There appears to be three recent / up and coming items on the
governments agenda, all apparently linked to global warming (ops climate
change, why the name change is global warming not happening now???)
1. Banning incandescent lamps
2. Banning of paving of the front gardens without permission
3. Options to have free/ partially lower cost insulation (even if we do
end up getting higher fuel bills to pay for it)

Whilst I may appear cynical I do have a number of basic questions which
I can’t find a definitive source for the answers
On banning (of importing / making) incandescent lamps, as I understand
it 100W already gone
60W from 1st Jan 2009. My question is this just the 75 & 100W standard
Perl or clear light bulb, and this excludes any special build for
example halogen for out side lights ? Is there a web iste with all the
details on?
The front garden planning permission, if I correct in thinking this is
only a ban if you don’t use the special bricks with gaps in-between?
Lastly the insulation, there appears to be a number of web sites which
offer this service, any recommendations??, and is the grant only handed
out to a limited number of companies, i.e. you have to be registered at
a fee to take part in the scheme.
Some of the sites appear to say for cavity wall there must be at least
a 50 mm cavity. When cavities were first introduced was 50mm the minimum
space. I live in an early 60s semi and I’m sure the gap in mine is close
to or slightly under 50mm? will it even be worth it ? or is the 50mm for
another reason?
Many Thanks

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 16:34:18 +0100, Exhausted
wrote:


There appears to be three recent / up and coming items on the
governments agenda, all apparently linked to global warming (ops climate
change, why the name change is global warming not happening now???)
1. Banning incandescent lamps
2. Banning of paving of the front gardens without permission
3. Options to have free/ partially lower cost insulation (even if we do
end up getting higher fuel bills to pay for it)

Whilst I may appear cynical I do have a number of basic questions which
I can’t find a definitive source for the answers
On banning (of importing / making) incandescent lamps, as I understand
it 100W already gone
60W from 1st Jan 2009. My question is this just the 75 & 100W standard
Perl or clear light bulb, and this excludes any special build for
example halogen for out side lights ? Is there a web iste with all the
details on?
The front garden planning permission, if I correct in thinking this is
only a ban if you don’t use the special bricks with gaps in-between?
Lastly the insulation, there appears to be a number of web sites which
offer this service, any recommendations??, and is the grant only handed
out to a limited number of companies, i.e. you have to be registered at
a fee to take part in the scheme.
Some of the sites appear to say for cavity wall there must be at least
a 50 mm cavity. When cavities were first introduced was 50mm the minimum
space. I live in an early 60s semi and I’m sure the gap in mine is close
to or slightly under 50mm? will it even be worth it ? or is the 50mm for
another reason?
Many Thanks


I wonder how much energy goes into the production of an 'Energy Saving
Lightbulb'. What is the Carbon Cost of designing and manufacturing a
wind powered generator? When will these investments pay back in
environmental terms?

I have a STRONG suspicion that the cost of provision is being ignored.
And that the pronounced 'savings' are advertised/estimated (you all
choose) on the basis of the running costs, also ignoring maintenance
and disposal costs.

IMO, most folk have a fairly short Event Horizon - especially the
Pundits, Activists and the Politicians, who all have immediate
agendas.

I'd like to see a proper, standardized Through Life Cost Model (Womb
to Tomb) tabled so that the rest of us can make a judgement about the
efficay of the various 'solutions' that are being pressed upon us by
the various entities that seek to influence and control our lives.

As somebody else said, the 'Carbon Footprint' is just another faith
based system whereby self appointed experts get to impose their views
on the rest of us. Previous examples include Religions (of various
flavours), 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', 'Five Portions a Day',
'Binge Drinking', 'Safe Sex' and so on. Going back in time,
Puritanism could also be thrown into the pot. There's a twisted urge
within everyone of us to impose our views and prejudices on everyone
else.

The exhortations to 'Save the Planet' are bunk. The planet will
survive for the forseeable future; the Human Race (and various other
species) may not. I can live with that.

"Exhausted" wrote in message
...

There appears to be three recent / up and coming items on the governments
agenda, all apparently linked to global warming (ops climate change, why
the name change is global warming not happening now???)

Despite a 4% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the same period, there has
been no global warming since 1998. There was even a significant drop in the
global average temperature in 2007, which many attribute to very low sunspot
activity. The next sunspot cycle is also running late, something that,
historically, has preceded decades long periods of global cooling.

Colin Bignell

wrote:


The exhortations to 'Save the Planet' are bunk. The planet will
survive for the forseeable future; the Human Race (and various other
species) may not. I can live with that.

E4r, theres a contradiction in terms there. If the human race dies,
unless you're are a gibbon, you wont be living with that.


However yes, all this crap can be limped under the term 'ecobollox' or
'greenwash'

Basically marketing done on the basis of it being in some way greener,
with in reality zero real advantage and in many case s a downright downside.

Windmills spring to mind at this point.

nightjar cpb@ wrote:
"Exhausted" wrote in message
...
There appears to be three recent / up and coming items on the governments
agenda, all apparently linked to global warming (ops climate change, why
the name change is global warming not happening now???)

Despite a 4% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the same period, there has
been no global warming since 1998. There was even a significant drop in the
global average temperature in 2007, which many attribute to very low sunspot
activity. The next sunspot cycle is also running late, something that,
historically, has preceded decades long periods of global cooling.


not really an answer to his question though.

I guess the arctic being free from ice for the first time since anyone
has known it was there, is a sign of global cooling?

Oh well.


We are in the middele of a cool decade..but if the sunspot and NAO stiff
flips the other way, we will be in for a pasting.

I haven't seen frosts, except the remarkably late and damaging one that
screwed all the plums, for a couple of years..

Now all we need is a summer..

Colin Bignell

In article ,
Exhausted writes:

There appears to be three recent / up and coming items on the
governments agenda, all apparently linked to global warming (ops climate
change, why the name change is global warming not happening now???)
1. Banning incandescent lamps
2. Banning of paving of the front gardens without permission

You missed the recommendation of permission to be required to put
plants in your garden (including grass). Reasons given are that
clippings mostly end up in landfill, and some of the plants commonly
used (particularly lawns) need watering in hot dry weather.

3. Options to have free/ partially lower cost insulation (even if we do
end up getting higher fuel bills to pay for it)

Whilst I may appear cynical I do have a number of basic questions which
I can’t find a definitive source for the answers
On banning (of importing / making) incandescent lamps, as I understand
it 100W already gone 60W from 1st Jan 2009.

And 40W from 1 Jan 2010. However, this isn't a ban. It's just an
agreement between the main retailers and the government to not
stock those lamps, so they're no longer accessible to householders.
Some retailers have reported they can't get enough 100W lamps for
their current demand any longer, as factories have already ceased
production in anticipation.

My question is this just the 75 & 100W standard
Perl or clear light bulb, and this excludes any special build for
example halogen for out side lights ? Is there a web iste with all the
details on?

It's just GLS (General Lighting Service) lamps, i.e. regular pear
shaped lamps, clear and perl, at least at this stage.

The front garden planning permission, if I correct in thinking this is
only a ban if you don’t use the special bricks with gaps in-between?

Water companies are allowed to charge for rainwater runoff from
your land now, e.g. due to runoff from a paved area into the road
or into a storm drain which carries the water away from your land.
At the moment, they're going around calculating the new fees for
commercial premises (rain runoff from a warehouse or car park which
is carried off the land is very lucrative for them). When commercial
premises are done, they will probably start on residential ones
(although they could do those now if they wanted to). I wouldn't be
surprised if the permission to pave your land would link into these
new charges, if your paving isn't permiable and with barriers to
prevent runoff from your land.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Andrew Gabriel wrote:


Water companies are allowed to charge for rainwater runoff from
your land now, e.g. due to runoff from a paved area into the road
or into a storm drain which carries the water away from your land.
At the moment, they're going around calculating the new fees for
commercial premises (rain runoff from a warehouse or car park which
is carried off the land is very lucrative for them). When commercial
premises are done, they will probably start on residential ones
(although they could do those now if they wanted to). I wouldn't be
surprised if the permission to pave your land would link into these
new charges, if your paving isn't permiable and with barriers to
prevent runoff from your land.

Wonder if they will apply that to patios? Great news for a 'free draining'
decking installer :-)


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 13 Sep 2008 18:18:12 GMT, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

It's just GLS (General Lighting Service) lamps, i.e. regular pear
shaped lamps, clear and perl, at least at this stage.

So rugged service, for use in inspection lamps or other places subject to
high vibration or shock are still available?

Water companies are allowed to charge for rainwater runoff from
your land now, e.g. due to runoff from a paved area into the road
or into a storm drain which carries the water away from your land.

Don't a lot of water companies already charge for rain water that goes
into the "drains". There might be a distinction between rain water going
into foul water system or the into storm water system (if it exists in
that locality). If you have your own soakaway that's free.

I only pay the water company for supply, so out of touch with mains waste
water charging.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article et,
"Dave Liquorice" writes:
On 13 Sep 2008 18:18:12 GMT, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

It's just GLS (General Lighting Service) lamps, i.e. regular pear
shaped lamps, clear and perl, at least at this stage.

So rugged service, for use in inspection lamps or other places subject to
high vibration or shock are still available?

They should be, but I don't think I ever saw one in a retail
outlet anyway. I used to find with those inspection lamps that
you started off with a 40W lamp, which turned into a 60W lamp
on the first ding, and a 100W lamp on the second ding, and a
photoflood on the third ding, and stopped working on the forth
ding... Probably because I never bothered searching out the
rough service lamps.

Also (forgot to say), coloured lamps, even GLS ones, can still
be stocked, although it may be that they too run foul of all the
manufacturing plant shutting down. If you can find those cheap
painted ones where the paint flakes off after a few days in the
rain and sun, you've got yourself a white GLS lamp!

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

The message et
from "Dave Liquorice" contains these words:

Don't a lot of water companies already charge for rain water that goes
into the "drains". There might be a distinction between rain water going
into foul water system or the into storm water system (if it exists in
that locality). If you have your own soakaway that's free.

I only pay the water company for supply, so out of touch with mains waste
water charging.

Scottish Water charge commercial premises for

Water by the cubic metre if there's a meter, otherwise a figure based on
rateable value
Waste water going into the sewer system as an assumed proportion of the
wter going through the meter (90% IIRC)
Waste water going into the sewer system based on rateable value if
there's no meter.
Surface water drainage (1) in resepct of roads drainage etc.
Surface water drainage (2) in respect of drainage of rainwater falling
on your property and entering the drains.

The last is the most controversial one, because if you DON'T have any
surface water entering their drains they don't believe it, even after
sending out multiple inspectors of their own, all of whom are deemed by
their employers to be, like the customer, liars.
They've also been known to try to charge for water on BOTH the meter AND
rateable value and to charge for water and drainage in respect of
premises which have no water supply and no connetion to their drains.

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Exhausted writes:
There appears to be three recent / up and coming items on the
governments agenda, all apparently linked to global warming (ops climate
change, why the name change is global warming not happening now???)
1. Banning incandescent lamps
2. Banning of paving of the front gardens without permission

You missed the recommendation of permission to be required to put
plants in your garden (including grass). Reasons given are that
clippings mostly end up in landfill, and some of the plants commonly
used (particularly lawns) need watering in hot dry weather.

3. Options to have free/ partially lower cost insulation (even if we do
end up getting higher fuel bills to pay for it)

Whilst I may appear cynical I do have a number of basic questions which
I can’t find a definitive source for the answers
On banning (of importing / making) incandescent lamps, as I understand
it 100W already gone 60W from 1st Jan 2009.

And 40W from 1 Jan 2010. However, this isn't a ban. It's just an
agreement between the main retailers and the government to not
stock those lamps, so they're no longer accessible to householders.
Some retailers have reported they can't get enough 100W lamps for
their current demand any longer, as factories have already ceased
production in anticipation.

My question is this just the 75 & 100W standard
Perl or clear light bulb, and this excludes any special build for
example halogen for out side lights ? Is there a web iste with all the
details on?

It's just GLS (General Lighting Service) lamps, i.e. regular pear
shaped lamps, clear and perl, at least at this stage.

The front garden planning permission, if I correct in thinking this is
only a ban if you don’t use the special bricks with gaps in-between?

Water companies are allowed to charge for rainwater runoff from
your land now, e.g. due to runoff from a paved area into the road
or into a storm drain which carries the water away from your land.
At the moment, they're going around calculating the new fees for
commercial premises (rain runoff from a warehouse or car park which
is carried off the land is very lucrative for them). When commercial
premises are done, they will probably start on residential ones
(although they could do those now if they wanted to). I wouldn't be
surprised if the permission to pave your land would link into these
new charges, if your paving isn't permiable and with barriers to
prevent runoff from your land.

Will they then pay me for the runoff that goes into my pond, and leaches
into the calciferous aquifers underneath then?

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 23:05:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Exhausted writes:
There appears to be three recent / up and coming items on the
governments agenda, all apparently linked to global warming (ops climate
change, why the name change is global warming not happening now???)
1. Banning incandescent lamps
2. Banning of paving of the front gardens without permission

You missed the recommendation of permission to be required to put
plants in your garden (including grass). Reasons given are that
clippings mostly end up in landfill, and some of the plants commonly
used (particularly lawns) need watering in hot dry weather.

3. Options to have free/ partially lower cost insulation (even if we do
end up getting higher fuel bills to pay for it)

Whilst I may appear cynical I do have a number of basic questions which
I can’t find a definitive source for the answers
On banning (of importing / making) incandescent lamps, as I understand
it 100W already gone 60W from 1st Jan 2009.

And 40W from 1 Jan 2010. However, this isn't a ban. It's just an
agreement between the main retailers and the government to not
stock those lamps, so they're no longer accessible to householders.
Some retailers have reported they can't get enough 100W lamps for
their current demand any longer, as factories have already ceased
production in anticipation.

My question is this just the 75 & 100W standard
Perl or clear light bulb, and this excludes any special build for
example halogen for out side lights ? Is there a web iste with all the
details on?

It's just GLS (General Lighting Service) lamps, i.e. regular pear
shaped lamps, clear and perl, at least at this stage.

The front garden planning permission, if I correct in thinking this is
only a ban if you don’t use the special bricks with gaps in-between?

Water companies are allowed to charge for rainwater runoff from
your land now, e.g. due to runoff from a paved area into the road
or into a storm drain which carries the water away from your land.
At the moment, they're going around calculating the new fees for
commercial premises (rain runoff from a warehouse or car park which
is carried off the land is very lucrative for them). When commercial
premises are done, they will probably start on residential ones
(although they could do those now if they wanted to). I wouldn't be
surprised if the permission to pave your land would link into these
new charges, if your paving isn't permiable and with barriers to
prevent runoff from your land.

Will they then pay me for the runoff that goes into my pond, and leaches
into the calciferous aquifers underneath then?

Is the Pope a Zoroastrian ?

Derek

(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

In article et,
"Dave Liquorice" writes:

So rugged service, for use in inspection lamps or other places subject
to high vibration or shock are still available?

They should be, but I don't think I ever saw one in a retail
outlet anyway.

I think I bought some in Halfords some years ago.

--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

The message
from Appin contains these words:

Surface water drainage (2) in respect of drainage of rainwater falling
on your property and entering the drains.

The last is the most controversial one, because if you DON'T have any
surface water entering their drains they don't believe it, even after
sending out multiple inspectors of their own, all of whom are deemed by
their employers to be, like the customer, liars.

I get a discount for not putting surface water down the foul drain.
Yorkshire water took my word for it without a quibble although it would
be very easy to prove as the foul drain is very close to ground level at
the house end.

--
Roger Chapman

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 18:36:50 +0100 someone who may be "nightjar"
cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk wrote this:-

Despite a 4% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the same period, there has
been no global warming since 1998. There was even a significant drop in the
global average temperature in 2007, which many attribute to very low sunspot
activity. The next sunspot cycle is also running late, something that,
historically, has preceded decades long periods of global cooling.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html

Feel free to tell us why you believe you know more about the climate
than the Meteorological Office.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:19:25 UTC, David Hansen
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 18:36:50 +0100 someone who may be "nightjar"
cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk wrote this:-

Despite a 4% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the same period, there has
been no global warming since 1998. There was even a significant drop in the
global average temperature in 2007, which many attribute to very low sunspot
activity. The next sunspot cycle is also running late, something that,
historically, has preceded decades long periods of global cooling.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html

Feel free to tell us why you believe you know more about the climate
than the Meteorological Office.

Why not...FoE are doing that all the time.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

On 14 Sep 2008 12:28:24 GMT someone who may be "Bob Eager"
wrote this:-

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html

Feel free to tell us why you believe you know more about the climate
than the Meteorological Office.

Why not...FoE are doing that all the time.

Really?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:
On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 18:36:50 +0100 someone who may be "nightjar"
cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk wrote this:-

Despite a 4% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the same period, there
has been no global warming since 1998. There was even a significant
drop in the global average temperature in 2007, which many attribute
to very low sunspot activity. The next sunspot cycle is also running
late, something that, historically, has preceded decades long
periods of global cooling.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html

Feel free to tell us why you believe you know more about the climate
than the Meteorological Office.

Here he goes again...



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

David Hansen wrote:
On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 18:36:50 +0100 someone who may be "nightjar"
cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk wrote this:-

Despite a 4% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the same period, there
has been no global warming since 1998. There was even a significant
drop in the global average temperature in 2007, which many attribute
to very low sunspot activity. The next sunspot cycle is also running
late, something that, historically, has preceded decades long
periods of global cooling.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html

Feel free to tell us why you believe you know more about the climate
than the Meteorological Office.

"Earlier on today, apparently, a woman rang the BBC and said she heard there
was a hurricane on the way; well, if you're watching, don't worry, there
isn't, but having said that, actually, the weather will become very windy,
but most of the strong winds, incidentally, will be down over Spain and
across into France".

Michael Fish, employee of the Meteorological Office (not the BBC), 15
October 1987.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:19:25 +0100
David Hansen wrote:

Feel free to tell us why you believe you know more about the climate
than the Meteorological Office.





Suspect it's because he's NOT plaid by the government to say what the
Gov wants said.

Save the world, eat politicians.

R.

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 00:18:53 +0100
Derek Geldard wrote:

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 23:05:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Is the Pope a Zoroastrian ?

Derek


No, but GoreDoom Broon is from Pluto. (courtesy of Walt Disney)

R.

"David Hansen" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 18:36:50 +0100 someone who may be "nightjar"
cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk wrote this:-

Despite a 4% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the same period, there has
been no global warming since 1998. There was even a significant drop in
the
global average temperature in 2007, which many attribute to very low
sunspot
activity. The next sunspot cycle is also running late, something that,
historically, has preceded decades long periods of global cooling.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html

Feel free to tell us why you believe you know more about the climate
than the Meteorological Office.

I make no such claim, although both Russian and Danish climatologists would
disagree with them. I have simply present easily checked facts and leave the
readers to draw their own conclusions. One additional fact is that the Met
Office is a government funded body that supports the official government
view on climate change.

The fact that there has been no global warming since 1998 comes from figures
produced by the Met Office Hadley Centre, which agree with those produced by
the University of Alabama in Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems. Those
figures show that global average temperatures remained virtually unchanged
in the following decade, except for a drop of 0.65C - 0.75C during 2007.
That is about the same as they rose in the preceding century. 2007 was also
a year of unusually low sunspot activity.

Sunspot cycle 24 was expected to start around the end of 2007. As it has not
yet started, it is considered to be running late, although still within
recorded variations.

Historically, late sunspot cycles have preceded sunspot minima, which have
coincided with extended periods of global cooling. The Maunder minimum
1645 - 1715, for example, during which sunspot activity was about 0.1% of
normal, coincided with the coldest part of Europe's little ice age. While
the Met Office may say that the mechanism by which cosmic radiation can
affect global climate is speculative and unquantified, the same would be
true of any of the current theories 50 years ago.

Colin Bignell

Suspect it's because he's NOT plaid by the government

Seems a bit of a check.

--
Frank Lee

David Hansen wrote:
On 14 Sep 2008 12:28:24 GMT someone who may be "Bob Eager"
wrote this:-

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html

Feel free to tell us why you believe you know more about the climate
than the Meteorological Office.
Why not...FoE are doing that all the time.

Really?


Definitely.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2008-09-14, Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:19:25 UTC, David Hansen
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 18:36:50 +0100 someone who may be "nightjar"
cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk wrote this:-

Despite a 4% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the same period, there
has
been no global warming since 1998. There was even a significant drop in
the
global average temperature in 2007, which many attribute to very low
sunspot
activity. The next sunspot cycle is also running late, something that,
historically, has preceded decades long periods of global cooling.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html

Feel free to tell us why you believe you know more about the climate
than the Meteorological Office.

Six "facts", none of which are any such thing.


Why not...FoE are doing that all the time.

http://www.climateaudit.org/

Surely you aren't suggesting people are changing the data to suit the
required predictions?
Try looking for some of the NOAA(IIRC) weather sat surface temp
measurements.. they have disappeared, probably due to the fact they showed a
drop in surface temps.

In message , nightjar
writes

"Exhausted" wrote in message
...

There appears to be three recent / up and coming items on the governments
agenda, all apparently linked to global warming (ops climate change, why
the name change is global warming not happening now???)

Despite a 4% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the same period, there has
been no global warming since 1998. There was even a significant drop in the
global average temperature in 2007, which many attribute to very low sunspot
activity. The next sunspot cycle is also running late, something that,
historically, has preceded decades long periods of global cooling.

Strangely enough, that argument has just been blown away on the climate
wars on BBC2 tonight

The data which indicated cooling came from satellites and contradicted
temperatures indicated by land based thermometers

The erroneous satellite data was due to the satellites a) slowing down
and b) dropping in orbit - and confirmed as erroneous by those who
originally interpreted the satellite data

--
geoff

On Sep 13, 5:48*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 16:34:18 +0100, Exhausted
wrote:





There appears to be three recent / up and coming items on the
governments agenda, all apparently linked to global warming (ops climate
change, why the name change is global warming not happening now???)
1. *Banning incandescent lamps

Whilst I may appear cynical I do have a number of basic questions which
I can’t find a definitive source for the answers
*On banning (of importing / making) incandescent lamps, as I understand
it 100W already gone
60W from 1st Jan 2009. My question is this just the 75 & 100W standard
Perl or clear light bulb, and this excludes any special build for
example halogen for out side lights ? Is there a web iste with all the
details on?


I wonder how much energy goes into the production of an 'Energy Saving
Lightbulb'. *What is the Carbon Cost of designing and manufacturing a
wind powered generator? *When will these investments pay back in
environmental terms?

I have a STRONG suspicion that the cost of provision is being ignored.
And that the pronounced 'savings' are advertised/estimated (you all
choose) on the basis of the running costs, also ignoring maintenance
and disposal costs. *

IMO, most folk have a fairly short Event Horizon - especially the
Pundits, Activists and the Politicians, who all have immediate
agendas.

I'd like to see a proper, standardized Through Life Cost Model (Womb
to Tomb) tabled so that the rest of us can make a judgement about the
efficay of the various 'solutions' that are being pressed upon us by
the various entities that seek to influence and control our lives.

http://www.wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=CFL_Lamps
addresses some of this. CFLs do make sense if youre happy with the
result - a lot of people arent though.


NT

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , nightjar
writes

"Exhausted" wrote in message
.. .

There appears to be three recent / up and coming items on the
governments
agenda, all apparently linked to global warming (ops climate change, why
the name change is global warming not happening now???)

Despite a 4% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the same period, there has
been no global warming since 1998. There was even a significant drop in
the
global average temperature in 2007, which many attribute to very low
sunspot
activity. The next sunspot cycle is also running late, something that,
historically, has preceded decades long periods of global cooling.

Strangely enough, that argument has just been blown away on the climate
wars on BBC2 tonight

I shall have to watch the programme before I can comment in full.

The data which indicated cooling came from satellites and contradicted
temperatures indicated by land based thermometers

It contradicted the NASA data, which has recently been revised, after it was
found that correcting errors found in the method of calculation resulted in
four of the warmest years on record ocurring in the 1930s. The details of
the changes arising from the revision are he

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63360

The Met Office Hadley Centre data, which also uses land based themometers,
agrees with the satellite data.

The erroneous satellite data was due to the satellites a) slowing down and
b) dropping in orbit - and confirmed as erroneous by those who originally
interpreted the satellite data

Those errors were first identified in 1998

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...54/ai_21071460

Colin Bignell

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:11:14 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

"Earlier on today, apparently, a woman rang the BBC and said she heard
there was a hurricane on the way; well, if you're watching, don't worry,
there isn't,

Technically Mr Fish was correct the Great Storm was not a hurricane as in
Ike or Gustav. If a hurricane, even small category 1 one, was to hit the
UK the damage done by the Great Storm would be nothing by comparision.
Pretty much the entire country would have devastation worse that the worse
bits caused by the Great Storm.

Hurricanes are *BIG* and *VERY* powerful.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:20:26 +0100 someone who may be "nightjar"
cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk wrote this:-


The fact that there has been no global warming since 1998

"Answer: At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU
and the NASA GISS analyses. In fact, it blew away the previous
record by .2 degrees C. (That previous record went all the way back
to 1997, by the way!)

"According to NASA, it was elevated far above the trend line because
1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the century. Choosing
that year as a starting point is a classic cherry pick and
demonstrates why it is necessary to remove chaotic year-to
year-variability (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data. Looking
at CRU's graph below, you can see the result of that smoothing in
black."

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329

Sunspot cycle 24 was expected to start around the end of 2007. As it has not
yet started, it is considered to be running late, although still within
recorded variations.

"Change in solar activity is one of the many factors that influence
the climate but cannot, on its own, account for all the changes in
global average temperature we have seen in the 20th Century.

"Changes in the Sun's activity influence the Earth's climate through
small but significant variations in its intensity. When it is in a
more active' phase as indicated by a greater number of sunspots on
its surface it emits more light and heat. While there is evidence of
a link between solar activity and some of the warming in the early
20th Century, measurements from satellites show that there has been
very little change in underlying solar activity in the last 30 years
there is even evidence of a detectable decline and so this cannot
account for the recent rises we have seen in global temperatures."

http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6233

Both references have been provided before.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:11:14 GMT someone who may be "The Medway
Handyman" wrote this:-

"Earlier on today, apparently, a woman rang the BBC and said she heard there
was a hurricane on the way; well, if you're watching, don't worry, there
isn't, but having said that, actually, the weather will become very windy,
but most of the strong winds, incidentally, will be down over Spain and
across into France".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/bbcweather/forecasters/michael_fish_1987storm.shtml




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:34:35 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Feel free to tell us why you believe you know more about the climate
than the Meteorological Office.
Why not...FoE are doing that all the time.

Really?

Definitely.

Though you neglected to provide an example.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.net...
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:11:14 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

"Earlier on today, apparently, a woman rang the BBC and said she heard
there was a hurricane on the way; well, if you're watching, don't worry,
there isn't,

Technically Mr Fish was correct the Great Storm was not a hurricane as in
Ike or Gustav. If a hurricane, even small category 1 one, was to hit the
UK the damage done by the Great Storm would be nothing by comparision.
Pretty much the entire country would have devastation worse that the worse
bits caused by the Great Storm.

Hurricanes are *BIG* and *VERY* powerful.

And very very wet.
There would be plenty of places under water.

--
Cheers
Dave.

David Hansen wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:34:35 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Feel free to tell us why you believe you know more about the climate
than the Meteorological Office.
Why not...FoE are doing that all the time.
Really?

Definitely.

Though you neglected to provide an example.


I find they can do that themselves more than adequately.

FOE is a religion, not a science.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:35:39 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Hurricanes are *BIG* and *VERY* powerful.

And very very wet. There would be plenty of places under water.

Naw, there wouldn't be any places left.

Look at the damage a silly little *gusts* to 40 or 50mph can do in an
urban area. Take those gusts, double 'em and make that sustained wind with
gusts even higher and there wouldn't be a lot left standing.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.net...
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:35:39 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Hurricanes are *BIG* and *VERY* powerful.

And very very wet. There would be plenty of places under water.

Naw, there wouldn't be any places left.

Look at the damage a silly little *gusts* to 40 or 50mph can do in an
urban area. Take those gusts, double 'em and make that sustained wind with
gusts even higher and there wouldn't be a lot left standing.

What wind speed are concrete tiles rated for?
They aren't fixed down.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:19:12 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Look at the damage a silly little *gusts* to 40 or 50mph can do in an
urban area. Take those gusts, double 'em and make that sustained wind
with gusts even higher and there wouldn't be a lot left standing.

What wind speed are concrete tiles rated for? They aren't fixed down.

I would expect the makers website to have that information available.

The concrete tiles we had on the barn used to bang quite nicely when the
wind got above about F8 (40mph sustained) and they where fixed. The slates
that replaced them rattle. There is an odd shaped vally between two gable
ends that are at 90 deg to each other and it's the top leeside bit in the
vally that really make the noise, presumably down to turbulance.

We are rather exposed, anything below F6 (25mph sustained) we don't notice
but vistors will comment "Isn't it windy?" when coming in (on the
sheltered side of the house) or when looking out of the windows at the
silver birch or rowan trees moving about a bit.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:20:26 +0100 someone who may be "nightjar"
cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk wrote this:-


The fact that there has been no global warming since 1998

"Answer: At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU
and the NASA GISS analyses. In fact, it blew away the previous
record by .2 degrees C. (That previous record went all the way back
to 1997, by the way!)

"According to NASA, it was elevated far above the trend line because
1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the century. Choosing
that year as a starting point is a classic cherry pick and
demonstrates why it is necessary to remove chaotic year-to
year-variability (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data. Looking
at CRU's graph below, you can see the result of that smoothing in
black."

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329

Did you have problems understanding the bit where the three other major
sources are in agreement that there has been no increase in global
temperatures since 1998?

NASA likes to re-write history.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2703
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63360


Sunspot cycle 24 was expected to start around the end of 2007. As it has
not
yet started, it is considered to be running late, although still within
recorded variations.

"Change in solar activity is one of the many factors that influence
the climate but cannot, on its own, account for all the changes in
global average temperature we have seen in the 20th Century.

"Changes in the Sun's activity influence the Earth's climate through
small but significant variations in its intensity. When it is in a
more active' phase as indicated by a greater number of sunspots on
its surface it emits more light and heat. While there is evidence of
a link between solar activity and some of the warming in the early
20th Century, measurements from satellites show that there has been
very little change in underlying solar activity in the last 30 years
there is even evidence of a detectable decline and so this cannot
account for the recent rises we have seen in global temperatures."

http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6233

You seem to suffer from comprehension problems. That is about whether solar
activity could be responsible for the measured increases in temperature
during the 20th century. It is not about whether sun spot cycle 24 is late
nor is it about whether solar minima have historically coincided with
decades long periods of global cooling. Of course, the NASA figures you
refer to above did, until the last re-write of history, show that four of
the warmest years in that century were in the 1930s, so perhaps there really
was no warming.

Colin Bignell

The message
from "nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk contains these words:

Did you have problems understanding the bit where the three other major
sources are in agreement that there has been no increase in global
temperatures since 1998?

So what is their current explanation for the excessive summer shrinkage
of the arctic ice, particularly this year.

--
Roger Chapman

"Roger" wrote in message
k...
The message
from "nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk contains these words:

Did you have problems understanding the bit where the three other major
sources are in agreement that there has been no increase in global
temperatures since 1998?

So what is their current explanation for the excessive summer shrinkage
of the arctic ice, particularly this year.

Excessive compared to what?
They haven't been keeping records for very long so why do you think it is
excessive?