Man Based Global Warming....

Is this a PAR or reflector style? If so, that is why I haven't tried it, because I don't have any recessed cans.

Recessed cans could also be one reason you have had poor experience with CFLs. Many of them don't tolerate the heat buildup well, despite the lower temperatures. They do better in exposed fixtures with some cooling air flow.

 

In my experience a 15W LED will put out as much light as a 40w CFL That is where the energy savings comes in

 

Haven't seen them and am not a Costco member. It seems odd that when asked you can't produce a name or model number for something you claim to favor for applications. With as many lights as you claim to have installed I would expect such information to be easy to find.

So the question remains: what is the bulb, application, lumens, color, etc.? And, no, a PAR type arrangement or other directional bulb is not a match. However, they could indeed be useful for specific services.

Keep dreaming. Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for you to actually produce evidence of what you claim.

Insults? No, I stuck to the facts regarding your history, as unpleasant as they might be to you. It is important to readers to understand who they are dealing with. You shouldn't have repeated the comments of a troll verbatim and apparently copied their profile as well...

 

A 40W CFL should be roughly equivalent to a 150W incandescent, putting out around 2600 lumens. If an LED can do that with 15W, it is producing over 170 lumens/watt. I hadn't heard that such devices existed yet in the lab, let along on the commercial market.

Are you sure that these CFLs were really 40W, not 40W-equivalent? There is a huge difference.

And back to my previous question -- are you using the reflector or PAR style lamps in recessed fixtures? If so, this explains much of the difference between your experience and mine. In recessed fixtures, many CFLs will fail early from lack of cooling air, and the omni-directional light pattern causes a lot of light to be absorbed in imperfect reflections. LEDs send all their light out the front, no reflections needed.

For these reasons, I expect LEDs to displace CFLs in recessed fixtures much sooner than in open or globed fixtures.

 

I use a reflector CFL in my kitchen downlights over my kitchen benches. These are lasting very well indeed, I have had the same globes in now for 3 or 4 years now.

I use Crompton Lighting Lightstar 15 watt reflector CFLs with aa colour temperature specified at 5000 degrees K. They replaced 60W incandescent reflector globes which lasted at best 8 months and at worst 1 month, The CFLs have a rated equivalent light output of a 75 watt incandescent globe. They are instant on and are slightly dim at start but not for more than a couple of minutes and you only notice if you are looking for it. Cost was $14.95AU each, which is a lot more than a standard CFL at about $5.00AU but worth it.

The light above my head is a 20 watt spiral CFL and the light from it is great.

I have a dimable CFL in my lounge room on a 3 stage electronic dimmer, works very well and is 2 years old now..

 

Climate lectures online.

An entire semester's worth of climate studies in global warming has been graciously posted online by the proffessor.

RealClimate: An offering

another source that should be (but won't) required study if you are going to express an opinion on the subject.

 

Thanks Alric. Posts like that are much more constructive than throwing out attacks and media hype.

 

That's wonderful that students are paying to take lectures that cover bogus science and personal agenda. What an outstanding testament to education!

 

Yep. That sort of light output (170 lumens/watt) just isn't going to happen soon, especially not 15W and not for $7.50/bulb that was claimed. I'm guessing that the LED is actually 15W incandescent equivalent...and likely shifted toward the blue end of the spectrum.

From what I've read in LED promotions and looking at specs, to get very high lumens/watt the light must be unacceptably blue. Once you get into warmer tones the LED efficiency is roughly that of a CFL.

 

Isn't RealClimate.org the blog server for CRU, Michael Mann and company? Isn't this the same organization that's been implicated in what is arguably the biggest scientific fraud in history? Isn't this web site an example of what happens when science gets politicized? Can we assume that a lecture by David Archer won't be biased and based upon flawed data? I tried to access the lectures, but received only empty pages.

 

Yup, exactly!

I am glad to have been "involved" when AGW went down in a HUGE ball of flames.

Edit: I forget who always asked "what will you tell your grandkids!!11??//?!!?" but I'll say this
"Yup, a bunch of politicians wanted us to believe in AGW, and they somehow paid off a lot of scientists. They faked data, lied, and broke the law. But they all got busted and now we know what a crock it all was!"

 

Involved? In what way were YOU involved apart from blaming climate change on puppies?

 

Involved, present, whatever!

I just love sitting here and watching you delusionists panic and have absolutely nothing convincing to say about AGW. Your beliefs have literally been shattered. You have no legs, not even nubs, to stand on. I hate to use such a juvenile expression, but you guys got "owned!"

 

I've contributed more in this single post than some of you have in your entire existence on this site.....

It's kind of hard to take credit for anything when you don't even understand the basic principles of greenhouse gases and climate change. It's kind of like rooting for your favorite football team then gloating because they won as if you had something to do with it. I never really understood how people can let themselves look so dumb.

 

Hey all you small-overnment guys....

I give you this is stew over:

Momentum grows for Copenhagen climate deal | Reuters

Also,

If you think you have something to crow about regarding the CRU hack, think again:

Climate change: Mail-strom | The Economist


And lastly, do you really think natural variation can explain something as rapid as this?

The Associated Press: Canadian researcher says arctic ice is thinning

 

You keep making the same post about how CO2 absorbs radiation. I assume you think this is some in-depth scientific explanation to which you are privy. It's not. It's Chemistry 101. It's very Mickey Mouse.

I think "delusionist" is a great title for a pro-AGW person. It fits the bill very nicely - you made a post giving a layman's explanation of molecular radiation absorption and you think contributed to the proof of AGW. Newsflash: you didn't! When TimBikes destroyed the idea of our increasing [CO2] causing rising temperatures (you had no answers, again) you started back pedaling and trying to blame aerosols.

That's what's so unscientific about the whole thing - the entire idea is based on something you can't prove (that's already been admitted), and when people start pointing out reasons why your human produced greenhouse gases aren't accelerating global warming you guys have to start blaming other things. And the "other things" you guys point to have even less data behind them! So you back your poor ideas up with even poorer ideas.

There's a saying: you can't make chicken salad out of chicken poop. That's what you guys are trying to do. You're taking a massive pile of chicken poop and trying to make something nice out of it.

Not to mention all the news that has come out lately. You know, about lies, hiding of information, and falsifying data. And I know you want to ignore it and pretend it didn't happen, but you also have to look at Australia and New Zealand, how there is no consistency in their temperature measurements, and how they just made up a method to account for the differences, and they refuse to give out the raw data for it to be analyzed, and they refuse to give out their methods. That is not scientific! That is ANTI-science! How on earth can anyone accept data from a hidden, proven-to-be-corrupt source?

It's an atrocity to science! It's the antithesis of science!

So go ahead and call me a troll and say I'm not contributing anything to anything. It doesn't change the fact that you guys have none of the answers. It doesn't change the fact that by the day (by the hour!) we are finding more and more corrupt sources that promote AGW and they are all being exposed. Good riddance to a horrible idea.

 

You honestly do make me laugh. In a sad sort of way though. Mickey Mouse? So does that make you less intelligent than Mickey Mouse since you didn't know how greenhouse gases in the atmosphere work to increase global temperatures? You obviously are not looking at the science and are shooting from the hip due to your belief structures. Tim did NOT destroy the idea behind AGW. Unfortunately you appear to simple to figure that out. I already explained that there are factors of which we are still learning. That is not backpedaling and as the warming trend continues to climb despite the typical ups and downs due to variation we will continue to learn more.

It is very obvious you do not understand the concepts and you VERY obviously do not read journals. Instead you play around on the internet sites that support your ideas and then come in here to mouth off. In my opinion that is a troll. You act like a gloating child only there is nothing yet to gloat over. In real life that usually ends up with someone getting busted in the chops, at least where I come from. Let's try and act a bit more civil from now on and stick to science and not hyperbole.

 

Uh oh "Let's act a bit more civil." "Where I come from that ends up with someone getting busted in the chops." "Less intelligent than Mickey Mouse"... It looks like you're resorted to violence, insults, and contradictions. Those are signs of a truly defeated person.

It's been great enjoying watching your meltdown, F8L. Keep drinking the koolaid!

 

PFFFFffffffttt... An anonymous column from The Economist and two news reports. I'm underwhelmed.

And please watch that inappropriate language, mmkay?

 

Contra The Economist:

UN scientists turn on each other: UN Scientist Declares Climategate colleagues Mann, Jones and Rahmstorf 'should be barred from the IPCC process' -- They are 'not credible any more'

UN IPCC's Eduardo Zorita: 'By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication'


Friday, November 27, 2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
A UN scientist is declaring that his three fellow UN climate panel colleagues "should be barred from the IPCC process." In a November 26, 2009 message on his website, UN IPCC contributing author Dr. Eduardo Zorita writes: "CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Rahmstorf"]Stefan Rahmstorf [/ame]should be barred from the IPCC process."
Zorita writes that the short answer to that question is: Short answer: "Because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore."
Zorita indicates that he is aware that he is putting his career in jeopardy by going after the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists. "By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication," Zorita candidly admits, a reference to the ClimateGate emails discussing how to suppress data and scientific studies that do not agree with the UN IPCC views.
Zorita was a UN IPCC Contributing Author of the Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. Since 2003, Zorita has headed the Department of Paleoclimate and has been a senior scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research of the GKSS Research Centre in Germany. Zorita has published more than 70 peer-reviewed scientific studies.