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

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

You make the classic error of imagining that CO2 cannot be both a
feedback and a forcing.

and you make the classic error of falling victim of a very clever
financial scheme. Do some research and you'll find Al Gore is
invested heavily in *carbon trading*. Conflict of interest?

Al Gore did not invent global warming. Nor has he done any of the research.

You are an idiot.

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 09:36:33 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Alex Heney wrote:
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...

Any chance of you actually *reading* what you respond to?

I was talking about the *same* size screen.

And the LCD will have a larger viewable screen size, so you are not
comparing like with like.

I am comparing as close as possible "like with like".

The actual screen size is the same, so what you posted above was
wrong.

The *viewable* screen size is *slightly* lower with the CRT, and would
need a 30.2" LCD to give an exact equivalent, but Philips don't make a
30" LCD.

And if they did, it would have a lower power consumption. Thus you are not
comparing like with like, which was my entire point. The fact that the
manufacturer makes it impossible for you to compare like with like by not
producing an exact equivalent is irrelevant!


It would *still* have a higher power consumption than the CRT version,
as the difference in power consumption is a higher percentage than the
percentage difference in screen "size".
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
URA Redneck if your truck cost more than your house.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 20:33:21 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

You're just determined to believe it even though you admit the
evidence says the opposite.

It does nothing of the sort. How can I help it if you are too stupid to
understand what is obvious to anyone with any scientific training? I expect
you watched Martin Durkin's idiotic documentary on the telly and believed
it.

I prefer Occum's razor. Global warming has occured 5 times in
recorded history in a regular cyclical pattern. We are going through
a phase of global warming that is in perfect line with previous
cycles. The previous cycles were obviously not caused by man's
activities. I am now being told that our activities over the past few
hundred years is responsible for the present cycle that began many
thousands of years ago.

Show me that any of the above statements are factually incorrect.

--
Cynic

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 09:36:44 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Alex Heney wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 23:36:49 +0100, Scott
wrote:

Alex Heney wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 00:54:09 +0100, "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).


A very odd result - when looking at a 19" CRT compared to LCD the
situation is reversed. Why should that be?
19" LCD = 40W http://tinyurl.com/3xz6wf
19" CRT = 100W http://tinyurl.com/2g2v3k

Possibly something to do with the fact they are computer monitors, not
TVs. Adding the tuner probably makes more difference to an LCD.

That's just silly. The actual answer is that the LCD power consumption is
determined largely by the power consumed by its backlight, which in most
designs is a fixed overhead irrespective of the image content. The power
required increases fairly linearly with screen area. Parity with CRT power
consumption is reached at a somewhat higher screen size than 19".

Plus the fact that the CRT is no longer manufactured, so is obsolete.

How is that in any way relevent?


Modern ones of larger size use less power than his monitor, presumably
due to improvements in design.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
URA Redneck if your truck cost more than your house.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 19:11:42 +0100, Scott
wrote:

That's completely unsurprising, given that
increases in atmospheric CO2 do not initiate recovery from ice ages, but
instead serve to amplify the warming.

So what prevents a runaway situation in that case?

CO2 is pumped rapidly into the atmosphere so natural mechanisms can eventually
cope.

So what's different this time?

In the present (acyclic) warming,

How can you call this warming "acyclic" when it very clearly fits the
cyclic pattern very well?

It does no such thing. What graph are you looking at?

How many times do you want me to post the link? Look at my posts in
this thread. If neither of my posts with the link show up, get
another news server.

increases in atmospheric CO2 lead the temperature rise, as you would expect
from a consideration of the physics involved. A couple of decades of warming
will follow even if CO2 remains at the present levels, until the planet
establishes a new radiative equilibrium at a higher temperature.

What did you think you were pointing out again?

You have a short retention period.

I was pointing out that the graph would strongly indicate that global
warming would be expected right now whether man was on the planet or
not.

You are trying to claim black is white. It strongly indicates that global
cooling would be expected. The current warming is due to CO2 (a vertical green
line to a level of 383 should be added to account for CO2, together with a
vertical blue line of length 0.7 to account for the temperature rise over the
last century).

What graph are *you* looking at that shows that we have already
reached the previous peaks and should now be well on the downslope?

--
Cynic

Cynic wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 20:33:21 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

You're just determined to believe it even though you admit the
evidence says the opposite.

It does nothing of the sort. How can I help it if you are too stupid
to understand what is obvious to anyone with any scientific
training? I expect you watched Martin Durkin's idiotic documentary
on the telly and believed it.

I prefer Occum's razor.

That's the wrong make, and yours is clearly blunt.

Global warming has occured 5 times in
recorded history in a regular cyclical pattern. We are going through
a phase of global warming that is in perfect line with previous
cycles.

You are deluded. I asked you to present evidence, and you linked to a graph
that shows nothing of the sort.

Cynic wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 19:11:42 +0100, Scott
wrote:

That's completely unsurprising, given that
increases in atmospheric CO2 do not initiate recovery from ice ages, but
instead serve to amplify the warming.

So what prevents a runaway situation in that case?

CO2 is pumped rapidly into the atmosphere so natural mechanisms can eventually
cope.

So what's different this time?


I believe I answered that question, but on reflection I see I missed a 'not'
out. It should read "CO2 is NOT pumped rapidly into the atmosphere...". However
as we have spoken about this before I would have thought that you would have
remembered that fact.



In the present (acyclic) warming,

How can you call this warming "acyclic" when it very clearly fits the
cyclic pattern very well?

It does no such thing. What graph are you looking at?

How many times do you want me to post the link? Look at my posts in
this thread. If neither of my posts with the link show up, get
another news server.

I have been looking at the link you posted. And it shows no such thing.


increases in atmospheric CO2 lead the temperature rise, as you would expect
from a consideration of the physics involved. A couple of decades of warming
will follow even if CO2 remains at the present levels, until the planet
establishes a new radiative equilibrium at a higher temperature.

What did you think you were pointing out again?

You have a short retention period.

I was pointing out that the graph would strongly indicate that global
warming would be expected right now whether man was on the planet or
not.

You are trying to claim black is white. It strongly indicates that global
cooling would be expected. The current warming is due to CO2 (a vertical green
line to a level of 383 should be added to account for CO2, together with a
vertical blue line of length 0.7 to account for the temperature rise over the
last century).

What graph are *you* looking at that shows that we have already
reached the previous peaks and should now be well on the downslope?


The one you posted. With a scale which can't show the last hundred years of
data and has lead you to the wrong conclusions.

"Low Life #3" wrote in message
...
"Pyriform" wrote in message
...
:
: You make the classic error of imagining that CO2 cannot be both a
feedback
: and a forcing.


Either way there is no stopping it you can't stop the oceans producing CO2
well not within 800 years anyway.

and you make the classic error of falling victim of a very clever
financial
scheme. Do some research and you'll find Al Gore is invested heavily in
*carbon trading*. Conflict of interest?

Cynic wrote:

Show me that any of the above statements are factually incorrect.

I prefer Occum's razor.

Occam's Razor. After William of Occam.

Global warming has occured 5 times in recorded history

Wrong. Global warming has never occurred in recorded history. Cooling
has - when there were mega-volcanoes.

in a regular cyclical pattern.

Wrong. There is no cyclic pattern of terrestrial climate. There are
however several pericycles which have an effect on climate.

We are going through a phase of global warming that is in perfect line
with previous cycles.

Wrong. Current climate change is utterly unlike any previous change
and many times greater than any has been in the past - historic or
prehistoric - with only three exceptions: the so-called "snowball
earth" period and the two largest mass planetary extinctions.

The previous cycles were obviously not caused by man's
activities.

Well, except for the fact that they were not cyclic, you are right
with this one. It is the single and only point you were right on.

The Magpie wrote:

Current climate change is utterly unlike any previous change

cough ollocks.