Some global warming holiday cheer

After catching up on a few podcasts last week, I plan to spend a portion of the next few days exploring in more detail some relative good news I discovered about global warming. 

Russ Roberts recently interviewed an expert global warming ecologist and posted it on this web page, along with a few links to other interesting material on the same subject.  Here are a few excerpts that caught my attention.  The first is from Daniel Botkin's web page:

I’ve spent 39 years as a Ph. D. ecologist trying to understand nature, environment, life on the Earth. . . Having done research on global warming since 1968, I am surprised and impressed about how this has gone from a rather obscure and arcane subject to one that seems to be at the forefront of public, media, and political concerns, both nationally and internationally. My concern is that we may be moving from an irrational lack of care about global warming to an equally irrational panic about it, so that we make decisions quickly out of fear rather than based on clear thinking and scientific fundamentals.

The second excerpt is from Botkin's recent Op Ed in the Wall Street Journal, titled "Global Warming Delusions":

I'm not a naysayer. I'm a scientist who believes in the scientific method and in what facts tell us. I have worked for 40 years to try to improve our environment and improve human life as well. I believe we can do this only from a basis in reality, and that is not what I see happening now. Instead, like fashions that took hold in the past and are eloquently analyzed in the classic 19th century book "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds," the popular imagination today appears to have been captured by beliefs that have little scientific basis.

Some colleagues who share some of my doubts argue that the only way to get our society to change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe, and that therefore it is all right and even necessary for scientists to exaggerate. They tell me that my belief in open and honest assessment is naïve. "Wolves deceive their prey, don't they?" one said to me recently. Therefore, biologically, he said, we are justified in exaggerating to get society to change.

I'm still unsure about the magnitude of the global warming phenomenon, but material like this helps.  This should make the week between the holidays even cheerier than I'd planned. 

Happy holidays to all. 

Comments

[CoRev]

Merry Xmas back at you, Steve. As to AGW, with the preponderance of hyperbolic monologues going on, I agree with you.

The findings of the effort to survey the US Historical Climate Network (USHCN), you know those stations where we get most of our climate data, is just amazing. Many, if not most, are in Urban heat islands. Some are so poorly located as to make their readings barely useful. Some well sited and well maintained stations show a completely different pattern from those nearby in less well suited conditions. But, we rely on their data to build the GISS data base, which nearly everybody uses.

If interested some of the results form the survey can be found here. http://www.surfacestations.org/

[Bob]

Ha! Tulips anyone?

A very Happy Hoilday season to you, Steve.

I'm going stock up on incandescent bulbs. I figure to do pretty well on Ebay in 2 or 3 years.

[John Henry]

Merry Christmas to you.

I too am a fan of the Econtalk podcasts. I listen to almost nothing but podcasts anymore, Econtalk and others.

One great site I just found, with hundreds of podcasts on a wide range of subjects is Bostons WGBH Forum. (WGBH brought us, among other things, Masterpiece Theater)

http://www.forum-network.org/wgbh/forum.php?category=History

Much as I enjoy your blog, I figure we might share a taste in podcasts. Care to share some of the others you are listening to?

Happy blogging in 2008!

John Henry

[Gil]

I don't know what the fuss is over CFLs. It's not like they're some sort of enviro-charity thing - rather the l'il buggers use 20% of the wattage of their equivalent incandescents. The CFLs I use provide smoother whiter light than the old incandescent but they take a minute to full brighten when just turned on.

Still I wonder though how good global warming might for most of us when Greenlanders are planting crops in the hope that global warming will work in their favor. I mean these people live near the Arctic for goodness sake!

*

[Gil]

P.S. Take two:

*-|:)

[Steve]

I installed CFLs a year ago; replaced all possible incandescents en masse. I am happy to report they are accomplishing their intended purpose: saving me the trouble of setting up the ladder and replacing burned out bulbs. (They are supposed to last six years; one down, five to go.) They are a real labor saver; I'm a big fan of CFLs now. Looking forward to a 150-watt equivalent, however; need more light for reading as I age.

I just hope the reduced demand on the power plants doesn't exacerbate global cooling.

[Bob]

I have a number of issues with CFL's.

1. I'm opposed to the government mandated phase out. Am skeptical that the "market" will bring down prices (there's only 3 main players and I'd want to know more about how capital intensive it would be for a new low cost competitor to come online). Actually, I could expand my thoughts on this whole notion of market demand and competition but I don't want write an essay here.

2. Disposal could be problematic. Even with the tiny amount of mercury involved I'm expecting additional disposal costs; costs that have yet to be considered and would negatively impact the ROI.

3. I want instant on. Having to wait 10 seconds or so for full light in a dark room sounds annoying and perhaps unsafe.

My hope is that LED technology is such that it will make CFL's obsolete before they benefit from this government sponsored traction. They've pretty much taken over flashlights, are coming on in traffic lights and making their way into automobiles.

[Andy]

Does this mandate mean that all incandescents will be abolished? For example flashlights, Xmas tree lights, brake/interior/turnsignals for cars, or any other non-household lighting types?

Anyhoo, I bought my 1st CFL about 15 years ago, back when they were about 10x as much as incandescents. I didn't need for the gubmint to tell me to buy them, I figured if the bulb would last 7 - 10 years, I'd be ahead in TCO, particularily in Germany where electricity is high. After moving back to the US, I was delighted to find them here as well and cheaper to own/operate in the long run.

That said:
1) CFLs are great when only one light setting is required.

However, what about rooms that are best suited for dimmers, i.e. master bathroom, TV room & den? You can't dim CFLs. Personally, I like the "blue" daylight bulbs for max & comfortable light when needed, yet turn low as befits the mood.

2) CFLs are great if heat is not required.

However, there are plenty of scenarios where incandescent heat is part of the equation. To with chicken coops etc. With CFLs, one needs both a light & heat source. Also in areas where heating is electric, the heaters will have to work longer to make up for the lack of heat from CFLs.

Bottomline, Congress needs to quit mandating consumer products, or the artificial scarcity thereof, when the market is perfectly capable of deciding which product is the best for a given application.

3) And I just thot of another fine mess that the gubmint just created. Ceiling fans!

OEMs have recently switched from the standard base to the candelabras base (skinnier & shorter) per some big brother mandate. Likewise other lighting fixtures which switched to this form-factor. Yet, as far as I know, no one makes CFLs for it.

Not saying it can't be done, but take a look at a 6 Watt CFL and figure out how it could be downsized to fit in a candelabra base. Methinks people will have to rip out their original light fixtures and install new ones for CFL. Or replace the fan/light combo completely. Talk about added unintended costs.