Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Earth hour

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by carri27, Mar 15, 2007.

  1. i thought this was a great idea. if you're so inclined, sign up via the link and stick it in your diary!

    EARTH HOUR - 7.30pm to 8.30pm - Saturday March 31, 2007>>> >>
    >>> >> Earth Hour is a fabulous opportunity for you and your family to
    >>> >> do something about climate change. On one night, in one hour,
    >>> >> more will be done, more will be demonstrated, and more will be
    >>> >> learned than through a hundred 'talk-fests'. And you can help
    >>> >> make it happen.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> What is Earth Hour?
    >>> >> It sounds simple, but it is very, very dramatic. At 7.30pm on
    >>> >> March
    >>> >> 31st 2007, we will be encouraging companies, government
    >>> >> departments, individuals and families to turn off their lights
    >>> >> for just one hour.
    If we meet our objectives during the first
    >>> >> Earth Hour, the savings in green house gas emissions will be the
    >>> >> equivalent of taking 75,000 medium sized cars off the road for
    >>> >> one whole year! Now that's something worth doing.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Why?
    >>> >>
    >>> >> The facts are alarmingly clear:
    >>> >>
    >>> >> * The climate is changing! The 10 hottest years on record have
    >>> >> occurred since 1990. In fact 2005 was the hottest year since
    >>> >> record
    >>> >> keeping began.
    >>> >> (Australian Bureau of Meteorology)
    >>> >> * Almost 70% of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions come from
    >>> >> energy production. (ABS)
    >>> >> * More than 95% of the Great Barrier Reef will have been
    >>> >> destroyed by 2050 if carbon dioxide emissions aren't reduced.
    >>> >> (WWF-International)
    >>> >> * One million species worldwide are facing extinction due to
    >>> >> climate change.
    >>> >>
    >>> >>
    >>> >> But not everybody listens to the facts. Earth Hour is your
    >>> >> opportunity to demonstrate how a simple change in our way of life
    >>> >> could change, and help save, our planet.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> The goals of Earth Hour:
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Households : Most of us use unnecessary electricity.
    >>> >> Appliances on standby,
    >>> >> old style light bulbs, lights left on when we're not using them.
    >>> >> Earth Hour will help us all to realise just how simply we can
    >>> >> make a dramatic impact upon global warming (and our own power bills). We will see it in action.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Companies : We want companies to be involved. If every company in Australia turned off its lights when the buildings weren't in
    >>> >> use, and combined it with energy saving technology, we would save between 2 and 4 million tonnes of greenhouse gasses every year.
    >>> >> Earth Hour will show companies just how easy that is.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Power Companies : We will be asking power companies to provide special deals for companies and households to switch to Green Power.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> To make it an annual event : Out of the 8,766 hours in a year,
    >>> >> let's give one back to the earth.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> What you can do:
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Sign up to Earth Hour and Pledge to turn off your lights on March
    >>> >> 31st from 7.30pm to 8.30pm by logging onto [ww.earthhour.org
    >>> >> <http://www.earthhour.org.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> You will receive all the information you need to make Earth Hour
    >>> >> a great success (and to cut your own energy bills in the long term).
    >>> >> Pledging is
    >>> >> free.
    >>> >>
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Get off standby : Turn off all the electronic equipment and
    >>> >> appliances in your home that are not being used or are on standby.
    >>> >> Computers, televisions,
    >>> >> stereo equipment, phone chargers, DVD or video equipment - you
    >>> >> can find out more about this from WWF at wwf.org.au
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Tell a friend : Spread the word about earth Hour by involving
    >>> >> your friends, family and workmates. Get them to pledge at
    >>> >> earthhour.org and most importantly, turn off the lights at 7.30pm
    >>> >> Saturday 31 March 2007.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Another thing you can do before the event is switch to Green
    >>> >> Power: Contact
    >>> >> your electricity provider today. If all Australians switched to
    >>> >> Green Power the saving in CO 2 emissions would be the equivalent
    >>> >> of
    >>> >> what is pumped out of 40 million cars! That's like taking every
    >>> >> car
    >>> >> in Australia off the road four times over.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Spread the word - Once you have signed up for Earth Hour tell a
    >>> >> friend; spread the word at work; tell your boss; mention it at
    >>> >> school, at your local sports club or society group, you can even
    >>> >> run it past your neighbours!
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Make it an event. Get the neighbours to switch off their lights
    >>> >> and
    >>> >> head out into the park for the hour; take some binoculars and
    >>> >> look at the stars; sit and talk; explore your backyard by
    >>> >> torchlight; have fun with sparklers; or just go for a stroll. Do
    >>> >> something non-electric as a family ?Q make some candles, read by their light;
    >>> >> have a picnic-at-dusk; pretend you are camping; have a
    >>> >> candlelight dinner.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> For more info on Earth Hour, check out www.earthhour.org
    >>> >> <http://www.earthhour.org>
    >>> >>
    >>> >>

  2. The so-called climate change going on at the moment is a very interesting debate. On the one hand man is supposed to have been stupid enough to precipitate it in the first place, and then on the other hand he is supposed to be clever enough to fix it :!: :?: :roll:

    But the biggest problem is that it is championed by people who believe that you have to line the earth's history up with a post to see any movement over supposed millions of years, but then we are expected to believe a microscopic snapshot of just the last couple of decades constitutes a real and palpable change... Doesn't make sense, does it?

    {not decrying your idea, Carri, just addressing the wider issue .... as many scientists DON'T believe in 'climate change' as do.. just 30 years ago these same scientists were telling us the next big ice age was just around the corner; now we're going to burn instead of freeze???}
  3. good call. hadn't thought about it that way.

    not sure that i fully get what you're saying here paul. sorry, i'm feeling a bit thick today, or maybe i'm just getting more stupid with old age. the simplest figures (whether right, wrong or otherwise) were presented in 'An Inconvenient Truth'. our impact in the last 50 years v's the previous several thousand appears to be difficult to argue with.

    personally, leaving science aside (i hear a collective NR gasp), it just seems common sense to me, and frankly appeals to me, to live within my financial means (ie not live in debt); to not go into emotional debt (ie not take more than i give in my friendships/relationships); and aim to leave a minimal environmental impact to the best of my ability. doesn't seem like rocket science to me....
  4. I think from memory, there are many scientists who are unsure if we're actually falling into, or coming out of an ice age.

    The facts supporting climate change come from data which suggests that we're seeing the fastest change in earths climate that we've seen in the last few million years.

    This data can be based on core samples, tree rings and all sorts of things.

    Bearing in mind that we can only measure back a certain time frame, and the Earths climate cycles naturally anyway. Unfortunately we haven't had another identical earth which is millions of years older, and we can't make one in a lab. It's this which leaves the fact that humans effecting earths climate cycle is only a theory and cannot be proven.

    Even if the earth burned up and we all died, we still could not prove that we caused it, because we wouldn't have a second identical earth to test a different scenario on.

    Unfortunately, we cannot really measure change and point the finger at humans causing that due to the fact that change is constant, and we only really notice change in rate of change. (Bla bla bla)

    By the way I actually believe that humans are effecting climate change, and that we're responsible to do something about it ON OUR WATCH, not put it off for the next generation to deal with. (Nah won't effect me so who cares)

    I'm just making a point as to why some scientists are sceptical of the theories which are coming out. And even the UN climate change commitee or whatever it was, which recently came out could only give something like a 95% likelyhood that we had caused this. (Such a scientific analasys will never give 100%, unless based on opinion) although the general concensus was that we caused this, and should be doing something about it.

    I'm actually reading a book called "Collapse" by Jared Diamond at the moment which is an analasys of why many ancient, but highly advanced civilisations ceased to exist. In alot of cases, the scenarios although not identical (obviously) fit in quite well metaphorically with where society is going now. (And human nature never really changes)

    Alot of societies actually elminiated themselves partially or mostly because of environmental reasons

    I think, a quote from the book, refering to easter island was

    I guess the point is that in the cases of previous societies we have the advantage of foresight, so what may seem so obvious to us, may not have been obvious to them at that time.
  5. Apparently everyone turning off their power for an hour can potentially fark with the power grid. While it's a nice idea in theory, it might take even more power to bring it back up again!!
  6. Global Warming wow what a topic, is it real? Probably based on evidence seen to date I would say it is happening. Yes I have done a lot of research both for and against.

    A lot of scientists believe in Creation does it make it real? Just because you have a degree does not make you a scientist. :roll:
  7. True that, you need a white coat as well... :LOL:
  8. Paul usually i agree with a lot you have to say, but on this one you don't know what you are talking about.

    It has been shown that CO2 in the atmosphere has a direct link to surface temperature.
    It has also been shown that current CO2 levels are somewhere in the region of 20 times the highest peaks found throughout history (By taking core samples from the Antarctic ice caps)

    As for are we bright enough to fix the problem.
    Not while we leave economic rationalists in control. The simple fact is we have to slow down our economies to effectively move over to more sustainable methods of power production and the like, and this will cost those with money and power the most. and they generally don't like things costing them anything.

    As for the idea of everyone turning off there lights for an hour... it won't actually do anything to help. It takes hours to spin up or slow down a power station. a 1 hour dip in power consumption wont even show up. Gestures like this a cute... but people have to actually change there lifestyles to create real change that will effect the over all climate.

    Also odd are (Looking at the numbers) that even if we change now, we will have many decades to come of things getting worse as the current damage slowly balances out, and then a slow improvement. We probably wont see CO2 levels get back to what they were 40 years ago until well after we have all shuffled on, even if strong change is enacted now.
  9. The Tree Huggers Ferral Dreadlock Party has gathered :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:

    Personaly I think the current weather is cyclic. We are in a micro snap shot of a bigger pattern. In past there has been ups and downs ans we are on the merry go round of one of those. When we come out of it, will be sooner rather than later imho anyway.

    I am not doubting the CO2 levels have risen expodentially since the (forgot the terminology) since machine etc (past 100 years). There is undeniable proof of that. But will we change, sadly no. It's polititions who decide policy and there is not a hope in hell you will get a Polly to vote himself out with Tree Hugging Greenie Leftist views in a hurry, because greed fuals the engines and its greed and power that rules the roost. Sad but true. Have a look at the Blair announcement the other day. A typical polly comment. We will bring in law by 2020 or 2030 or something like that time frame (when he has moved on) that this and that has to be in place or you can get the boot from ya job(no kid will live in poverty comment all over again). Just pampering the tree huggers for votes. Or the power brokers of Coal mining saying clean green Coal is the answer, but what is this Clean Coal, they dont know but say give us time we will invent it LOL.

    Then you have the Tree hugging dread lock ferrals sprouting crap about cutting trees down is bad, yes its true trees help the enviro no argument here, but in a sustainable enviro there is nothing wrong with it and yes there should be better management of our resources. But to go to the extent they want we will all be getting around in Tarzan jocks and eat beetles LOL. I really do detest the ferrals arguments about keeping old growth forests for the enviro as it helps the enviro to decrease CO2 yadda yadda push the wheel barrow crap. Sure the old growth forrests do help that is undefendable and I for one do not wish to see old growth forrests removed for other reasons not the pure mantra that tree huggers push slanting the truth. Old trees dont suck up the same volume of CO2 that a younger tree of similiar size does, not that the ferral red necks would tell you that. They go the line of CO2 crap, well its crap. A 40 year old tree of similiar volume vs a 400 year old tree and the young kid on the block has better lungs lets say and turns over WAY MORE than the old fart in CO2 uptake. Old growth forrests should remain for eco purposes of seed prodogy and better seed selection, the trees were able to get to that age because they were able to resist exernal forces placed on them, be it pest, disease, fungal etc, its this seed/geno type we must protect. Not some exuse of save the climate crap they push, there just as bad as pollies when it comes to the truth, telling the ignorant mass there distorted views.

    A while back we tore the ozone layer a new arsehole but since the pollies banned CFC's the hole has begun to close up, so there is hope.

    Cheers :cool:
  10. Dazza nice rant mate!

    You are right there are fringe radicals who in one group want us to have 0% impact on the world and in the other there are people who couldn't give a fcuk if the world was so stuffed their kids would die. The answer of course is in the middle, we have an impact we can argue over the extent of that but it is good that people are thinking about it before making decisions. :grin:
  11. Sorry Paul but show me and quote this lot of scientists, how many peer reviewed articles etc. This argument is not based on fact, please refer to my creation argument.

    Climate change is real, the rate is probably the only argument that needs to be thrashed out.
  12. Climate change/greenhouse/CO2 emissions and sequestration...of the fun of science laced with emotion and politics.

    The recorded spike in CO2 levels is high, but a chart using a scale of 5 years or so is overlayed on a chart using a geological time frame, I get suspicious. I don't believe ice core measurements of CO2 are not so accurate to use to extrapolate current CO2 measurements to future climate predictions, however that is not to say that human activity since the industrial revolution has not increased CO2 levels and that this increase will not have an effect.

    A rolling ten year average of temperature (and/or rainfall/drought index) has shown a statistically significant step change in the average up (or down, when talking about rainfall). These stepwise transitions are important as a clear indicator of threshold values being reached, however identifying the threshold (and what it means) is still difficult with several confounding factors influencing climate and environment metrics.

    So, in the many arguments that get presented on climate change, I still get down to two main points - the first being that the human population is responsible for a great increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere over and above baseline increases, which will contribute to greenhouse type rise in temperatures, and secondly, that there has been identified step changes in climatic attributes. But will this have a major effect on the earth? Well, in the short (geologically speaking) term, yes. If temperature increases continue at the current rate, we should expet to see many extinctions (mainly in alpine species, as the modelled trend is for ecosystems to move south and increase elevation). But long term, species come and go, continents move, volcanoes erupt....

    Can we do anything about it? Possibly, but actions speak louder than government policy and factional infighting. Some ideas like geosequestration seem like a relatively simple, short term fix, but the benefits may be only superficial.

    Here are some interesting facts that Rob Gell provided in one of his presentations focusing on water:

    - If everyone lived like Australians, we would need the natural resources of 4 planet Earths
    - 50% of the world’s freshwater is used by agriculture
    - Embodied water intensities include:
    Wine takes 503 litres to produce $1 of product
    Rice takes 7459 litres to produce $1 of product !!!!
    Cotton takes 1600 litres to produce $1 of product
    Dairy takes 680 litres to produce $1 of product
    - The bottled water industry is booming increasing sales of PET plastics. 1 kilogram of PET (equivalent to 17 x 1.5 litre bottles) creates 2.3 kilograms of carbon dioxide. (90% of these bottles go to waste)
    - Current predictions are for 20% less water in Australia by 2040.

    Food for thought? Drink more wine and milk, but not in the same glass!


  13. Now, that's a whole new topic....and I should know! By the way, you're correct about younger trees sequestering more CO2, but it has little to do with transpiration ability, but rate of growth. Nice phenotype vs genotype argument though, but sort of wrong about seed and pathogen resistance ;)


  14. That's complete crap. Geological records prove that during the Archean the CO2 content of Earth's atmosphere was several hundred times that of current levels (around 600 times by most estimates) and yet surface temperatures were roughly the same as now. Indeed the reason why we have CO2 in the atmosphere at all is due to the gradual release of this earlier CO2 which became sequestered into ground rocks and seawater. Sure organic decay and human activity may release some CO2 - but the amounts are so very, very, very, tiny. The amount of CO2 released by just one volcano for example is far greater than any amount us mere humans can manage in years. Human activity has caused localised pollution - but on a global scale our effect on the atmosphere is basically nonexistent. The "greenhouse" problem seen with Venus (which many mis-educated enivronmentalists like to use) is simply due to the fact that it's CO2 was all released in one hit - with the Earth it's a more gradual process which has remained steady for a very long period (far longer than humans have existed). And in fact if it wasn't for this gradual release of CO2 into the atmosphere life would cease to exist.
  15. This Earth Hour thing is gay.

    What is it actually going to accomplish in 1 hour?

    I'll bet that legislation against incandescent bulbs saves more energy than this gimmick, and that's something the pollies have done! [must be a tax planned for flourescent everythings...].

    Let's have Animal Hour!
    Where we all watch Discovery Channel while stroking a cat to demonstrate how we should stop hunting species to the point of extinction! Yeah, I can definitely see the correlation between doing that and a tangible, positive impact on the situation in question.

    No offence, Carri - great topic for discussion. It just reeks of short-term 'Let's do one little thing and feel better about ourselves and pretend we didn't just accomplish SFA' to me.
  16. Although these actions don't actually achieve much in a hands-on, physical sense, they do provide a method to bring some important issues to the wider public. That's why I think the green groups are so important - chaining yourself to a bulldozer doesn't really do much for sustainable forest management or old growth, but it brings public attention and political pressure to a topic that may have been ignored. I suppose it keeps the bastards honest (or drives them to sneakier methods!)

    The argument here is whether anthropogenic CO2 is over and above a baseline level (which would include volcanic eruptions). I read somewhere that it was estimated that the Mt. Pinotubo eruption put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in 9 hours than the US puts out in a year. Benchmark for natural CO2/greenhouse gases have been developed through ice cores, but still suffers from climatic variations that cycle just prior to cold/warm planet cycles.

    Estimates extrapolated to predictions. Great.


  17. While agree that this "Earth Hour" thing will achieve little to nothing, I don't think we should write it off completely.

    Viewed purely as an awareness raising excercise it's brilliant. If you actually go to the site, they are not just pushing people to turn off their lights for one hour, but to use this as a springboard to living a more environmentally friendly lifestyle.

    My qyestion is, is it just light we have to turn off, I mean can we still watch telly?? Can I play my Cabela's Dangerous Hunts game on my PS2 with the light outs?? (now there would be an irony...)
  18. There's no doubt that anthropogenic CO2 has drastically increased since the start of the Industrial revolution - the real issue is whether this increase has any significant effect globally. Does increased human production of CO2 increase global CO2 levels - yes it does. But by the same logic you can also say that people swimming in the ocean raises global ocean temperatures (through absorbed body heat) - but I don't think that's any real threat to the polar ice caps either.
  19. I think, Falcon, you may have misunderstood the point I was making.

    For nearly 150 years now, evolutionary theorists have eschewed catastrophism and demanded long slow, imperceptible change. Faced with the challenge to produce a 'missing link' between species, they have taken recourse to these long ages, excusing the lack of a discrete single evidence for the fact with the claim that change WAS occuring, it was just so slow and gradual that it was imperceptible.

    Against the background of this limitless mine of rearwards available time, these same scientists now ask us to believe IN THIS CASE, that in fact catastrophism IS occuring, that it has occurred rapidly, precipitated by man, and that discrete single samples of this trend ARE available in core samples and snap-shots of decades. This is despite the fact that examining anything else in such an infinitesimal sample of time is simply unacceptable to them. This smacks of hypocrisy at least, if not scientific dishonesty.

    I'm simply suggesting that they can't have it both ways. If everything else has to be seen against the background of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years, why not so-called changes in the climate as well??

    The answer, of course, if that for the Al Gores and others of the world, there is political capital to be made from it, and, in his case, REAL capital too in showing so-called scientific documentaries.....
  20. Hornet your post confuses me a little. You seem to have the notion that there exists a secret society of "scientists" who always agree on everything. Since ain't like religion. Those publishing papers today on climate change based on polar ice samples are unlikely to be the same scientists publishing papers on evolutionary biology in the past. And don't just look at which research the media decides to report on - for every paper "proving" something there's usually an equal number proving something completely different. Where science differs from religion is that you have to make your own, educated, decision based on the data available - you can't just rely on someone to tell you what's right.