Watts up? A bright idea (Global Warming/Oprah/Environmental Whacko Alert)

Newsday ^ | 3/16/2006 | RHODA AMON

[Born Conservative]

Pupils launch bid to save Americans $2.3B in electric costs; seek Oprah's help in plan to dole out lightbulbs

Qiana Marks and 200 other North Babylon students hope to save the Earth - and also save the American public $2.3 billion in electric costs.

It's all part of a campaign begun yesterday in the Robert Moses Middle School to "fight global warming one lightbulb at a time," said Kenny Luna, eighth-grade science teacher.

Luna and his students want to give an energy-saving compact fluorescent lightbulb to every school child in America, "all 50 million between pre-kindergarten and 12th grade."

They're asking TV star Oprah Winfrey to help spread the word.

CFL bulbs use an average 75 percent less energy than normal lightbulbs. If every student changed one bulb, the saving at $46 per bulb would add up to $2.3 billion, Luna calculated.

[discostu]

The point is that you should never say anything, in person or on the web, that would deservedly get you punched.

Already did, twice. And you responded with insults the first time and ignoring the refutation the second time. The facts AGAIN:
Humans are responsible for a mimimal percentage of total CO2 emmissions
The ice core data tells us that high levels of CO2 precede an ICE AGE (which also happens to be the geological norm of the planet), not warming, so blaming CO2 for possible warming would need to explain why this CO2 spike is so different
We know it's been significantly warmer on the planet, the Romans grew wine grapes in Iceland we can't do that now without greenhouses, with none of the problems GW decriers say will happen
And as for changing the tune to "climate change" guess what, the climate changes constantly, alternating between long periods (at least 100,000 years) of ice age and relatively short (generally less than 10,000 years) temperate times, with flucuations during each, climate change data always focuses on just a couple hundred years worth of weather data and completely ignores the 110,000 (at least) year weather cycle that existed on this planet before there even was such a thing as humans

[getsoutalive]

The fact that the earth is warming, that C02 plays a role in the termperature of the earth as a greenhouse gas, that concetrations of CO2 are higher demonstably higher than they have been for 900,000 years and likely for 2 million and that humans have been pumping vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere that was previously in the ground for the past 250 years are the facts that are relevant.

And the fact that the Sun appears to be more active recently is NOT a relevant fact?!?!?

The FACT is that the Sun is the single largest input variable in Earth's climate equation. The variations in solar output have a direct impact on global climate and of course Martian climate as well. As we can now document, the Martian caps are retreating similar to Earth's. You think this is "an absurd distraction"?

I guess that is all I really need to know about your position.

[Nathan Zachary]

" And neither were you. I have proof that you weren't do you have proof that it wasn't?

And neithr were you, so there- neener neener.. You have proof of nothing. The FACT that Vikings were farming southern coastal areas of Greenland is poof. Now they are under ice. This means that the northern passages were ice free for a period of time, and viking remains found in the hudsons bay up the Neslon river as far inland as lake Winnipeg prove they sailed them.

[Realism]

Current CO2 concentration is 380ppm and rising fast.

Maybe in Hawaii, levels are actually down slightly in Australia.

[cogitator]

It's to what makes climate change that I doubt. You are looking at "climate change" since last season, not climate change history of hundreds and thousands of years.

The processes which affect climate operate on different time-scales. The factors that caused Ice Ages have a negligible effect on time-scales of 1-2 centuries.

I have about 4 inches of global warming in my drive way right now.

So aren't you judging climate change based on last night's weather?

[cogitator]

Unfamiliar with the Russian analysis of the absolute incompetence in analyzing gas concentration from ice cores that were never intended for that purpose? Which were not handled properly to prevent contamination?

Do tell. With citations, preferably.

[null and void]

Yeah, well, Hawai'i has that pesky volcano..

[Ditto]

So it looks like we're actually below what is considered normal for the planet's history.

Correct.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Oh come on. That is absurd. Show me the evidence.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

The FACT that Vikings were farming southern coastal areas of Greenland is poof.

Oh I see. You are saying that since the they were farming the southern coastal areas that is evidence that a 1.7 million square kilometer glacier that is 3 kilometers thick wasn't there. Makes sense /sarcasm.

[Nathan Zachary]

"Current CO2 concentration is 380ppm and rising fast."

Heck, just the large amount of forest fires we've been having the last few years can easily account for that. Canada alone had over 1000 Forest fires last year, never mind LA, Montana Australia, Africa, Brazil etc etc. To say man caused this rise in co2 even on half of 1% is a stretch. What about volcanic ativity?

Islamic car burning activity?

[Nathan Zachary]

A bomber from ww2 was dug out under 400ft of ice. do the math.

[null and void]

400ft/50years=800ft/century
5280ft/mile
3km=1.9mi=9900ft=12.4centuries=12,400years.

Hmmmm, about the same time the last Ice Age ended...

[Nathan Zachary]

acording to the rate of snow which buried that plane on that glacier, it's roughly 1125 years old.

Now, are you telling us that there is some sort of equalibrium that effects glaciers? or do they come and go in cycles? What?

[Nathan Zachary]

LoL ok, I missed a dot. I didn't take that much care.

But stange how it fits a cycle huh?

[cogitator]

Anyone can call up the real science of climate over the last 100,000, 200,000 or 400,000 years and see for themselves what a joke the current hysteria is over the "change" of the last 50 or 100 years...

You are perhaps guilty of not evaluating climate change in context. Since the end of the last glacial period, the climate has been unusually stable. This covers a period of about 10,000 years. Human civilization has existed primarily in this period of stability, and present-day ecosystems were established during the same period. Anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcing of climate change during this period has the potential of inducing a rapid climate change trend into a 10,000 year period that has had very little rapid change. This indicates an increased likelihood of instability and unpredictability. The ability to adapt to change is predicated on the ability to predict the course and magnitude of change. The more rapid and drastic the change, the less capability humans and the Earth's environment will have to adapt to it.

That's the context and the quandary.

[null and void]

Just a coincidence, I'm sure...

[goldstategop]

Light bulbs emit heat - DUH. I don't give liberals credit for being dim bulbs.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[cogitator]

CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, it's third on the list of strongest greenhouse gases behind water vapor (first) and methane (second).

Water vapor in the climate system is a feedback, not a forcing. It responds to changes in global temperature. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is a forcing because it has a much longer atmospheric lifetime and hence changing C02 concentrations change the Earth's shortwave vs. longwave radiative balance.

[metmom]

Here's a link to *The Lost Squadron*. It was a group of planes that was lost in Greenland during WWII and ended up being buried under 268 feet of ice.

http://p38assn.org/glacier-girl.htm