I believe what can be proved scientifically and global warming can be proven...The question is whether or not we let it control our lives I fell we should just ignore it and let it happen..All these hippy bastards believe we can do something about be honest with yourselves there is nothing we can do centuries of burning fossil fuels and pollution has killed our planet and it is our own fault and we brough this upon ourselves...
What?Originally Posted by Kisuke_Hellsing
The question is whether or not we let it control our lives I fell we should just ignore it and let it happen..All these hippy bastards believe we can do something about be honest with yourselves there is nothing we can do centuries of burning fossil fuels and pollution has killed our planet and it is our own fault and we brough this upon ourselves...
So you think we should just sit back and let the planet continue as it is, because we brought this upon ourselves, and should let people suffer for it later, without trying to fix the problem we (as people) started ?? Thinking like that is the reason why not enough is being done.
I don't have to be a hippie bastard to want to try and help the planet I live on. Not just for me but the future too. I'd like to think that any normal person wouldn't want the planet they live on to turn to shit. Sure we can't take back what has already been done. But do nothing?....?
Last edited by GypsyElder; 09-22-2009 at 06:06 PM.
We should certainly do something to stop Global Cooling. It's a pandemic! Slowly as the years pass, Global Cooling will have caused the ice sheets at both poles to expand greatly, thus reflecting even more sunlight and causing more cooling. In another forty or fifty years, fresh water will be extremely scarce, the ocean will have too much salinity to support life, and the increased cost of natural gas, heating oil, and electricity will have driven hundreds of millions deep into poverty!
Oh, wait ... that argument was around in the 70's. I forgot it changed to "global warming" since then, and now "global climate change". Silly me.
...
Does the earth go through natural cycles of climate change? Yes.
Has the earth's climate been getting warmer during the past couple of decades? Yes.
Have humans produced more than ever before during the past couple of decades? Yes.
(Now, some people would stop there, make up ideas, and assume that a few facts automatically correlate. Others would continue searching.)
Is a couple of decades enough to make accurate predictions concerning changing climate? No.
Has the earth been warmer than it is now? [b]Yes.[b]
... Even at times in history when there has not been as much industrial production, pollution, or humans? Yes.
... Did humanity thrive in these times of increased temperatures, which lead to extended growing seasons for crops and thus a huge increase in agricultural production? Yes.
Is the earth still warming from a "mini-ice-age" that occurred centuries ago? Yes.
Will sea levels decrease if the polar ice caps melted, based on the simple fact that ice takes up less room than water? Yes.
Is it likely to get a straight, honest answer for this second group of questions from people who support the idea of man-affected climate change? No.
Sig courtesy of Plastik Assassin.
Greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13
And science improves over time. I'm glad you understand the concept of a feedback mechanism too. Indeed; colder temperatures mean polar ice expands, reflecting more light. It also works in reverse. Another thing you touch on is that there are fluctuations in climate system. Nobody denies that, but what you tend to ignore is that, despite short-term fluctuations, long-term trends do exist. And contemporary, global warming is one of those.
*Claps* But please note long-term trends. Can't stress it enough.Does the earth go through natural cycles of climate change? Yes.
*Clap clap* But please note that human or non-human, there are issues associated with this that require addressing.Has the earth's climate been getting warmer during the past couple of decades? Yes.
Did you mean for [that] to be there? It's good you recognise this. Also note where these chemicals are from: carbon in the long-term carbon cycle. Oil. Natural Gas. Et al. Carbon that was sequestered from the atmosphere many moons ago. I'd say millions and billions but you wouldn't believe me, which is silly in itself.Have humans produced more [greenhouse gas emissions] than ever before during the past couple of decades? Yes.
Those others are right in doing so. But they might miss the painfully obvious and essential.(Now, some people would stop there, make up ideas, and assume that a few facts automatically correlate. Others would continue searching.)
And yet you are the one doing this (reference to 1970s theory of cooling, and comparing it to today). Geologists examine ice cores, plant spores, tree rings, etc, which are hundreds of thousands of years old. And sediment records are hundreds of millions of years old.Is a couple of decades enough to make accurate predictions concerning changing climate? No.
But 95% of the time it has been much, much colder. And those periods of warming did not coincide with 6 billion humans.Has the earth been warmer than it is now? [b]Yes.[b]
Yes, at times when volcanoes were spewing out millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide, directly into the upper atmosphere. Ironically, it lead to an initial cooling, due to reduced sunlight. this killed plants, and prevented carbon sequestration. When the sky cleared, then it got warm. I could get more detailed, but this explanation suffices until I have more time.... Even at times in history when there has not been as much industrial production, pollution, or humans? Yes.
Please explain when. Had humanity left the Fertile Crescent yet? Did we inhabit atolls in the Pacific? Did we lack space for climate refugees?... Did humanity thrive in these times of increased temperatures, which lead to extended growing seasons for crops and thus a huge increase in agricultural production? Yes.
You're referring to events such as in Shakespeare's time when the Thames froze over every winter? Note this is a short-term fluctuation. The Thames has NOT frozen since the Elizabethan (may be one or two years, but nothing like an annual occurrence).Is the earth still warming from a "mini-ice-age" that occurred centuries ago? Yes.
What?? Put a bottle of water in the freezer and watch it expand. Besides, ice caps on land (West and East Antarctic Ice Sheets; Greenland) are currently not displacing water. If they melt, they will displace water, raising sea levels. The WAIS has a sea-level-equivalent of 60 metres globally. Thankfully, that glacier is not very vulnerable. But the much smaller EAIS and Greenland Ice Sheet are.Will sea levels decrease if the polar ice caps melted, based on the simple fact that ice takes up less room than water? Yes.
Did you provide any evidence whatsoever to prove your claim? No.Is it likely to get a straight, honest answer for this second group of questions from people who support the idea of man-affected climate change? No.
And what I want to ask is: man-made or not, is it an issue? Does warming need to be addressed regardless? I'll cite an example close to home for me. Tropical mosquitoes are increasingly being found in the north of New Zealand, where they have not been able to survive previous winters. They carry tropical diseases, such as malaria. Do we address the warming, or the mosquitoes? Does it matter how global warming is caused, or just that it is, and that it has associated problems?
Last edited by Alpha; 09-22-2009 at 02:59 AM.
That doesn't change the fact that forty years ago, "science" pointed to the idea that the earth was going into a man-made ice age.
Supposedly, yes -- the earth has been getting warmer. That doesn't mean that the earth has been getting warmer because of humans.Another thing you touch on is that there are fluctuations in climate system. Nobody denies that, but what you tend to ignore is that, despite short-term fluctuations, long-term trends do exist. And contemporary, global warming is one of those.
If human activity had not caused or advanced any sort of climate change, what makes you think that human activity can prevent or slow any sort of climate change?*Clap clap* But please note that human or non-human, there are issues associated with this that require addressing.
Yeah, [that] was prettymuch implied anyway. But thanks for clarifying, for those who didn't understand.Did you mean for [that] to be there? It's good you recognise this.
Because you'd have no proof that it would be that old, besides radiometric dating, which has dated Twinkies to thousands of years old, living whales to millions of years old, and petroleum from a source in Australia to be about four thousand years old. You want to call a belief "silly", learn a little about it first so you're not so ignorant of it.Also note where these chemicals are from: carbon in the long-term carbon cycle. Oil. Natural Gas. Et al. Carbon that was sequestered from the atmosphere many moons ago. I'd say millions and billions but you wouldn't believe me, which is silly in itself.
To show how foolish the entire "omigod, humans are destroying the earth!" argument is. Do you think no geologists were involved in the "global cooling" theory?And yet you are the one doing this (reference to 1970s theory of cooling, and comparing it to today).
Who says it was cooler 95% of the time? Oh, that's right -- you say it. Thank you, at least, for using an accurate word -- sure, it coincides with a large human population. That makes it a coincidence. Unfortunately for the "global warming" crowd, more evidence is needed than "well, we have a lot of humans now, and it's getting warmer now, so humans MUST be causing it!"But 95% of the time it has been much, much colder. And those periods of warming did not coincide with 6 billion humans.
Locally, this would be fine -- but we're not talking about local climates, we're talking about a global climate. The earth has been hotter than it is now, and it's not because of volcanoes everywhere, and it's not because of humans.Yes, at times when volcanoes were spewing out millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide, directly into the upper atmosphere. Ironically, it lead to an initial cooling, due to reduced sunlight. this killed plants, and prevented carbon sequestration. When the sky cleared, then it got warm. I could get more detailed, but this explanation suffices until I have more time.
Ever heard of the Renaissance?Please explain when. Had humanity left the Fertile Crescent yet? Did we inhabit atolls in the Pacific? Did we lack space for climate refugees?
It was prettymuch an annual occurrence a couple hundred years ago. Not for one or two years, or even just for a decade -- that's the way it was. Historically, the Thames had frozen over every year. When it started not freezing over in the winter, that was the change.You're referring to events such as in Shakespeare's time when the Thames froze over every winter? Note this is a short-term fluctuation. The Thames has NOT frozen since the Elizabethan (may be one or two years, but nothing like an annual occurrence).
My mistake -- the way I explained it was correct, but I said it wrong at the end. Since ice takes up more room than water, the ice melting will lower sea levels.What?? Put a bottle of water in the freezer and watch it expand.
Yes and no. But first -- ever wonder why Greenland is called Greenland? How about because it used to be green? Which means that Greenland used to be quite a bit warmer than it is now.Besides, ice caps on land (West and East Antarctic Ice Sheets; Greenland) are currently not displacing water. If they melt, they will displace water, raising sea levels.
Anyway, yes, if ice caps that are currently over land melt, they will release more water. Why? Because they have been sucking water out of the system for as long as they have existed.
I have to ask for a credible cite for this.The WAIS has a sea-level-equivalent of 60 metres globally.
What would you like evidence for? What have I said yet that relies on evidence, and not common sense and logic?Did you provide any evidence whatsoever to prove your claim? No.
Not really, no.And what I want to ask is: man-made or not, is it an issue?
No. If it's going to change, it's going to change whether or not humans do anything to change it either way. Its pretty foolish to think that we have so much of an effect on the earth -- we don't control it, it controls us. If the earth's climate changes (like it's done many times before -- without humans), we're just along for the ride.Does warming need to be addressed regardless?
You can't stop global warming, so you address the mosquitoes. It's a disease for which there is no known cause, cure, or treatment -- so since we can't treat the disease, we treat the symptoms.I'll cite an example close to home for me. Tropical mosquitoes are increasingly being found in the north of New Zealand, where they have not been able to survive previous winters. They carry tropical diseases, such as malaria. Do we address the warming, or the mosquitoes? Does it matter how global warming is caused, or just that it is, and that it has associated problems?
Sig courtesy of Plastik Assassin.
Greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13
Considering that man is speeding up the process of global warming, and global warming can eventually lead to drastic global cooling, I'd say that's correct.
There honestly should only be one side to this argument. Humans are causing the warming cycle to increase.
Nature produces more pollution than humans do. However, nature produces pollutants over longer periods of time, dispersing them over large areas, and eventually recycling, getting rid of the pollutants entirely. What humans have been doing for quite some time now has been polluting continuously in specific designated areas, so much so, that the pollutants don't have time to recycle back into the natural cycle of the environment. This process drastically increased at the start of the Industrial Revolution, in which humans began dispersing pollutants up into the atmosphere via industrial smoke stacks, and in the past one hundred years, the average global temperature, due to pollutants not being recycled, especially the excessive amount of C02, the average global temperature has increased by about .74°C, and per decade for the last fifty years, has been increasing about .13°C.
First, their idea wasn't that mankind is causing global warming, which will lead to global cooling -- their idea was that man is causing global cooling.
Second, there's no credible evidence (non-circumstantial) that mankind is "speeding up the process of global warming".
Yes, there should be only one side, but unfortunately there are two. The first side is the truth, that human activity has done absolutely nothing to affect our climate. The side that shouldn't exist is the one gullible, ignorant, misinformed, or uninformed people buy into -- the idea that humans have somehow changed, over a century or so, a planet that has supposedly been around for billions of years.There honestly should only be one side to this argument. Humans are causing the warming cycle to increase.
If it has increased 0.13°C every decade for the last fifty years, that would mean that the first half of this century saw an increase of 0.14°C. You know, when industry was dirtiest, before any environmental government control came into effect.... the average global temperature has increased by about .74°C, and per decade for the last fifty years, has been increasing about .13°C.
But go ahead and discount the myriad factors that affect climate -- natural cycles, rotation and tilt of the planet, energy produced by the sun, etc. etc. -- and blame it on mankind.
Yes, the earth is getting warmer. Yes, pollutant production has increased (much, like CO2, is not much of a pollutant, but still.) But we also have less horses than we did a hundred years ago. A lot less. For those that say that global warming and human activity must be related because they have somewhat of a mutual increase ... global temperature and the number of horses have an inverse relationship, and the same "logic" could be used to argue that global warming is a result of a depreciation in the number of horses.
Sig courtesy of Plastik Assassin.
Greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13
So your point is that you don’t think Humans have had anything to do with Global Warming? Human activities such as emitting pollutants effect the earth no?To show how foolish the entire "omigod, humans are destroying the earth!" argument is.
Clint said pretty much what I was going to say and more, Humans may not effect all climate changes but definitely contributing to this issue.
( A major cause the way I see it)
Last edited by GypsyElder; 09-22-2009 at 07:12 PM.
Is anybody aware in this thread that the Earth has actually cooled over the last 10 years?
I'm frankly just completely unsure Global Warming is truly man-made to begin with. They like to quote that we've hit highs based on the first records that were kept over a hundred years ago, however we have now seen that during that time we were emerging from the Earth's last cooling phase and so rising temperatures are a natural part of the Earth's cycle and not necessarily a result of man.
It just concerns me that people like Al Gore are out there shouting about rising sea levels. Really? They look the same to me, and I live on a beach. That kind of thing makes me distrust guys that heavily support mass eco-friendly makovers. Besides the last I checked ice takes up more room than the water than composes it, and so if the glaciers are melting that would actually mean sea levels would go down, not up.
Anyway, over the last 10 years, the Earth has cooled, which is undeniable and we've only increased our output with more and more cars on the road. Nothing we have done has significantly changed anything for the better.
My main concern is that while I believe people should recycle and we should look at concervation effots, I don't think there's any reason to take actions that would become a detriment to the shaky economy in the name of environmentalism. We're going to be fine.
Last edited by Locke4God; 09-28-2009 at 12:55 PM.
Are you aware that the Earth has been overwhelmingly colder than it is currently for the vast majority of what we can record of the past? And that the issue (as I see it) is that it doesn't actually matter if it is or isn't natural, but that we are so accustomed to the natural status quo that any change, warmer or colder, is to our detriment (overall)? If it us warmer, sea levels will rise, granting us with less land, and millions of refugees, as the vast majority of people live near the coast, and we have built impressive cities that are just so vulnerable to a changing climate.
Some places will benefit, I make no secret of that. Places that were once unable to support agriculture will open up, trade passages through the arctic ocean have opened up, etc. The overarching theme is that no matter how much we debate, climate changes. Is there ever an ideal state? I'd say yes. It's what we have now. What we have developed in. We do not live in areas where our populations are expressly vulnerable, but what happens when the patterns of vulnerability change? What happens in a warmer planet where there is greater latent energy for more, bigger storms, that can move further and further away from the equator? What happens where agriculture has developed where water is abundant, and this water becomes scarce. The social, economic, ecologic, political, cultural challenges are all so immense that we must do everything we can to preserve. We should put energy into adaption, too. But is there's a chance to preserve this beautiful planet, let's take it.
Simply: so? As far as I am concerned, the evidence is overwhelmingly against this conclusion, but that is irrelevant. You seem to accept it is happening in this paragraph, so why won't you do something about it regardless?I'm frankly just completely unsure Global Warming is truly man-made to begin with. They like to quote that we've hit highs based on the first records that were kept over a hundred years ago, however we have now seen that during that time we were emerging from the Earth's last cooling phase and so rising temperatures are a natural part of the Earth's cycle and not necessarily a result of man.
For f*ck sake. I'm so sick of hearing that weak argument. Think of sea level in geological time. You don't notice yourself or your children growing when you see them every day, so does that mean we don't grow? The sea is rising, incrementally and imperceptibly so, but it is rising. I believe it is rising at a rate of 1.8mm per year. Or 0.005mm per day. You can't sea it! Heh.It just concerns me that people like Al Gore are out there shouting about rising sea levels. Really? They look the same to me, and I live on a beach. That kind of thing makes me distrust guys that heavily support mass eco-friendly makovers. Besides the last I checked ice takes up more room than the water than composes it, and so if the glaciers are melting that would actually mean sea levels would go down, not up.
As for your glaciers melting thing... are you really that stupid? If a glacier is on a landmass, such as in a valley, or on Greenland or Antarctica, then it is currently not displacing sea water. That is why, in the last ice age, sea levels were 130 metres lower than the present day. That fact is denied by no geologist of any standing. When ice is frozen in a sea ice cap, such as at the North Pole, then the ice displaces water equal to its mass. Water expands when it is frozen, but if you haven't seen an ice berg (they float past New Zealand more and more regularly btw), they have some ice above the water. Most of the ice berg is under the surface, but some is on top? Why? Because they are displacing water equal to their mass. The extra size gained upon freezing is not extra mass, so some ice peaks out above the liquid water. If the North Pole ice cap were to melt, it would not displace any water whatsoever, as all the mass is already displaced in the world's oceans.
How do those two statements support each other? Secondly, the Earth hasn't technically cooled over the last while, in fact it has plateaued for the last 8 years. Again, this is no secret. The IPCC recognises this. What you must understand is that CO2 emissions are not the only factor influencing the climate. There are a few theories. Perhaps we are entering a period of less intense solar luminosity? Or global warming has increased temperatures so that more water is evaporated from the oceans, increasing cloud cover and increasing the earth's albedo? The fact remains that CO2 has a blatant forbearance on the climate. Look at the last graph I posted in my previous post. It's not the only factor, but no one can deny the link.Anyway, over the last 10 years, the Earth has cooled, which is undeniable and we've only increased our output with more and more cars on the road. Nothing we have done has significantly changed anything for the better.
Do you care to explain what is wrong with green jobs, cycling instead of driving, greater use of public transport, planing more green spaces, using agricultural fertilisers more efficiently, etc.? All of those things, and the multitudes of others, are good for people, the environment, AND the economy. Shock horror, environmentalists have common sense after all.My main concern is that while I believe people should recycle and we should look at concervation effots, I don't think there's any reason to take actions that would become a detriment to the shaky economy in the name of environmentalism. We're going to be fine.
I'm just not sure that it's continuing to change. Yeah I'm aware the Earth used to be cooler 200 years ago, which is well before the modern industrial revolution. But I wonder if you are aware that if all of the climate change legistation works flawlessly then out best scientific estimates state that we "might" see a 1/4 degree drop over a hundred years from now. Is that worth putting our economy in a hammer lock?
And I don't have a problem with Green Jobs, except that they are more expensive. That's why nobody buys green cars. There's not a green car in the top 10 in sales. The Prius is the highest, and the accord and Camry Hybrids combined don't equal half the sales of the Prius. Again by in large, green is great if you can afford it, but forcing it on the nation at all levels will wreck the economy. Just consider that.
All I'm saying is that the Al Gores of the world would have you believe that we're going to be underwater in 10 years, and it's not going to happen. He's wrong. I'm more concerned that he's using the cause to increase the size of government, and I'm very worried that there's a deliberate effort to wreck the economy in order to meet that end. I wouldn't put it past them if I were you.
Last edited by Locke4God; 09-30-2009 at 01:23 PM.
I think its interesting that you assume that everyone is doing something to "Stop global warming". What about the people who don't believe in it, or just don't give a shit? The way you make it sound, it's like there's no other option.
Theres absolutely nothing wrong with it, there's just no reason for attacking someone who believes differently.
And like Locke4God said, I'm more concerned about the economy.
Last edited by ShootingStar; 09-30-2009 at 01:48 PM.
There are several, entirely human problems that need to be solved before any moves will be made. And they are not easy. First of all, someone has to work out how to make a green economy work. Sure, building windfarms creates jobs, but once they're built, their caretaking team is small. Businesses thrive in this world because they can outsource - you know the Toyota Prius, green car of Hollywood? The Prius gathers its parts from over 10 countries, each the cheapest bidder for the particular part. All parts are then shipped to one construction factory, and then to another, until finally they are shipped to market. It saves Toyota money, but there is an awful lot of CO2. It is cheaper to buy in tropical fruit than attempt to grow it here. It is cheaper to have your clothes manufactured in Asia and then shipped here. And so on.
Secondly, and this will be difficult, is shaking people out of their comfort zone. I am still shocked at the amount of people who think plastic is an infinite resource - for the record, most plastics come from crude oil, which is on the way out. Maybe you have to get a secondhand mobile phone instead of that new flashy one to save silicon; how many people are going to agree to that if they have the power to buy the flashy new one? You have to take your toddler, and your baby in pram, into town to buy the food shopping on the bus rather than take your car. If the mother has the car and the money to drive it, she will choose the car unless she is insane and favours the idea of toddler and baby on a bus. You want to go on holiday - but planes are probably the nastiest of polluters, delivering the gas straight into the upper atmosphere, so that's out of the picture. Instead, you get to go somewhere by boat or to a beach in your own country. Middle-income families are not about to let go of their Malagas and Disneyworlds. People think, because they've been raised under capitalism, that if they earn, they have the right to do whatever they wish with that money, no matter what it does to the environment. This is why capitalism is unsustainable.
Thirdly, there are countries like China and India. If the UK reached its carbon targets tomorrow, China would make up the difference in one week. How are we meant to react to that? 'Hey, China, remember all those coal power stations we sold you? Yeah, those. Right, well, don't use them anymore. I know we got rich by massive consumption of natural resources, and I know the World Bank and IMF have been pushing you and others down that same path, but now you've got to do something different. You have to stop using the cheapest method to give electricity to your massive population because we say so, at the behest of a spectre whose effects probably won't really start hitting you for another 50 years.' Basically, hell to the no, right? China's facing drought, and they need to keep their population comfy and complacent. A government of a few thousand is very aware of its population of over a billion. India is much the same. Massive growth, and no thoughts of letting go of that. They will not come on side just because we say so.
I don't care if this is a man-made problem, or part of a natural cycle. We know that it is happening, and there may be things that we can do to stop it getting worse. Australia's main water supply is going to start seriously drying up in 3 years. California's on fire, in this merry month of May. There was a daffodil in my flowerbox in January.
Entity, you live in London, right? Isn't the Thames Barrier almost always up these days? I remember when it barely was. That is one effect specific to where you live, and one which will get worse with time.
If people had started listening in the 60's, this might be different. But even now, all this fuss about greenery is based on capitalism - products that give you moral feedback. 'I AM NOT A PLASTIC BAG' bags spring to mind. Wowee, so you're a jute bag? Well done. Now everyone has about five of these jute bags. Nothing's really changing. Don't eat meat, it leads to Amazonian deforestation - and boom, now soya plants are the number one cause for deforestation. Turns out the nicely-packaged soy company are capitalists just like the beef farmers who work for McDonalds. Many families still have one or more cars, when public transport is perfectly usable (the more people who use it, the better the funds, the better the quality and frequency of the service. The Stagecoach West 11 is the most frequent and reliable bus service in the south of Scotland, because it goes through working-class areas where everyone gets the bus).
Nothing will change soon. Keep recycling, but never be cynical. We in the West will, as per usual, suffer this last. Expect starvation in sub-Saharan Africa on a new scale, expect food riots in Asia, water riots in Indo-China, and stop buying things if you don't really need them. Everything you own comes from something else - and a lot of those something elses are finite. People need to realise that where were are now is a comfortable place for the West, but that it is a dream. There is no way it can last. One day, there will be a world without aeroplanes. That world will come in the next 80 years, unless someone figures out how to get similar propulsion from hydrogen or electricity.
It will be very difficult to change. People are too comfortable in the west (which is important, because we use a disgusting percentage of the world's resources and spit out most of its CO2). I'll keep doing my bit, as will my family, but I doubt in the ability of humanity as a whole to stop being quite so greedy.
Last edited by Govinda; 05-11-2009 at 03:59 AM.
You forgot one thing Kilala, the rising temperature also results in the ice caps braking up quicker and as the Icebergs drift off they melt and the ice caps are dropping icebergs more frequently then they should be and bigger on at that as they melt the cool the water from the icebergs cool the water around it changing the regular temperature of the main currents of the sea.
It took us a massive electricity bill to change our ways sadly but now we turn everything off at the power point and use candles as much as possible instead of lights and other than that yeah we just turn everything off when not in use. Unfortunately we are only a drop in an ocean and it will take massive community effects to be able to make a difference.We also recycle everything recyclable but that should be habit for everyone by now.How are we contributing to the problem? Many things cause Global Warming. First off I will use an example on which we are all guilty of… Having. Using. And abusing. In a word… Electricity. One of the main contributors is Electrical Pollution. Electricity is able to cause pollution in a multitude of ways – some worse than others. One of the more common examples of this is in the case of ‘Fossil Fuels’. Fossil fuels are burnt to create the electricity we use – and by burning them we in turn release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for example. Many other pollutants are emitted into the atmosphere when we burn these… And after time they just accumulate. Like they have now.
Some other simple examples of using energy and polluting the air that we breath are as follows:
- Turning on a light. (And leaving it on for that matter… like when you exit the room.)
- Watching the TV. (How many of us are guilty of leaving it on when we leave the room as well? Just like a light switch.)
- Listening to the stero.
- Playing a video game <_<
As a qualified horticultirist i am well aware of this factor and can relate to this, yes we cut down thousands of trees but on the same token we are commited to reforestation and rehabitising cleared areas, unfortunately no we are not keeping up with the rate at which we cut down with the rate at which we plant it takes at least 15 to 20 years if i remember correctly for a crop to establish for felling and we are chopping down to many to fast, for takes 20 years to grow we are able to cut down in a matter of days. Although overlooked back in the days we have acted to late and are running behind in these commitments.Deforestation is yet another what in which we are destroying our Earth. By deforestation we are once again contributing to Global Warming. Another basic science fact incoming! Trees use Carbon Dioxide and give off Oxygen in it’s place thus helping to create a healthy balance of gases in our atmosphere. As more of the lungs of our planet are cut down, logged for timber or even to made way for farming, we are reducing the number of trees to perform this critical function, and so in turn increasing the number of greenhouse gases lurking in our atmosphere.
Yes population growth is a problem but as harsh as it sounds natural disaters and accidents etc helping keep the population down is needed as it is with any species.The last point that I shall mention in contributing to Global Warming is population growth! As more people are born onto this Earth then there is a greater demand for fossil fuels to be used in heat, transportation etc. And so… the level of greenhouse gases continues to escalate out of control. Not to mention, with more people this means more mouths to feed. So what needs to be done? More deforestation of course! Land is needed for farming and so it goes on.
A mouth of a perfectly happy man is filled with beer.
--Ancient Egyptian Wisdom, 2200 B.C.
Crao Porr Cock8, Go and get a Cock8 up ya.
The finer details of a signature:
That really is ****ing discusting. I know recycleing is important - I do it all the time. But I wouldn't feel guilty if I... lets say... chucked one bit of scrap paper in a waste bin. Not that I would anyway, beause I have a recycleing bag in the kitchen. ^^
I imagine so. I've not really been down that end for a while and seen it, but from what I've heard, yes. It's worrying, but... not much you can do about it. They could make it bigger, but then it would become an eye-sore. Oh, then they would have to build a big one along the coast to stop water getting in that way.
I came up with an idea about using soloar panels to power long and very wide tubes of metal which would be used to... re-freeze the ice up north. But it probably wouldn't work, and be a load of crap. Besides, some boffin probably already thought that one up. :/
"I used to be active here like you, then I took an arrow in the knee."
>>>------------->
Suddenly... clutter.:
Warning free for over eight years. Feels good.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks