> make a nice Excel spreadsheet will all you appliances. You
> >>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>> enter
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Watts, Kilowatt Hours, Price per hour and than figure if
> >>>>>>>>>>>> replacing a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> device would pay for the purchase and how long it will
> >>>>>>>>>>>> take.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> As everyone says in their reviews, "This device will pay
> >>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it's
> >>>>>>>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>> self."
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Charles Leslie wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually turning off your laptop won't make a relevant
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> difference, I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> would argue.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Alternatively you could run your laptop off of a charge
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> from a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> solar
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> panel or other renewable energy source. But you'll see
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it's a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> moot point here in a minute...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's some more technical information on how much
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> energy a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> laptop =20=
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> uses...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000562.html
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So as you can see, simply turning it off doesn't solve
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> problem =20=
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the battery is charging/discharging.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But wait... In fact most consumer electronic devices
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> consume
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> power
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> even when they are not powered on. Here's an interesting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> article
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://wcco.com/consumer/plug.in.appliances.2.372422.html
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So as you can see, you can't enjoy a modern lifestyle and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> still be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 100% eco friendly unless you make some seriously drastic
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> most average people aren't affluent enough or willing to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> allocate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> time or resources to.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Most people that spend all their time sorting their
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> garbage
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> protesting SUV fuel consumption usually would never
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> think to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> turn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> their air conditioning up by 5 degrees in the summer time,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> stop
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> having babies.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that our looming energy crisis is going to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> helped by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> your personal efforts. It can only be solved
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> macroscopically by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> economic force, or collective social policy. All turning
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> off
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> lights (or unplugging your laptop) is going to do is help
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> save a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> few dimes on your electric bill.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 2:27 PM, GreyGeek
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jkreps@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#World_coal_reserves[1]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Running one 100 watt computer for one year requires 876
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> kW·h (100 W
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> &tim24 h/day ×365 {days in a year} =3D 876000
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> W·h
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D =
> >>>>>>>>>>> 876
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> kW·h). Converting this power usage into physical
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> coal =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consumption:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It takes 438 kg (966 pounds) of coal to power a computer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> full year.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> One should also take into account transmission and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> losses[2]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused by resistance and heating in the power lines,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the order
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of5–10%, depending on distance from the power
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> station
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> factors.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It also generates about 800 lbs of CO2
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moral: Turn you laptop off when you are not using it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- Links ---
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#World_coal_reserves
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_line#Losses
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Binary/unsupported file stripped by Ecartis --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Type: image/png
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- File: 541a6f12f0b495022ce2949aea4a5057.png
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ----
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ----
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ----
> >>>>>>>>>>> Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-
> >>>>>>>>>>> request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>>>>>>> with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ----
> >>>>>>>>>> Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>>>>>> with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ----
> >>>>>>>>> Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-
> >>>>>>>>> request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>>>>> with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ----
> >>>>>>>> Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>>>> with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ----
> >>>>>>> Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-
> >>>>>>> request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>>> with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ----
> >>>>>> Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>> with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ----
> >>>>> Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ----
> >>>> Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> >>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----
> >>> Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> >>> To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----
> >> Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> >> To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ----
> > Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
> >
> >
>
>
> ----
> Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
>
>
----
Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
Other related posts:
