Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
 

Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote:
On 3 Jul, 00:54, "Pyriform" wrote:
Alex Heney wrote:
While this is nothing whatsoever to do with widescreen (of course,
that is just your hobby-horse), it is rather surprising that LCD and
plasma screen TV sets *do* use more power than the equivalent CRT.

I couldn't find the specifications of many, but looking on the
Philips website, they have the full spec including power
consumption of all their TVs.

And the CRT 32PW9570/05 uses 109W in normal usage, while the same
sized LCD 32PF9641D/10 uses 128W (it does use less in standby).

The LCD will have a larger screen size, of course...

Err, it will?
32" is 32".

Not in the land of CRTs. Never has been.

Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
 

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 18:05:03 +0000 (UTC), "John Maybury"
wrote:

Cynic, you're always getting suckered by half_wit into joining
disruptive arguments. You're dancing on a troll's hook.

It starts as a troll, but very often develops into an interesting
exchange of views that are not so full of insults and slanging-matches
to make them boring.

I think I understand where half-pint is coming from pretty well. He
knows full well how ridiculous his points are - they are mostly
*parodies* of a scientific principle or theory, occasionally quite
clever. I expect he has fun seeing people tie themselves in knots
trying to explain to him where his understanding is faulty - like
watching a person teach their grandmother to suck eggs.

--
Cynic

Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
 

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 19:19:05 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

The science underpinning global warming has nothing to do with the
"nanny state". Carbon dioxide does not care how you vote, or even if
you vote.

No, it doesn't. And it would also appear that none of the warm phases
of the many historic climate changes in the past could have been
caused by man's activities - especially seeing that the earlier cycles
occured before there *were* any men on the planet.

Quite. They had other causes, such as the Milankovitch cycles, which is why
the present warming can be seen to be acyclic.

The cycles are reasonably regular, and this present cycle is occurring
at the same time that the cyclical changes would predict it would
occur. Mere coincidence?

Neither coincidence nor true! What "cycle" did you have in mind? It appears
to be unknown to conventional science.

For gooodness' sake! Look at the graph of global temperatures going
back to prehistoric times (do you really need me to find a link to
such a graph?). Note its cyclical nature. Then note how the present
changes fit pretty well into the cyclical pattern.

--
Cynic

Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
 

On 3 Jul, 11:58, Huge wrote:
On 2007-07-03, Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote:





On 3 Jul, 00:54, "Pyriform" wrote:
Alex Heney wrote:
While this is nothing whatsoever to do with widescreen (of course,
that is just your hobby-horse), it is rather surprising that LCD and
plasma screen TV sets *do* use more power than the equivalent CRT.

I couldn't find the specifications of many, but looking on the Philips
website, they have the full spec including power consumption of all
their TVs.

And the CRT 32PW9570/05 uses 109W in normal usage, while the same
sized LCD 32PF9641D/10 uses 128W (it does use less in standby).

The LCD will have a larger screen size, of course...

Err, it will?
32" is 32".

Not in the wacky world of TV marketing, it isn't.

A 32" LCD is larger than a 32" CRT, because the marketing dweebs decided
to measure the entire front face of the tube on a CRT - the picture is
smaller than that.

I thought that was just PC monitors that were measured like that.
Oh well.

Doc

Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
 

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 03:14:08 -0700, Boltar
wrote:

The cycles are reasonably regular, and this present cycle is occurring
at the same time that the cyclical changes would predict it would
occur. Mere coincidence?

Left to its own devices the world should be starting to get cooler now
as it heads into another ice age.

Where do you get that from? Here's a graph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:V...core-petit.png

Careful you read the time-line the correct way - time is depicted
moving right to left instead of the usual direction.

The cycles look pretty regular to me, and there are enough of them
recorded (5 over the past 450000 years) that it would not be
unreasonable to use them predictively even if we had no understanding
of why they occur.

It looks to me that the present global warming cycle started some
25000 years ago, and we are *approaching* the peak of this warm cycle,
but have not yet reached the average peak of previous cycles, so there
is probably still a few thousand years of global warming left to go
before we start back down to another ice age. If anything there has
recently been an atypical early downturn, though allowances must be
made for possible changes in the quality of data contained in the ice
recently compared with very old ice. It is quite possible that the
further back you go in the ice sample, the more detail is lost - note
that the graph gets less "fuzzy" the older it is.

--
Cynic

Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
 

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 18:14:58 +0000 (UTC), "John Maybury"
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 19:08:26 +0100, Cynic wrote:

snip

Don't engage with this. It's disrupting several groups and you're
just looking like a fool.

I'm fine thanks. Instead of telling me what threads I may and may not
post to, and which posters I may and may not engage in a discussion
with, why not do as I do and delete all the threads that don't
interest you?

--
Cynic

Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
 

"Pyriform" wrote in message
...

:
: The science underpinning global warming has nothing to do with the "nanny
: state". Carbon dioxide does not care how you vote, or even if you vote.
It's
: a greenhouse gas, and it behaves according to its physical properties.
: Atmospheric levels of CO2 are increasing due to human activities

most likely caused by the Continental types who drink fizzy water spiked
with CO2 don't cha' think? and it makes you fart.

Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
 

"Low Life #3" wrote in message
...
"Pyriform" wrote in message
...

:
: The science underpinning global warming has nothing to do with the
"nanny
: state". Carbon dioxide does not care how you vote, or even if you vote.
It's
: a greenhouse gas, and it behaves according to its physical properties.
: Atmospheric levels of CO2 are increasing due to human activities

most likely caused by the Continental types who drink fizzy water spiked
with CO2 don't cha' think? and it makes you fart.

It's all you young uns drinking fizzy lager when you should be supping real
ale.

Bill

Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
 

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
:
: most likely caused by the Continental types who drink fizzy water spiked
: with CO2 don't cha' think? and it makes you fart.
:
: It's all you young uns drinking fizzy lager when you should be supping
real
: ale.
:
: Bill

I plead guilty. However I beg the court for mercy as I live in Germany and
ale isn't a local tradition.

Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
 

Cynic wrote:
Pyriform wrote:
The cycles are reasonably regular, and this present cycle is
occurring at the same time that the cyclical changes would predict
it would occur. Mere coincidence?

Neither coincidence nor true! What "cycle" did you have in mind? It
appears to be unknown to conventional science.

For gooodness' sake! Look at the graph of global temperatures going
back to prehistoric times (do you really need me to find a link to
such a graph?). Note its cyclical nature. Then note how the present
changes fit pretty well into the cyclical pattern.

Yes, I really do need you to provide me with a link to such a graph. Such an
astonishing paleoclimatic reconstruction would be glorious to behold, I am
sure.