Earth hour!

[Joe9T 10]

Is it true that mankind only emits 2% of gases that are to blame for global warming; the rest is natural.

It is said that our 2%, if cut completely, would have no real effect on curbing global warming.

[RichJay 10]

Is it true that mankind only emits 2% of gases that are to blame for global warming; the rest is natural.

It is said that our 2%, if cut completely, would have no real effect on curbing global warming.

 

Where is this information from?

[jeremyjh1 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?

 

No, I don't think that notion is too simplistic - and often the simple answer is the right answer (and is often the last 'answer' considered, simply because no solution can ever be THAT simple, surely).

 

That said, it's not just one cause, but many causes. Absolutely, the increase in the world's population has some effect on the temperature of the Earth - although, the 'room' theory is a little flawed in that the room is a small, enclosed environment, so heated generated has nowhere really to go, whereas in the world, heat can and does escape in to the atmosphere and beyond.

 

But, concept is valid - in that more people means more 'heat', either directly (breathing, body heat etc.,) or indirectly, by needing more produce and production to sustain the increased population.

 

Cause and effect. More people creates need for more food, more food creates a need to produce more which require more machinery which requires more machines to be produced which requires more energy to make those machines and so on.

 

One drastic solution would be to somehow 'cull' the world's population. Perhaps we could protest for another World War or something. Only that would mean planes and tanks and bombs and bullets and factories to produce the planes and tanks and bombs and bullets and energy to produce those...

 

Oh, what the heck, perhaps we're all doomed.

[Joe9T 10]

the 'room' theory is a little flawed in that the room is a small, enclosed environment, so heated generated has nowhere really to go, whereas in the world, heat can and does escape in to the atmosphere and beyond.

 

We've all noticed on a clear night, in winter in particular, the heat escapes into the atmosphere, as there are no clouds to hold it from doing so and we have very cold nights. On the other hand if it is cloudy, the heat from the ground and from us cannot escape, therefore the temperature does not fall as much.

Heat will escape if it isn't cloudy, but where it is cloudy the heat is trapped.

I think heat rather than the emissions caused by heat are the real cause of global warming.

If everyone in the world did not put their central heating on or from any heat source, say, a fire etc for just one day, i bet the temperature of the earth atmosphere would drop!

Edited April 2, 2009 by Joe9T

[jeremyjh1 10]

Or, maybe we could combine turning off our heating for one day with holding our breath (for an extra minute every hour, say) that might also cut down the temperature of the world).

 

I'm not being serious, in case anyone actually thinks I am.

 

I do what I can and what I am prepared to do because, for me, to do nothing whatsoever is morally wrong - it's a bit like watching someone drowning and doing nothing to help because, well, you might get wet or you might die yourself.

 

And I know, deep down, it's more to assuage my guilt than to proactively make any real difference. I recycle plastic and metal and paper, yet the plants that process this probably produce more filth than those plants that produce the plastic in the first place.

 

It's almost comedic, tragic even - however we try to 'help' the environment, we seem to always end up doing more harm than good.

 

And I'm sorry, but a few thousand protestors in London with their wacky ideas will do nothing to 'save the planet' - in some respects, they actually turn me off the notion. Perhaps it's the tv producers and editors, but the protestors always seem to be beatnik, hippy looking, long-haired, tree-hugging odd balls - throwwbacks to the summer of love in the sixties, man - groovy.

 

I just can't seem to take them seriously, which defeats their purpose, I suppose.

[Joe9T 10]

I saw a programme recently that met up with some of the protesters of Twyford Down and the protest about the M3 corridor many years ago.

At the time, they the protesters were hippy like, but they have grown up to be very respectable people, who still have involvement with environmental issues.

These people are not low lifes, but respectable people, who have more than likely very good education results to boot.

I think it is just stereotypical views that those who look like they could do with a good wash are odd-balls, but to see those now who protested years ago show them with lovely houses and well paid jobs.

 

Edited April 2, 2009 by Joe9T

[jeremyjh1 10]

I saw a programme recently that met up with some of the protesters of Twyford Down and the protest about the M3 corridor many years ago.

At the time, they the protesters were hippy like, but they have grown up to be very respectable people, who still have involvement with environmental issues.

These people are not low lifes, but respectable people, who have more than likely very good education results to boot.

I think it is just stereotypical views that those who look like they could do with a good wash are odd-balls, but to see those now who protested years ago show them with lovely houses and well paid jobs.

 

 

I agree - it's stereotyping and making assumptions based on the appearance of someone, but I would have thought that, knowing that is how 'they' are viewed by the majority (of those who do not go on protest marches and the like) and knowing that, because of these assumptions, they (the protestors) are not likely to be taken seriously - knowing all this, I would have thought they might have changed their appearance.

 

I mean, when I go to an interview for a job, whether I like it or not, I get dressed up in a suit and tie and try to look smart (unlike my rather slobbish usual appearance when I'm at home). So that I get taken seriously and so that I'm not immediately rejected before I've even opened my mouth.

 

Mind, what do find funny is that the 'hippy' type protestors trying to stop a motorway extension being built or another airport runway, currently live in nice houses (built on land that once had trees and plants on it) and have respectable jobs, no doubt with companies whose ethical policies are not as 'good' as they would like the wider world to know. And, I suppose, they also have nice stuff, clothes, electrical items, go on holidays etc., - all of which, if you take it in some context or other, is detrimental to the health of the planet.

 

It's only good if you want it to be so.

[shane39 10]

no its not sarcasm! i believe in global warming and you should as it is a fact of life!

 

 

watch this

 

Are you prepared for global warming?

Do you have a rubber dinghy at the ready?

If not,then your facts are wrong.

Sorry.

[Joe9T 10]

These protester actually still refuse to use the m3 corridor through Twyford Down and not only that are very environmental indeed.

Remember these people lived in squalour when they protested and even risked their lives.

Remember Swampy, who lived under ground for a week. What is the point of wearing a suit to do that.

Well done to them back then - it worked. road expansion program abandoned. Fantastic!

 

Everyone has to live in a home and wear clothes, but i can bet that these protesters of old live by far more environementaly friendly in their lifestyles, even to this day, than 99.9% of us will ever do.

[jeremyjh1 10]

These protester actually still refuse to use the m3 corridor through Twyford Down and not only that are very environmental indeed.

Remember these people lived in squalour when they protested and even risked their lives.

Remember Swampy, who lived under ground for a week. What is the point of wearing a suit to do that.

Well done to them back then - it worked. road expansion program abandoned. Fantastic!

 

Everyone has to live in a home and wear clothes, but i can bet that these protesters of old live by far more environementaly friendly in their lifestyles, even to this day, than 99.9% of us will ever do.

 

Yes, they stopped the bulldozers. Of course, cutting public expenditure on road building projects (which, actually, did NOT stop - they just stopped certain projects because the money was taken to be used elsewhere - the M1 has and is still being expanded, so has the M25 and they finally connected up the M60 Manchester orbital AFTER the M3 extension was abandoned and the road expansion program was shelved, er...) had diddly squat to do with it.

 

As for wearing a suit underground - don't take me so literal - it was an example of how changing your appearance can lead to you either being taken more seriously or rejected instantly.

 

If Swampy had wanted to be taken seriously, he could have made an effort, but he did not and that is how many, many people saw him - a strange, tunnel dwelling, long haired, bearded weirdo you'd rather not share a veggie burger with.

 

Sure, people have to live in homes and wear clothes - or do they? Swampy lived in a tunnel for a while (ha!). Actually, it's a choice we make - some chose to live on the streets, yet I don't hear anyone exalting them as real environmentalists!

 

Point is, you cannot be truly 'green' because the world has evolved and life has developed to make that virtually impossible, same as you cannot take money out our lives.

 

So, there is a compromise and that is where you get in to the realms of who is to say your compromise is more laudable or worthy than mine? And who is to say how far someone should compromise before they are considered en environmentalist?

 

Is it environmentally friendly to force vehicles that carry produce and things people need to drive further to get to their destination (for the sake of some trees and wildlife), using more fuel and creating more pollution, than going in a more direct route?

 

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's just that there is always, always a trade-off and nothing is never quite so simple as to say 'they're more environmentally friendly than you or I.

 

Here's another thing to consider - paper recycling. That is considered by most to a good, green thing to do - environmentally friendly, yes?

 

So, more and more paper is recycled which means less trees are being planted (to make 'new' grade paper). The plants that process the recycled paper actually produce more harmful emissions than those that produce virgin paper.

 

Not so 'green' now.

 

Environmentally friendly - it's really just a point of view and people 'see' what the want to see and 'hear' what they want to hear.

 

As for me - I recycle. There are 5 in my house and we fill our black bin a third of the way each week. I take bottles and tins and paper and plastic to recycled. I send old clothes to charity shops and so on. But, I have no illusions that it is mainly to make me feel good rather than any of it does good for the planet.

[segasonic 11]

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?

 

I'd say no, yes, natural cycle.

 

Man didn't invent fire, merely discovered it. I'd expect there was a lot of it around before we came along.

[donuticus 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)

 

I'll think you'll find it was the Dinosaurs driving Volvo's that did it. :hihi: