Slashdot Log In
Ocean Circulation Doesn't Work As Expected
Posted by
kdawson
on Fri May 15, 2009 09:56 AM
from the veins-and-arteries-of-the-oceans dept.
from the veins-and-arteries-of-the-oceans dept.
techno-vampire writes with word that a long-accepted model of deep ocean currents is inaccurate. Deep Sea News has a summary of the research, to be published in Nature. The Woods Hole press release has more details. "A 50-year-old model of global thermohaline circulation that predicts a deep Atlantic counter current below the Gulf Stream is now formally called into question by an armada of subsurface RAFOS floats drifting 700 - 1500m deep. Nearly 80% of the RAFOS floats escaped the Deep Western Boundary Current (DWBC), drifting into the open ocean. This confirms suspicions that have been around since the 1990s, and likely plays havoc with global models of climate change."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
The global (computer) models of climate change (Score:5, Funny)
aren't accurate? For Gore's sake, what a surprise!
Re:The global (computer) models of climate change (Score:5, Insightful)
Ocean current that might vary in flow and not exactly match models that are decades old...sheesh. Don't they teach kids how to do fluid dynamics calculations with billions upon billions of variables all of which change over with time and depend on a multitude of other models which themselves have varying levels of accuracy to their data these days.
Parent
Re:The global (computer) models of climate change (Score:5, Funny)
sheesh. Don't they teach kids how to do fluid dynamics calculations with billions upon billions of variables all of which change over with time and depend on a multitude of other models which themselves have varying levels of accuracy to their data these days.
My wife went to grad school in physical oceanography (at WHOI, it turns out).
One of my MIT buddies was this guy who pretty much finished up course 18 (Mathematics) undergrad requirements at the end of his sophomore year, and spent the next two years studying these really thin, expensive, and badly printed books of what looked like the output of a line printer on the wrong parity setting. I knew my then girlfriend was in trouble when I told this guy what she was studying and he was impressed.
Parent
Re:The global (computer) models of climate change (Score:5, Funny)
Calculations! Huh! In my day, we solved Thermodynamic Navier-Stokes equations analytically or we didn't solve 'em at all. Yes sir, if you wanted something done right you had to solve it by hand! None of these razzle dazzle calumalators. We derived systems of diffeo-integral equations from first principles, solved them using power series with Bessel's Functions and we liked it!
Boundary conditions!? Hah! We used elliptic integrals and n^th order polynomials to generate our boundaries. None of your hoi polloi "splines" and "fractals". What good's a function that's not 10^th order continuous, I ask yah?! Bunch of whippersnappers! Let's see how your spline deals with my 4^th order constraint! Hah!
Floating point?! What luxury! In those times, if you wanted some numerical results, well sir, you had to generate an asymptotic series out to fifteen terms, and calculate your answer using surds and continued fractions, uphill both ways. In the snow. Course if you were lucky, you might get your 5 minute turn with the shared slide rule. That is, if it wasn't rusted up from the damp and cold. Great days.
"Billions upon billions of variables". You youngsters and your numerical models. Nothing gained that couldn't have been got from one afternoon with a fluid dynamics problem set. No wonder the world's gettin' warmer with all the HOT AIR comin' out you an all your bippity-boppity, hankly-pankly, good for nothin' electromonic computers !!
Parent
Re:The global (computer) models of climate change (Score:5, Interesting)
First, no scientist worth his paper will tell you anything is FACT. They will tell you there is sufficient evidence that supports the models and predictions. Science is about collecting evidence, not establishing facts. Sometimes, new evidence comes along that completely contradicts previous evidence (rare), but more often than not it simply guides "tweaks" to the models to incorporate new data. This new data is of the latter type. It does not in any way invalidate the previous research and data, it simply sheds new light on it.
That is the problem and why it is always a hot button issue.
No, it was made into a hot button issue, that was the problem. That's not the fault of the science, that's the fault of the ignorant media leading the even more ignorant populace.
But you will have to forgive a little cynicism and snarkiness
Why? If the cynicism is justified, that's one thing, but you're comporting the effect the media has had on sensationalizing the issue with the science behind it. The two are intertwined, but distinct.
those who do not approve of the grabs to power, money, and social engineering
Ya-huh, so who exactly are the people getting rich and powerful off of this? I've yet to get an adequate answer to that question.
Parent
Re:The global (computer) models of climate change (Score:5, Insightful)
How do we know it is fact when one of the fundamental premises behind it has changed so deeply? The ocean currents play a very deep and integrated part into the weather/climate of the planet. There was a study done in colorado which claimed that all of earths recorded warming can be attributed to changes in ocean temps. There was another claiming that the decadal oscillations have more of an effect on the climate and temperatures then Co2 has. Then there is the idea that the decadal oscillations have something to do with the solar cycles and the magnetic effects on the earth's magnetosphere and the solar storms we see.
Now we are being told the ocean currents are completely different then once believed. it's a matter of time before the differences are connected or disconnected to the other works but we are seeing the possibility that Global warming or climate change as they like to call it after the warming stopped, is completely founded in erroneous information and needs to be reexamined. We cannot in good faith claim that global warming is fact today given the severity of this claim. It's simply impossible to do so.
Parent
Driving Blind (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, now we don't know what might happen and we're *still* mucking with our climate.
Parent
Re:Driving Blind (Score:5, Interesting)
Today's oil and coal was once carbon dioxide that floated in the atmosphere. What was life like back then? Pretty much the same as now, but more tropical. Giant reptiles roamed the planet, while smaller reptiles (proto-mammals) scurried underfoot. It was one of Earth's most-productive periods and a great time to live, not a tragedy.
I think global warming, if it happens, will be great. No more frozen Canada or Siberia - we can settle those lands and grow more food than in the entire existence of humankind. It requires adaptation, not fear.
Parent
Re:Driving Blind (Score:5, Insightful)
No more frozen Canada or Siberia - we can settle those lands...
As a Canadian I just wanted to let you know that we have already "settled" our land and you can't have it.
I really hope we don't warm up due to global warming as our climate is what keeps most of the idiots out.
Parent
Re:Driving Blind (Score:5, Informative)
There's another word for "thawed tundra". It's "bogland", a state it already achieves for a couple months each summer, rendering it impassable to surface vehicles.
Parent
Re:Driving Blind (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to be picky, but how do you know it was a great time to live?
Parent
Re:Driving Blind (Score:5, Insightful)
Many of the biggest population centers are vulnerable to being wiped out by the rising sea levels. If the most pessimistic global warming predictions are true it will mean disruption of global economy on a scale far greater than WWII and over far longer period, with all the wars, famines and who knows what else this will bring. In short, yes humans will probably adapt to the changes in climate but the cost will be enormous, so I wouldn't call that "great".
Parent
Re:Driving Blind (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Driving Blind (Score:5, Interesting)
What you're asking is if ALL life could adapt quickly enough. But I'm sure the question on your mind is can humans adapt fast enough.
There is plenty of life on the planet that can handle extremely harsh environments. As the weaker life dies off, the stronger life will thrive. New ecosystems will form, and life will continue. We may not be happy with it, but it will be life.
Parent
Re:Driving Blind (Score:5, Insightful)
So, wait, industry, powered by free market pixie dust, will be able to move us to other planets (and presumably terraform those planets so we actually want to live there) if the world become inhospitable. But confronted with relatively modest regulations, they'll be utterly crippled. How strangely fragile of industry.
Industry whines and cries about the end of the world whenever regulation is proposed. Industries have wailed about limits on rat droppings in food, lead in paint, asbestos in insulation, minimun fuel efficiency, minimum wages, adding seat belts, banning smoking from restaurants. Somehow the world hasn't ended.
Of course, I can appreciate the agility of the free market. Take for example all of the freedom the banking industry had to agilely create new derivative securities and self management. That worked out gangbusters!
I'd have more faith in the free market to solve our problem if it wasn't so easy to turn costs like pollution into externalities, if the stock market didn't demand that companies think no further than a few years into the future. A few percent hit in our GDP today may be a good investment if it will save us from a massive hit in a decade.
Parent
Re:Driving Blind (Score:5, Interesting)
Read that, then try and tell me all the global warming hysteria is legitimate.
Parent
Re:Driving Blind (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Sounds like "denier" talk (Score:5, Insightful)
Being skeptical of scientists giving dogmatic claims of incredibly complex weather systems with billions of variables, known and unknown, sounds like Denier talk to me. Either that or you are obviously under the employ of oil companies, Dick Cheney or you are the guy who controls Karl Rove's weather machine. The one Bush used to destroy New Orleans.
Parent
Re:The global (computer) models of climate change (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:The global (computer) models of climate change (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, Newtonian physics will allow you to predict a planet's orbit with 99.9% accuracy; but add a bunch of planets that interact in complex ways, and let them orbit for a million years, and see how close your prediction is.
Parent
that won't stop old Al (Score:4, Funny)
Clearly this is a product of Western materialism. However, Al Gore will stop at nothing to demonstrate our danger:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/al_gore_caught_warming_globe_to [theonion.com]
No, No, now it's worse!!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
"long accepted" (Score:4, Informative)
what a suprise (Score:5, Insightful)
I love science (Score:5, Informative)
Damnit, I love science!
This is how it's supposed to work.
Doesn't contradict global warming (Score:5, Informative)
These results don't say that global warming is occurring. In fact, they neither support nor oppose the idea at all. The Woods Hole press release [eurekalert.org] is fairly neutral:
"May impact the work of global warming forecasters" is true; it might also influence the thinking of UFO chasers but that won't help determine whether they're piloted by little green men. This research will complicate models designed to model the specific effects of global warming. Given how much is unknown yet, and how much has yet to be determined by human activities (to the extent that we choose to mitigate or fail to mitigate our impact on the biosphere) those models are already only potentially correct by marvelous coincidence anyway.
Um, not quite. (Score:5, Informative)
IAAPO (physical oceanographer).
The quoted blog is being a little over-excited about this. There's nothing in WHOI's press release that suggests that this brings the thermohaline circulation tumbling down, and certainly nothing to play "havoc" with climate models. Quoth the press release:
And since this cold southward-flowing water is thought to influence and perhaps moderate human-caused climate change, this finding may impact the work of global warming forecasters.
"This finding means it is going to be more difficult to measure climate signals in the deep ocean," Lozier said. "We thought we could just measure them in the Deep Western Boundary Current, but we really can't."
In other words, the circulation is there, but it's more diffuse that expected, and so you can measure it by looking at a well-defined path along the continental shelf as expected. That requires some revamping of theory, and will make circulation model validation and data assimilation more difficult, but that's all.
The DWBC has an interesting scientific history -- it's one of the few ocean phenomena predicted by theory before it was observed, in part because its depth and slowness prevented observation.
But, hey, never mind, Al Gore, manbearpig, lalala I can't hear you.
The Difference Between Science and Politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Science: "We've observed that the Earth's climate is getting warmer by nearly a full degree Celsius over a period of observation of around 200 years. We've noticed a correlating increase in CO2 emissions in that timespan."
Politics: "GLOBAL WARMING IS GOING TO CHANGE EVERYTHING ABOUT OUR LIVES!"
Science: "But the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, so our dataset is incomplete."
Politics: "THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS GLOBAL WARMING, WE DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE EARTH!"
Science: "Of course, we've seen in tests that increasing the level of CO2 in an environment can significantly increase the temperature of an environment."
Politics: "CO2 CAUSES WORLD OT GET HOTTER!"
Science: "One of the leading theories we have as to the increase in global temperatures is this so-called 'blanket-effect'"
Politics: "GLOBAL WARMING IS BLANKET EFFECT! WE ALL MUST USE HYBRIDS NOW OR DIE!"
Science: "On the other hand, it's still a possibility that we're in a natural cycle of global warming. We saw a similar pattern in history, which occurred right before we experienced a miniature ice age."
Politics: "GLOBAL WARMING NATURAL CYCLE. ICE AGE IMMINENT!"
Repeat until you either change the channel or become so psychotic from the endless political bashing that you go out and kill 50 or 60 people, just to relieve the stress.
Bad Title, Bad Summary, Bad Article (Score:5, Informative)
I am a nature subscriber and I just read the letter which this crap is 'based on'. In what I find to be depressing regularity the content in Nature Magazine is misrepresented. Presumably because some of the content at Nature.com is only available to subscribers.
So the title of Slashdot submission is wrong. The summary and free article at deepseanews it is based on mischaracterize the content of the letter. And naturally most of the comments here on Slashdot don't take into account the article, the letter, or anything that smells to much like reality.
If anyone is particularly interested the study found additional new details about ocean currents which the suggest should be included in future model of global ocean currents. This isn't especially exciting but I suppose it's interesting from a point of view of making our understanding and models more complete.
So nothing there about ocean circulation not working the way scientists have described (or a "a major paradigm shift in ocean circulation theory.") Nothing there about failure of models. Nothing there about climate change being either true / not true or stronger / weaker.
This is just what most science is all about... making current understanding more complete or more correct. Below is the excerpt, which I believe to be publication available.
To understand how our global climate will change in response to natural and anthropogenic forcing, it is essential to determine how quickly and by what pathways climate change signals are transported throughout the global ocean, a vast reservoir for heat and carbon dioxide. Labrador Sea Water (LSW), formed by open ocean convection in the subpolar North Atlantic, is a particularly sensitive indicator of climate change on interannual to decadal timescales1, 2, 3. Hydrographic observations made anywhere along the western boundary of the North Atlantic reveal a core of LSW at intermediate depths advected southward within the Deep Western Boundary Current (DWBC)4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. These observations have led to the widely held view that the DWBC is the dominant pathway for the export of LSW from its formation site in the northern North Atlantic towards the Equator10, 11. Here we show that most of the recently ventilated LSW entering the subtropics follows interior, not DWBC, pathways. The interior pathways are revealed by trajectories of subsurface RAFOS floats released during the period 2003â"2005 that recorded once-daily temperature, pressure and acoustically determined position for two years, and by model-simulated 'e-floats' released in the subpolar DWBC. The evidence points to a few specific locations around the Grand Banks where LSW is most often injected into the interior. These results have implications for deep ocean ventilation and suggest that the interior subtropical gyre should not be ignored when considering the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation.
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:5, Insightful)
I do enjoy the irony.
This confirms suspicions that have been around since the 1990's, and likely plays havoc with global models of climate change.
So, in the AC's world, the entire underpinnings of ocean circulation can be incorrect, yet the conclusions are NOT to be questioned.
Hence the label, 'denier'.
That is not what I understand to be science.
Parent
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:5, Insightful)
The perennial war cry of the crank is "If this one thing is wrong, then nothing they say can be trusted!"
Of course, in the real world, all data has flaws, and all interpretations are subject to revision. So a demand for absolute perfection gives the crank license to engage in cherry-picking, rationalizing away the data he doesn't like, while accepting that which feeds his obsession.
Real science doesn't work that way. When new data comes in, or errors are found in old data, the scientist carefully reassesses conclusions in the light of the new evidence.
Parent
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:5, Informative)
There are two separate issues here. On the one hand there are certainly serious scientists working on climatology and climate change. I have no doubt they will incorporate the new information and work to improve their models. However, they are also much more careful about their certainty of the future, than...
The other side of the debate, which is political; it deals with what policies (if any) should be put in place to combat climate change. And in this realm, we are being bombarded by "it's settled science", "it's going to happen", "we have to act in ten years or it'll be too late", etc. ad inf. And the unseriousness of these positions is made clear by radical flaws in models such as the one referenced in this article.
Parent
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:5, Funny)
OMG. Best. Game. Title. Evar.
Parent
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:5, Interesting)
The down side is that if the 'conveyor' belt doesn't work as we expect, global warming may actually end up being WORSE. The (now questined) premise of the conveyor belt is that if the northern Atlantic ocean becomes less salty (due to melting Greenland ice), the water stops falling to the ocean depths, and since no conveyor means no warm gulf steam to warm the northeastern US and European continents, they will get colder.
This in turn produces more snowfall in the northern latitudes, thicker ice, etc. Which in turn reflects more sunlight lessening the effects of global warming.
So the conveyor belt may act as somewhat of a coarse 'brake' on global warming over longer time frames.
Or at least that was the theory. If the conveyor belt doesn't work as we thought, it might just mean we will feel the full effects of global warming.
Some of the deniers will jump on this as a natural cycle. Understand it that is a natural environment *response* to an unnatural influx of carbon dioxide from humans.
Parent
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:5, Insightful)
What I see is the scientific establishment diligently working to identify flaws in the existing theory of climate change and freely publishing any flaws found. The FACT is that the scientific community is vigorously collecting data to challenge and correct where necessary climate change theory, and has been for over two decades now. Note this is the same scientific community that has endorsed the current climate change theories and it's predictions - which include pretty fat error bars you know.
I understand that to be science and is why I respect the consensus of National Academies of Science (or equivalent bodies) across the first world in this matter (and not Mr Gore or Exxon or the headline of the week).
Parent
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod parent up. Global warming isn't science, it's politics.
No, it's actually science.
What do you think is going to happen now? Either scientists will ignore this data or they will incorporate it into their models... wanna bet they incorporate it?
Wanna bet CO2 still warms the atmosphere after they incorporate the new ocean current data? We won't know for sure until they incorporate the new data, but I'll take that bet.
Unless, of course, your contention is correct and they are not scientists - then they will simply ignore the new data, right?
Parent
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:5, Insightful)
Please. Researchers ignore data that break their theories all the time.
It may be worst in the medical world. For example, why do you think that cholesterol is targeted as enemy number one for heart health? There is no study that has ever demonstrated causality; 50% of people with heart disease have "normal" cholesterol; nearly all studies on the subject show that all-cause mortality is higher with low cholesterol; much better working theories exist.
So why is that hypothesis still treated as correct? Because reputations and huge amounts of money would be lost. Prominent people and institutions may even be found liable. Good science goes out the window in the face of that.
Regarding the subject at hand, you might want to look at what an ad hoc hypothesis [wikipedia.org] is.
Parent
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, there are TWO problems — the one you mention, and another one, where the people who make their coin on the status quo (and the politicians that they own) will ignore all evidence that the current way of doing business might make the planet unlivable. Or, at a minimum, cost a trillion dollars to adjust to as it changes.
Parent
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:5, Insightful)
I say stick to the status quo until we know we can't.
The problem with that is, what if the "oh we can't stick to the status quo" moment is actually a massive human extinction event?
The risk is that the "bullet has already been fired" so to speak. It won't hit for another 50 to 100 years, but it's on the way, and it'll cause damage when it finally does hit.
We don't know for sure if that's the case, but there certainly is a risk.
Parent
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
...when confronted with a choice, you choose money over the only known planet that sustains human life in the entire universe.
I'm not sure I can get on board with that. And something tells me that using less energy to do everyday tasks will lead to more technology, not less. Sticking with the status quo is the choice that provides no technology, and possibly spends finite resources on luxuries that could be used later for needs.
But fuck it. Hop in your hummer, crank the AC, and rush to sit in traffic. Buy the house tens of miles away from work so you can have a library and basement bar that get used about twice a decade. Terraform your yard with nice looking weeds, so the neighbors can enjoy it the whole 30 seconds they spend outside their front door.
Enjoy these pinnacles of human achievement, while they last.
Parent
Parent is STUPID, MOD DOWN!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
If you have to remove that cancerous tumor now or wait a year, what will you do?
Right now, it has already been proven to an extremely high degree of certainty, that global warming is both very serious and has a high probability.
Broken model? What broken model? The model for global warming is fully intact. The fact that one small part of an accessory needs some adjustment in no way breaks the model for global warming.
The only thing this study shows is that water that circulates in depths of 700 to 1500 meters under the surface travels in wider and slower paths than had been previously thought. The total flux of water is, naturally, the same, water isn't accumulating in the Arctic.
You speak as if we weren't already spending hundreds of billions to keep companies [chrysler.com] that cause global warming [gm.com] alive.
Parent
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:5, Interesting)
Really? What makes them preliminary state? The simple fact is, that the majority of data that feeds these models ARE known. In fact, it was because of these models that this experiment was done. Will it change the models? I would think so. Would it change them DRASTICALLY? I seriously doubt it. The simple fact is, that these models have been being developed for over a couple of decades. The real problem is that they do not appear to match what is going on. They all seem to indicate that we have MUCH longer time. Every time they make a prediction of things to occur in 20-30 years, it keeps happening NOW.
As to the trillion dollar adjustments, had America followed Nixon/Ford/Carters lead back in the 70's, and pushed for being off oil/coal, we would not be in Iraq, likely not be in afghanistan, and not have the exchange deficit that we have. The vast majority of the wests security and economic issues can be tied DIRECTLY to our being dependent on the same price fuel that other countries are on.
Actually, we pay more than most because we clean it up more. While China surpassed us in CO2 emissions several years ago, they surpassed us nearly a decade ago in major pollutants. The west MUST get off of importing fossil fuel and skip this garbage about Cap/Trade. Instead, we need to put in place a cap at TODAY's amount (i.e. no more), and then put in a time progressive co2 tax on all goods, esp. imported goods.
Parent
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:5, Interesting)
You're citing stock climate change deniers' arguments. They were refuted looooooong time ago. Do you think all climate scientists are idiots?
Specifically:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/historically-co2-never-causes.php [scienceblogs.com]
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/geological-history-does-not-support.php [scienceblogs.com]
From the long list of:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php [scienceblogs.com]
Parent
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:4, Informative)
That may be true now, but it used to be science, a long time ago, back in the 1990s, back when only journals and magazines such as Science or Nature would talk about it and that no one else cared or listened. I grew up in the 1990s in France reading Science & Vie, global warming was there all along, back then we called it 'climate warming', but then suddenly the American public started caring, and that's when the shit went down and it all became controversial and hysterical.
You damn kids and your newfangled climatological hysteria, get off my lawn!
Parent
Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:5, Funny)
There is no global warming. It's just the surface. The core temperature is unaffected.
Parent
Re:Darn it (Score:5, Interesting)
And I already replaced all my light bulbs with those dim, mercury-filled corkscrew kind!
I can't be the only one that hates those damn things. They are useful in areas where the lights are left on for extended periods but I find them to be highly annoying in areas that I walk into and out of quickly. They don't even manage to reach full brightness before I've accomplished what I came into the room to do.
They also seem to fail miserably if you have the misfortune of living somewhere that lacks stable voltage. My old apartment had voltage issues because the next door neighbor ran electric kiln's for a glass business. I'd watch the voltage dip from 118V down to 105V and back up to 118V for hours on end when she ran those damn things. The CFL's just couldn't take it. Most of them crapped out within six months. Regular incandescents worked just fine (albeit with annoying changes in brightness when the voltage dipped), as did regular fluorescents.
Parent
Re:Darn it (Score:5, Interesting)
Worked for a company that was right next to a private school with their own electrically heated swimming pool. Every morning around 11.00am, the fluorescent strips in our room would start blinking one by one then going out. After 12.30pm when the pool had been heated, all the lights would come back on.
Parent
Re:Darn it (Score:5, Informative)
And I already replaced all my light bulbs with those dim, mercury-filled corkscrew kind!
Dim? The lower energy usage and heat output means I can put "100 Watt equivalent" bulbs in fixtures that are only supposed to have 60 Watt bulbs in them, that's quite a bit brighter. Plus they don't have that horrid long-wavelength tinge to them.
I can't be the only one that hates those damn things. They are useful in areas where the lights are left on for extended periods but I find them to be highly annoying in areas that I walk into and out of quickly. They don't even manage to reach full brightness before I've accomplished what I came into the room to do.
Most of he ones I have hit full brightness pretty much immediately. The ones that do take a while are "floodlight" shape and can go in enclosed spaces without getting fried, don't know whether they're just crappy or starting quickly isn't compatible with surviving that.
Parent
Re:Better call Dennis Quaid on Sunday... (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, but today is two days before the day after tomorrow!
Parent
Re:But Al Gore says (Score:5, Interesting)
It's kind of poetic how stupid you come off trying to dis on the global warming people.
1. Pretty much everyone agrees that the term global warming is bad, since what is happening is global climate change, which is very real and a very big problem.
2. The amount of CO2 is not fixed as you claim, CO2 is a by product of chemical reactions. There are also reactions going the other way, but unfortunately we are producing way more CO2 than is being consumed, this is a problem.
3. While you are correct that the world will probably survive just fine as a whole, some of us are rather concerned about the amount of climate refuges we are going to see and in time the wars that will most likely follow.
Parent