Earth hour!

[BJan 10]

 

The lost hour will be equivalent to turning everything off everywhere in the UK.

It seems like the farmers are years ahead of us. Or at least a light hour.

 

Excellent! Now that sounds like a FACT!

[barny_100 10]

I preferred this alternative hour with a nice little video too.

 

http://cei.org/human-achievement-hour

 

[khizrs 10]

Huh?

What is this drivel.

When I was in School I was taught the carbon cycle, it seems to be out of fashion now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

 

Also, when I was school I was taught why we have such nice scenery in the North, apparently a few thousand years ago, there was lots of Ice covering the Northern parts of the UK. This can be shown by the lakes, morraines and other features typically found in areas where there used to be glaciers.

Now last time I headed into the Lake district, I couldn't actually see many glaciers, well actually no glaciers, one can only assume they have melted because it has become warmer surely?

 

If we use the theory behind "earth hour" someone back then must have had their central heating on, their standby light on and their V8 engine ticking to keep their drinks cool in their car while they did their shopping.

 

Now, I am not a historian (I gave up Modern history just before GCSE and opted to do Classical studies instead) but the lightbulb was invented around the 1880s by Edison, electicity just before then, I am certain there was no Ice covering the UK then, and that a few thousand years ago these items didn't exist to change the temperature.

 

One can therefore assume that it happened naturally, not caused by humans, or lightbulbs or petrol. (if you have some other explanation, I would love to hear)

[evie01 10]

think iwill give it a miss too

[jfish1936 10]

"I am certain there was no Ice covering the UK then, and that a few thousand years ago these items didn't exist to change the temperature."

says khizrs.

 

Read Jean Auel's novels (http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/auel.htm).

They are set in Europe in prehistoric times. Glaciers cover much of Europe.

The heroine discovers how to make fire by striking sparks from flint, and distributes her "firestones" as gifts. So it's now easier to make a camp fire.

 

Result -- now that ice has receded, and the sea level has risen 100 metres!

Was this Ayla's contribution to global warming?

Without her spreading of easy fire-making and its attendant CO2 production, would we still live in the Ice Age and hunt mammoths?

[segasonic 11]

Read Jean Auel's novels (http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/auel.htm).

They are set in Europe in prehistoric times. Glaciers cover much of Europe.

The heroine discovers how to make fire by striking sparks from flint, and distributes her "firestones" as gifts. So it's now easier to make a camp fire.

 

Result -- now that ice has receded, and the sea level has risen 100 metres!

Was this Ayla's contribution to global warming?

Without her spreading of easy fire-making and its attendant CO2 production, would we still live in the Ice Age and hunt mammoths?

 

That's a children's sci-fi book though, hardly scientific. A few camp fires make the sea level rise 100 metres? Compared to all the emissions being spewed into the atmosphere today, surely there would be no ice left and we'd live in Waterworld.

[epiphany 10]

of course there is global warming you silly goons!!! dont you watch the news and read the news paper, its all been proven that the ice is melting because of global warming!! like it or lump it cause its a fact!

 

Do you believe everything you read and hear? I think people like you are the most desirable target for propaganda.

 

Do you also believe we invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons or "weapons of mass destruction"?

Edited March 30, 2009 by epiphany

[jfish1936 10]

That's a children's sci-fi book though, hardly scientific. A few camp fires make the sea level rise 100 metres? .

 

Actually, I keep it out of the hands of children because of its explicit sexual content.

But did the production of fire by mankind begin the process that we blame today?

Has the ice over Europe melted since Paleolithic times? raising the sea level?

Was this a natural cycle, or caused by human fires?

[jeremyjh1 10]

I confess to not being an expert, but having listened to all the different views and opinions by so-called experts, it seems to me that they can all agree on just one thing -the average temperature of the Earth has increased over the last 100 or so years.

 

What seems to be constantly and consistently disputed is/are the reason/s why this should be so.

 

It's the Earth's natural warming and cooling cycle (history and expert assumptions) suggest the Earth has warmed up and cooled down many times since it's birth (and on most of those occasions, humankind did not exist, nor did they enjoy the technology that many attribute the current 'global warming' armaggeddon to. Or, should I use the vogue sound bite 'climate change'.

 

I actually find that rather amusing - 'climate change' - the UK climate changes all the time, I think they call it 'seasons' Ha!

 

Anyway, less flipancy.

 

Some of the 'causes' of climate change or global warming have been:

 

Cows 'farting methane and, more recently, termites.

 

CFC's

 

Aerosol sprays.

 

Leaded, unleaded petrol. Diesel.

 

Electricity.

 

Gas.

 

Fires (forest fires to small fires when we burn garden leaves).

 

Destruction of the rain forest and less trees in general (that use CO2 to produce more oxygen).

 

Funnily enough, so I heard, algea [sp] converts more CO2 to oxygen than any other plant form, yet too much of it and it suffocates lakes, streams and rivers. Go figure!

 

The Earth is getting warmer (so we are told, by the 'experts') and, it certainly 'feels' to be that way (though not a month or so ago!). But, no experts can agree why. And everything that is supposedly 'green' and environmentally friendly turns out to be the opposite, years after. All that we do to try to arrest this situation often serves to accelerate it or does nothing to suppress the impact.

 

I wonder how many of those people marching in London yesterday walked from their homes (as opposed to using some form of harmful transport). I wonder how many of them wore clothes made in a factory that used damaging fuel to work the machines or had the produce loaded on to lorries or planes.

 

I wonder how many of them ate food that had been transported to the local supermarket or corner shop in a big old polluting truck.

 

I wonder how many of them switch on a light at their home, made from bricks and mortar that was extracted from the ground using heavy plant (that uses harmful fuels!) and was then set in a kiln (that.... you get my drift).

 

If ever there was a perfect illustration of hypocracy, the Climate Change marchers showed it perfectly yesterday.

 

By the way, I'm not anti-green or opposed to environmentally friendly issues; I'm just realistic. To be completely friendly to the environment would take a complete reversal of human evolution and an absolute cessation of progress.

 

Not going to happen. You cannot undo history and you cannot solve a problem when you don't really have any idea what is actually causing that problem in the first place.

 

We are all blind people in a dark room looking for the way out.

[top4718 838]

We are all blind people in a dark room looking for the way out.

 

And some are making a pile of money (politicians) while they are in the room.

[Joe9T 10]

Let's say we have one cold very large room with nobody in it and then one person goes in it and then two and so on. Will the room slowly warm up? Yes!

I believe that is what is happening in our planet, but it's not just warm bodies that are generating heat; we all add heat by other sources too; like heating our homes etc.

Hasn't anyone thought that this is the reason why the earth is warming or is my thinking too simplistic?

[jeremyjh1 10]

We are all blind people in a dark room looking for the way out.

 

And some are making a pile of money (politicians) while they are in the room.

 

Just the politicians?

 

Methinks the messengers are getting a raw deal here.

 

There are many, many people making piles of money in that room. It's all too easy to focus on a specific group of people.

 

Yesterday there was a lot of anger directed at the bankers working in the city. Eh?

 

Are they directly responsible for climate change? I struggle to find any definitive link, but what the heck. Anger isn't supposed to be logical and rational.

 

And if we go down that route, why not attack bus drivers or lorry drivers, picktet outside the offices of British Gas or NPower or Shell or BP. Go even further, storm Procter and Gamble or SmithKline or ICI.

 

The people who appear to care 'passionately' about arresting climate change would not return to living in mud huts or caves, which seesm to be the ultimate solution to the problem.

 

So, the issue is one of 'managing' the problem and therein lies the dilemma. Where is the line drawn? And who should draw it?

 

If the 'world' cannot agree on a single solution - if the 'world' cannot agree to all drawn the line in the same place, then all efforts would appear to be pointless.

 

For example - if we cut our carbon emissions and the US or India or China do not, what effect with our efforts have?

 

It's a little like Switzerland declaring themselves nuclear free as if that would protect them should all the other nations have a nuclear war.

 

And all this 'carbon trading'! WTF is all that about? We produce 5% less, so we 'sell' that to India so that they can produce 5% more. Result? No result. A drawn match - no winner.

 

And who 'monitors' the carbon output per country? Is there something like the electricity or gas meters in their parliament buildings?

 

Dis-information and mis-information. Can you or anyone else honestly and confidently say they know exactly what is going on? I can't, for sure.

 

And, to be honest, I don't think anyone can.

 

Like I say - blind people in a dark room. And, I'm afraid, we'll never find the exit and our sight cannot be repaired.