PDA

View Full Version : Live Earth



corney91
July 7th, 2007, 07:00 PM
http://www.liveearth.org/

Will it make a difference???
I'm a bit cynical about whether it will raise awareness but I'd be interested to hear what other people think.

...And no comments about global warming not existing because it's obvious that it is.

justifier
July 7th, 2007, 07:16 PM
what carbon emmissiones being reduced by millions of "pop star" flying to gigs that use an imense amount of electricity and so producing an immense amount of C0^2 emmissions and damaging the planet?

yea of course, NOT

BigSilly
July 7th, 2007, 07:25 PM
It might make a difference if the music was any good....

There's nothing better to "raise awareness" than a bunch of preachy pop stars. It's a pity they can't practice what they preach, as justifier rightly points out above. The issue is serious, the pop stars are helping nothing.

corney91
July 7th, 2007, 07:42 PM
I think the idea is that the awareness will be more beneficial to the environment than the transport there. After all you can't really do anything that doesn't produce emissions, so you may as well raise awareness while you do it.

Swab
July 7th, 2007, 07:44 PM
I think the idea is that the awareness will be more beneficial to the environment than the transport there. After all you can't really do anything that doesn't produce emissions, so you may as well raise awareness while you do it.

If nothing can be done then why raise awareness?

corney91
July 7th, 2007, 07:49 PM
If nothing can be done then why raise awareness?
It can be limited - producing CO2 and other greenhouse gases is natural but we're producing too much

ButteBlues
July 7th, 2007, 07:59 PM
what carbon emmissiones being reduced by millions of "pop star" flying to gigs that use an imense amount of electricity and so producing an immense amount of C0^2 emmissions and damaging the planet?

yea of course, NOT
Considering all the stadiums in which the concerts are in have been "greenified" by recycling, using bio-degradable 'plastic' plates, re-using electricity, etc., I really doubt you know what you're talking about.

Swab
July 7th, 2007, 08:04 PM
Considering all the stadiums in which the concerts are in have been "greenified" by recycling, using bio-degradable 'plastic' plates, re-using electricity, etc., I really doubt you know what you're talking about.

How does one re-use electricity?

23meg
July 7th, 2007, 08:10 PM
what carbon emmissiones being reduced by millions of "pop star" flying to gigs that use an imense amount of electricity and so producing an immense amount of C0^2 emmissions and damaging the planet?

yea of course, NOT

Let us all stop breathing, because we're producing CO2 and releasing heat to the atmosphere, thus contributing to the problem.

justifier
July 7th, 2007, 08:18 PM
Let us all stop breathing, because we're producing CO2 and releasing heat to the atmosphere, thus contributing to the problem.

yea i saw them say that too.

Pekkalainen
July 7th, 2007, 08:21 PM
...And no comments about global warming not existing because it's obvious that it is.

I declare partial ********!

We are having minor climate changes. That is the obvious part. That it is caused by some CO2 is pure ******** until proven otherwise. Dont belive everything you read because most of it is political propaganda.

... and no a few concerts wont stop our planet from doing what it is doing, stop being so naive.

23meg
July 7th, 2007, 08:21 PM
yea i saw them say that too.

Do you think they should?

justifier
July 7th, 2007, 08:24 PM
Do you think they should?

nah, itll make the trees that dies for the paper that the tickets are printed on and th emoney they paind with will be worthless

starcraft.man
July 7th, 2007, 08:36 PM
You don't have to drastically change your lives to reduce your consumption and impact on the environment though. I for instance have converted my entire family to eco friendly lights (the florescent ones, use less energy to produce same light). They do cost a bit more than regular incandescent but it makes us feel better for using less power. In addition my parents pay less (not huge amount) for using less electricity and I haven't had a single one burn out yet, that means we have thrown less burnt bulbs away. Little things like that are all you have to do.

Additionally when your brushing your teeth turn off the water (I know tonnes of people who overlook this, if everyone stopped the water for the 2-3 minute brush 3-4 times a day it adds up to be astronomical). Remember to shut off the lights when you don't need them. Turn down the thermostat for a few degrees (or raise it in the summer, heating and cooling use more energy than you know).

The easiest way to figure out what you can do is analyze your life and see how much you actually use in an average day. Then think, do you really need to use it (i.e. leaving water on when brushing)?

Greenpeace is also a good place to read up on things. International. (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/) US. (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/) Canada. (http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/)

And heres a pdf on things you can do. (http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/documents-and-links/publications/how-to-save-the-climate-pers)The first section of it is facts (dispute them at your leisure) about the climate, the latter sections are common things you can do. Give it a read :).

I'm not trying to convince any of you about climate change (or that its happening), debate that all you want. Regardless, it doesn't hurt you to consume a bit less, you may even save money from doing so.

Thats it for me on the matter. I been watching Live Earth since last night, been good so far (also why I been quiet today :)). The shorts in between the acts were really well done too.

Pekkalainen
July 7th, 2007, 08:48 PM
You don't have to drastically change your lives to reduce your consumption and impact on the environment though. I for instance have converted my entire family to eco friendly lights (the florescent ones, use less energy to produce same light). They do cost a bit more than regular incandescent but it makes us feel better for using less power. In addition my parents pay less (not huge amount) for using less electricity and I haven't had a single one burn out yet, that means we have thrown less burnt bulbs away. Little things like that are all you have to do.



The fact that they contain mercury that kills the planet totally doesnt concern you one bit? :D

corney91
July 7th, 2007, 08:53 PM
The fact that they contain mercury that kills the planet totally doesnt concern you one bit? :D

Then recycle them;)

Pekkalainen
July 7th, 2007, 08:55 PM
Then recycle them;)

Recycling them uses more energy than just making a new one, wich one is better? ;)

jrusso2
July 7th, 2007, 08:58 PM
I find it funny that people will replace their light bulbs with more energy efficient ones but they still drive around in a huge gas guzzling SUV, and jet around using huge amounts of fuel to take their vacations. Or live in giant houses that are much larger then they need to be.

kamaboko
July 7th, 2007, 09:01 PM
I declare partial ********!

We are having minor climate changes. That is the obvious part. That it is caused by some CO2 is pure ******** until proven otherwise. Dont belive everything you read because most of it is political propaganda.

... and no a few concerts wont stop our planet from doing what it is doing, stop being so naive.

OK...I won't believe what you wrote about global warming being political propaganda, b/c it's likely that your comments are political propaganda.

Pekkalainen
July 7th, 2007, 09:04 PM
OK...I won't believe what you wrote about global warming being political propaganda, b/c it's likely that your comments are political propaganda.

Thats good thinking, now apply it to all the "global warming will kill us all next week"-articles as well and you should turn out to be a good rational person :)

corney91
July 7th, 2007, 09:06 PM
Recycling them uses more energy than just making a new one, wich one is better? ;)
But the main positive of Energy Saving Bulbs is that you don't need to replace them as often so there is not much of a problem when they are

Pekkalainen
July 7th, 2007, 09:09 PM
I find it funny that people will replace their light bulbs with more energy efficient ones but they still drive around in a huge gas guzzling SUV, and jet around using huge amounts of fuel to take their vacations. Or live in giant houses that are much larger then they need to be.


Yeah, in sweden we call it "trickle mosquitos and swallow elephants" :)

Pekkalainen
July 7th, 2007, 09:17 PM
But the main positive of Energy Saving Bulbs is that you don't need to replace them as often so there is not much of a problem when they are


Still a fart in space compared to what we could really do if we actually was concerned about the enviorment instead of just pretending that we are ;)

But so far caring about the enviorment wont do us any good in the scale that hippies work in, Even if we all switched to more fuel efficient cars it would only make about a 2% difference in CO2 levels so I dont really see the point. Studies here in sweden shows that swedish cows put out more CO2 than swedish cars, should we kill all the cows?

The enviormental movement is based on pseudo science to promote their anti-business and socialist agenda.

corney91
July 7th, 2007, 09:24 PM
Still a fart in space compared to what we could really do if we actually was concerned about the enviorment instead of just pretending that we are ;)

But so far caring about the enviorment wont do us any good in the scale that hippies work in, Even if we all switched to more fuel efficient cars it would only make about a 2% difference in CO2 levels so I dont really see the point. Studies here in sweden shows that swedish cows put out more CO2 than swedish cars, should we kill all the cows?

The enviormental movement is based on pseudo science to promote their anti-business and socialist agenda.

But if you switched to eco-friendly cars etc, it would all add up to help the Earth which over time we would benefit from.

Pekkalainen
July 7th, 2007, 09:28 PM
But if you switched to eco-friendly cars etc, it would all add up to help the Earth which over time we would benefit from.

Not really, if we want to seriously reduce CO2 emissions we need to start building more nuclear powerplants and put more restraints on our industries, wich will make them all move to china and we would all be reduced to third world countries basicly. Do we want that? No, we are too spoiled to accept such a fact and thats why the enviormental movement will never work, even the hippies are too spoiled to accept it :P

ButteBlues
July 7th, 2007, 09:29 PM
How does one re-use electricity?
As far as I know, they're (apparently) using some method or other by which some of the electricty from the regular lines is being filtered into generators of some sort that produce additional energy, which reduces the amount of power they're taking from the regular lines to power things.

"re-use" was the best term I could think of to identify it.

Swab
July 7th, 2007, 09:39 PM
As far as I know, they're (apparently) using some method or other by which some of the electricty from the regular lines is being filtered into generators of some sort that produce additional energy, which reduces the amount of power they're taking from the regular lines to power things.

"re-use" was the best term I could think of to identify it.

I don't know much about physics, but that would seem to be impossible. You can't use a generator to create more electricity than you started with.

Perhaps they are taking off-peak energy and storing it for use in the day time?

justifier
July 7th, 2007, 09:43 PM
But if you switched to eco-friendly cars etc, it would all add up to help the Earth which over time we would benefit from.

How ar eco cars produced? The production probabloy produces C0^2 also alot o "eco cars" arnt "eco friendly". Such as electric cars all thats happening is the problem being moved. Plus the production of the cars would create a masive amount of C0^2to be produced

just my idea. hope its not gibberish i said it as i thougth it

corney91
July 7th, 2007, 09:50 PM
How ar eco cars produced? The production probabloy produces C0^2 also alot o "eco cars" arnt "eco friendly". Such as electric cars all thats happening is the problem being moved. Plus the production of the cars would create a masive amount of C0^2to be produced

just my idea. hope its not gibberish i said it as i thougth it

Electricity could be produced from different means than those that it is now

corney91
July 7th, 2007, 09:55 PM
I don't know much about physics, but that would seem to be impossible. You can't use a generator to create more electricity than you started with.
This is true but maybe what they are doing is minimalising the amount of electricity they need rather than making more.

Pekkalainen
July 7th, 2007, 09:56 PM
Electricity could be produced from different means than those that it is now

Yeah such as eco-friendly, cheap nuclear power.

corney91
July 7th, 2007, 10:06 PM
Yeah such as eco-friendly, cheap nuclear power.
I agree, but also with a combination of sources such as wind and hydropower.

Mazza558
July 7th, 2007, 11:47 PM
The amount of energy needed in total far outstrips the amount of people who are actually going to start living greener because of this concert. Ah well, at least the music is good. Oh, wait, only half of it is any good ;)

This is not the way to fight global warming. There are MUCH greener ways to try and get a message across than this, and not requiring celebrities and artists to fly over 220,000 combined miles to reach the area.

corney91
July 8th, 2007, 12:03 AM
My worry is whether it will actually raise awareness, which is the whole point. For example I wouldn't have heard of it until the day before if one of my friends wasn't going. Not exactly making people 'aware'. But it's done now, so I guess we'll just sit back and see what happens...

JBull
July 8th, 2007, 02:36 AM
For those of you who criticize the amount of energy used for the concert and flying the performers around the world: Lets do the math.

The concerts will produce approximately 2000 tons of carbon dioxide. The average American produces 8 tons through energy consumption and other means, per year. The concert reaches two billion people. Suppose just half of those who hear the message decide to make changes that reduce their consumption by only 2%. That equals

8tons X 0.02 (percent) X 1,000,000,000 people = 160,000,000 tons CO2 saved from the atmosphere per year.

Lets balance that, 2000 tons vs. 160,000,000 tons.

Get it?

slimdog360
July 8th, 2007, 02:41 AM
It might make a difference if the music was any good....

There's nothing better to "raise awareness" than a bunch of preachy pop stars. It's a pity they can't practice what they preach, as justifier rightly points out above. The issue is serious, the pop stars are helping nothing.
they have crowded house

starcraft.man
July 8th, 2007, 02:43 AM
The amount of energy needed in total far outstrips the amount of people who are actually going to start living greener because of this concert. Ah well, at least the music is good. Oh, wait, only half of it is any good ;)

This is not the way to fight global warming. There are MUCH greener ways to try and get a message across than this, and not requiring celebrities and artists to fly over 220,000 combined miles to reach the area.

Do you have numbers to back up that bolded statement or some ability to see into the future? My second question, is if you find this method to be so poor a choice, what is your suggestion for a better one (you do state their are much greener ways, I assume you have more than one)?


For those of you who criticize the amount of energy used for the concert and flying the performers around the world: Lets do the math.

The concerts will produce approximately 2000 tons of carbon dioxide. The average American produces 8 tons through energy consumption and other means. The concert reaches two billion people. Suppose just half of those who hear the message decide to make changes that reduce their consumption by only 2%. That equals

8tons X 0.02 (percent) X 1,000,000,000 people = 160,000,000 tons CO2 saved from the atmosphere per year.

Lets balance that, 2000 tons vs. 160,000,000 tons.

Get it?

Where did these numbers come from? I like numbers, but I like to know sources more...

JBull
July 8th, 2007, 02:54 AM
Yes, according to the Guardian Newspaper in UK,

"On her tour last year, Madonna produced an estimated 485 tons of carbon dioxide in four months"

So estimate 2000 tons for this event approximately.

The amounts for the average American were drawn from the Carbon Calculator on Live Earth home page. My personal number caculated to be 15 tons, so I am guilty as anyone. I will make some changes. I'm getting a hybrid Ford Escape.

http://www.earthlab.com/carbonProfile/LiveEarth.htm?CID=1000&ver=8

What is My ECP Score?

Your ECP is scaleable scored representation of your unique personal earth conservation profile developed by EarthLab. EarthLab’s ECP score works to calculate your present personal emission, conservation, lifestyle, and intent variables into a single number. Your unique ECP number is a number derived from a robust and unique testing vehicle which employs leading edge data and benefits from a comparable dynamic localized system.

The ECP score is calculated by using scoring models and mathematical tables that assign points for different pieces of information which best illustrate your current position. Developing these models involves a concurrent study of how others internationally, nationally, and locally, are approaching earth conservation. Score-model developers have constructed a system that will allow individuals to dynamically work within their profile and benefit from constantly assessing their overall effect on the earth we live upon. Once an account is established - and an initial score is assigned - EarthLab will begin to provide account holders with additional tools and assessment vehicles in an effort to assist and educate toward finding way to lower or maintain their score. ECP overall scoring data and select variables will be assessed on concurrent basis to provide individuals with a greater understanding of how their score compares with others in the world around them. ECP scores analyze and consider numerous factors such as:

Your initial ECP score is based upon basic categories related to home, energy, work, commute, travel, and lifestyle. Below is a breakdown of the different parts of the ECP:

* -Your Carbon Output
* -Your Lifestyle Habits
* -Your Pledges/Intended Actions
* -Educational/Supportive Opportunities

How your carbon output score is calculated.

The first step in calculating your carbon output score is for the calculator to load variables found within your geographic position. Upon inputting selected variables the scoring will begin to automatically reflect an estimate for a person in your unique geographical area. It is important to note that this score reflects YOUR individual score – and not that of your family or household in general. As such, you will be asked to enter in how many people live in your household. As you move on, you will have the ability to enter the information from your energy bills, information about your vehicle, and information about your air travel. In doing so, the earlier estimate will be replaced by a custom score, bases upon your real variables placed within parameters described in the next section. Beginning with an average allows you to input as much information as you have handy and still get a good picture of your actual impact, even if you don’t have all of your bills or other information handy. Just enter in what you know, save your profile, and come back later to make your calculation and score more precise.
How the Calculator Works.

Section 1: Assigning the Parameters – Gaining Estimates

Home Emissions

To begin to estimate home emissions, the calculator works to assess and calculate the amount of emissions resulting from electricity and natural gas usage, based on the selected state or national average consumption [Energy Information Administration - Natural Gas Annual, Volume “U.S. Average Monthly Bill By Sector, Census Division and State; US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, “Electric Sales, Revenue, and Average Price] , number of adults in the household, and residence type and size.

How does residence type and number of adults fit into the equation?

Electricity: the calculator multiplies the selected state’s average consumption of kilowatt hours (kWh) per household by a percentage, 50%, 75%, or 100% based on the type of residence selected: apartment, townhouse or row house, or single family house, respectively. The product is multiplied by a factor of 0.8, 1.0, or 1.2, based on the size of the residence selected reflected by number of bedrooms. The resulting figure is multiplied by the state average carbon emissions per kWh. This results in an estimate of total amount of pounds of carbon dioxide generated by electric usage, which is then divided by 2,205 to calculate metric tons.

Natural Gas: the calculator multiplies the selected state’s average consumption of therms per household by a percentage, 50%, 75%, or 100% based on the type of residence selected: apartment, townhouse or row house, or single family house, respectively. The product is multiplied by a factor of 0.8, 1.0, or 1.2, based on the size of the residence selected. The resulting figure is multiplied by the state average carbon emissions per CCF. This results in an estimate of total amount of pounds of carbon dioxide generated by natural gas usage, which is then divided by 2,205 to calculate metric tons.

Vehicle Emissions

To estimate auto emissions, the calculator divides the average number of miles an American drives in a year (12,000 Miles) [US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, “Emission Facts: Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Typical Passenger Vehicle,” February 2005] by the estimated fuel efficiency (21 mpg) of the average American vehicle. This amount is multiplied by 19.564 [U.S. Department of Energy and the Energy Information Administration, Instructions for Form EIA 1605B, Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions] the amount of pounds of carbon dioxide that is emitted as a result of burning one gallon of gasoline. To calculate metric tons, this number is divided by 2,205.

Section 2: Calculations for Personalizing the Score

Home Emissions

To calculate your personal home emissions, the calculator adds together the amount of emissions resulting from your electricity, natural gas, heating oil and propane usage.

Electricity: the calculator uses the entered dollar amount of the individual’s average monthly electric bill. Kilowatt-hours used per month are calculated using average energy cost per kilowatt-hour by state [Energy Information Administration – Average Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector , by State]. Total Kilowatt hours are multiplied by pounds of CO2 emitted per Kilowatt-hour in your unique state. [Updated State-level Greenhouse Gas Emissions Coefficients for Electricity Generation]. To calculate to metric tons, this number is divided by 2,205.

Natural Gas: The calculator uses the entered dollar amount of the individuals average monthly natural gas bill. Therms used are calculated using average energy cost per CCF in individuals state. [US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Natural Gas Residential Price by State]. The result is then multiplied by 12.0593 [US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program (Emission Coefficients), “Fuel and Energy Source Codes and Emission Coefficients,”], pounds of carbon dioxide that is emitted as a result of burning one therm of natural gas. To calculate metric tons, this number is divided by 2,205.

Heating oil: the calculator uses the entered amount of the heating oil bill. Gallons used per month is calculated using the national average energy cost per gallon of heating oil [US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, U.S. Heating Oil Residential Price]. The number of gallons is multiplied by 22.384, pounds of carbon dioxide emitted as the result of burning one gallon of heating oil [US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Fuel and Energy Source Codes and Emission Coefficients]. To calculate metric tons, this number is divided by 2,205.

Propane: the calculator uses the entered amount of the propane bill. Gallons used per month is calculated using the national average energy cost per gallon of propane [US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, U.S. Propane Residential Price]. The number of gallons is multiplied by 12.669, pounds of carbon dioxide emitted as the result of using one gallon of propane[Energy Information Administration ,Fuel and Energy Source Codes and Emission Coefficients]. To calculate metric tons, this number is divided by 2,205.

Vehicle Emissions

To calculate your personal auto emissions, for each car, the calculator divides the average number of miles driven in a year by the estimated fuel efficiency (mpg) of the vehicle type that is selected [Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Guide, 2007] This amount is multiplied by 19.564 the amount of pounds of carbon dioxide that is emitted as a result of burning one gallon of gasoline. To calculate metric tons, this number is divided by 2,205.

Air Travel Emissions

To calculate your personal air travel emissions, the number of round trips of selected duration/distance are entered into an equation as follows. Total Revenue Passenger miles flown per year [U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics; TranStats, Air Carrier Summary: Schedule T-1] divided by total jet fuel consumed per year [U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, “Airline Fuel Cost and Consumption], resulting in 43.13 Passenger miles flown per gallon of jet fuel. This figure is divided into the 23.88 pounds of carbon dioxide produced per gallon of jet fuel used [U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, “Airline Fuel Cost and Consumption], yielding 0.484 pounds of carbon dioxide per Passenger mile flown. The number of miles actually flown (inputted) is multiplied by this figure, and to calculate metric tons, the product is divided by 2,205.

Lifestyle Section

To calculate your deduction, if any, related to Pledges and/or Lifestyle questions, a point value has been assigned to each Pledge and/or Lifestyle question based on the projected CO2, to be saved per year. Please note, we can't calculate the carbon savings for all of these actions, however, they can make a difference in the long run.

Canada & World Calculations

EarthLab will be releasing v2 of the ECP Carbon and Lifestyle Calculator within the next three weeks, that will include Canadian and World versions.

starcraft.man
July 8th, 2007, 03:09 AM
Yes, according to the Guardian Newspaper in UK,

"On her tour last year, Madonna produced an estimated 485 tons of carbon dioxide in four months"

So estimate 2000 tons for this event approximately.

The amounts for the average American were drawn from the Carbon Calculator on Live Earth home page. My personal number caculated to be 15 tons, so I am guilty as anyone. I will make some changes. I'm getting a hybrid Ford Escape.

http://www.earthlab.com/carbonProfile/LiveEarth.htm?CID=1000&ver=8

Ah, one of those environmental foot print things... seen so many of those.

Anyway, uh, how did you get from 485 for 1 artist (Maddona) for 4 months tour, to 2000 for over 150 acts (most of them 2-4 person groups) for 1 day?

I don't really see how it got extrapolated/estimated, there are a lot of variables.

JBull
July 8th, 2007, 03:15 AM
From the math posted above,

8tons X 0.02 (percent) X 1,000,000,000 people = 160,000,000 tons CO2 saved from the atmosphere per year.
We can see that the really important number in the equation is how many people make a small change. So I encourage everyone reading this forum to visit the web link (http://www.earthlab.com/carbonprofile/LiveEarth.htm?ver=10) and calculate your personal consumption. Many posts above are defeatists and nihilists who think its all futile. The fact that you know about the issue and recommend nuclear power, for example, shows that you are intelligent and aware of the issues. Please try a different approach. Environmental actions have been successful in the past. Bald Eagle populations in the US were down to 400 mating pairs. Today they number over 10,000 mating pairs and on July1, 2007 were removed from the endangered species list. We cut back on pesticides, and it worked. If we all had been defeatists, the national symbol of the US would now be extinct.

JBull
July 8th, 2007, 03:22 AM
Ah, one of those environmental foot print things... seen so many of those.

Anyway, uh, how did you get from 485 for 1 artist (Maddona) for 4 months tour, to 2000 for over 150 acts (most of them 2-4 person groups) for 1 day?

I don't really see how it got extrapolated/estimated, there are a lot of variables.

You are right, it is hard to extrapolate the numbers from Madonna's 4-month tour to this one-day event. Assume she performed 30 shows and live earth is the equivalent of about 120 shows, so 4 times the amount. Even if you change the multiplier from 4X to 100X, the numbers are still extremely favorable. So change the number from 2000 tons to 50,000 tons. Still,

50,000 tons used vs. 160,000,000 saved is a big effect. And that is for one year alone. Hopefully people will be making permanent changes.

I understand the criticism of the energy and resource consumption for the Live Earth shows but really its a drop in the bucket over what is hoped to be saved. look at the big picture.

JBull
July 8th, 2007, 03:36 AM
Oh, I forgot to calculate in the concert in Antarctica, performed by a group of five scientists. Change that 2000 tons to 2000.01 tons. ;)

starcraft.man
July 8th, 2007, 03:39 AM
You are right, it is hard to extrapolate the numbers from Madonna's 4-month tour to this one-day event. Assume she performed 30 shows and live earth is the equivalent of about 120 shows, so 4 times the amount. Even if you change the multiplier from 4X to 100X, the numbers are still extremely favorable. So change the number from 2000 tons to 50,000 tons.

Still, 50,000 tons used vs. 160,000,000 saved is a big effect. And that is for one year alone. Hopefully people will be making permanent changes.


Hmmm, fair enough (Live Earth was actually host to over 150 different acts/bands, ok though). But now your assuming a Billion people are going to change their lives starting tomorrow (or near future to long term). While I hope your right and people did the get the message, I find myself sceptical that 1/6th of the planet will go somewhat green.


I understand the criticism of the energy and resource consumption for the Live Earth shows but really its a drop in the bucket over what is hoped to be saved. look at the big picture.

Bleh, even if nothing is saved those people don't know what their talking about. That concert is one day in 10 cities. Consider and compare that to the thousands of giant expansive manufacturing/processing plants that operate near 24/7 and continually pump metric tonnes an hour of toxic gas (CO2 among other things) into the atmosphere. Live Earth doesn't even register as a micro dot.

JBull
July 8th, 2007, 03:46 AM
Consider and compare that to the thousands of giant expansive manufacturing/processing plants that operate near 24/7 and continually pump metric tonnes an hour of toxic gas (CO2 among other things) into the atmosphere. Live Earth doesn't even register as a micro dot.

Fair enough. I'm changing some of my bad energy habits just in case. Should have been done long ago.

ButteBlues
July 8th, 2007, 03:57 AM
Bleh, even if nothing is saved those people don't know what their talking about. That concert is one day in 10 cities. Consider and compare that to the thousands of giant expansive manufacturing/processing plants that operate near 24/7 and continually pump metric tonnes an hour of toxic gas (CO2 among other things) into the atmosphere. Live Earth doesn't even register as a micro dot.

The minute you start babbling defeatist drivel, you've already lost.

At least those of us trying to make a change are holding out hope for our children and grandchildren to have a planet to inhabit.

tagra123
July 8th, 2007, 04:12 AM
Duh, Algore said we have 10 years.

Armageddon countdown as of 11:08 eastern time 8 years, 6 months 19 days 16 hours 5 minutes.


Here's a good link for any one that takes Algore seriously: http://www.samanthaburns.com/archives/2006/02/moron_revealed_4.html


Junk Science
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

JBull
July 8th, 2007, 04:22 AM
Duh, Algore said we have 10 years.

Armageddon countdown as of 11:08 eastern time 8 years, 6 months 19 days 16 hours 5 minutes.

That is pretty funny. But I don't think he said ten years to Armegeddon. I don't know which quote you refer to but I'd bet he was referring to the timeframe that we have to take successful action.

JBull
July 8th, 2007, 04:29 AM
Change already! An article from Reuters:

New Jersey governor signs toughest U.S. carbon law
Sat Jul 7, 2007 5:13PM EDT

goes on to say New Jersey will reduce "greenhouse gas emissions throughout New Jersey's economy by about 16 percent by 2020" and "80 percent by 2050 in the country's most densely populated state."

This concert is not only about individual awaerness and pledges to change but also about political pressure and economic pressure from consumers.

We can do it!

tagra123
July 8th, 2007, 04:36 AM
The minute you start babbling defeatist drivel, you've already lost.

At least those of us trying to make a change are holding out hope for our children and grandchildren to have a planet to inhabit.

Humans can only claim responsibility, if that's the word, for abut 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually, the rest of it is all natural (From: "The Real 'Inconvenient Truth' http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/)

kamaboko
July 8th, 2007, 04:39 AM
For the skeptics, take a trip over to Beijing or Mexico City. Suck up the air for a few days and then tell me carbon emissions don't have any effect on the planet.

darkog
July 8th, 2007, 04:57 AM
how can you raise awareness about something that everyone knows about already. the real problem is no one wants to change their life/lifestyle. hope that the problem will get fixed by someone else, go away.

ButteBlues
July 8th, 2007, 05:10 AM
Humans can only claim responsibility, if that's the word, for abut 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually, the rest of it is all natural (From: "The Real 'Inconvenient Truth' http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/)
Sure, because a random Internet site has more truth to its statements than almost every respected scientific institution in the industrialized world.

I don't doubt that most of the CO2 in the air isn't made by us, but the very large amounts we _are_ making are having a vastly negative impact on the Earth.

jusmurph
July 8th, 2007, 05:27 AM
I just want to know what is 'carbon neutral'. As these concerts are said to be carbon neutral and when i watch them on tv, they are burning alot of electricity so how do they counter that?

RAV TUX
July 8th, 2007, 05:33 AM
I just want to know what is 'carbon neutral'. As these concerts are said to be carbon neutral and when i watch them on tv, they are burning alot of electricity so how do they counter that?



When one is unable or unwilling to reduce one's own emissions, Carbon offset is the act of reducing ("offsetting") greenhouse gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas) emissions elsewhere. A well-known example is the planting of trees to compensate for the greenhouse gas emissions from personal air travel.
The idea of paying for emission-reductions elsewhere instead of reducing by own actions is also known from the closely related concept of emissions trading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading). However, in contrast to emissions trading, which is regulated by a strict formal and legal framework, carbon offsets generally refer to voluntary acts by individuals or companies that are commonly arranged by commercial or not-for-profit carbon-offset providers.
A wide variety of offset methods are in use — while tree planting has initially been a mainstay of carbon offsetting, renewable energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy) and energy conservation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_conservation) offsets have now become increasingly popular, and purchase and withdrawal of emissions trading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading) credits is also seen.
Carbon offsetting as part of a "carbon neutral" lifestyle has gained some appeal and momentum mainly among consumers in western countries who have become aware and concerned about the potentially negative effects of energy-demanding lifestyles and economies on the environment. This has contributed to the increasing popularity of voluntary offsets among private individuals and also companies. Offsets may be cheaper or more convenient alternatives to reducing one's own fossil-fuel consumption. However, some critics object to carbon offsets, and many have questioned the benefits of certain types of offsets (such as tree planting), and other projects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset

I perceive the "carbon neutral" kick with skepticism

Thyme
July 8th, 2007, 08:35 AM
Whether anyone believes it or not, it's happening and it's getting worse everyday.

I always make sure that I'm fully concious of what I do and how it will effect everything around me. My "footprint" on this earth is light and small.
Unfortunately because the US is a superpower and it's leader, George Bush, is no more intelligent than a goldfish, the extremety of global warming will not only prevail but also get worse.

I think that until we actually open our eyes to see how beatiful life actually is, then this matter won't be adequately addressed. Please don't flame me becuase this is my humble and honest opinion.

BigSilly
July 8th, 2007, 10:21 AM
Global warming is soooo ten minutes ago! I'm hearing about Intergalactic warming now!

Can't remember where I heard it, but I'm sure I've read somewhere that all the planets in our solar system are warming the same as Earth.

Interplanetary conspiracies FTW!!

corney91
July 8th, 2007, 01:03 PM
For everyone who is quoting http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/, that site has no fact in it. For a start 'the greenhouse affect' is not a problem - it's what's kept us alive for millions of years. Global warming is different, it comes from the greenhouse effect being exacerbated. For a site that is meant to contain 'science' but can't get simple things right, makes me think how can you trust the other facts they throw at you?

smoker
July 8th, 2007, 02:16 PM
still waiting expectantly for global warming to begin here. it is bloody freezing, and summertime too :-)

illu45
July 8th, 2007, 02:59 PM
I'm normally very skeptical when it comes to things like 'public awareness concerts', mostly because very few of the performers actually practice what they preach. But then I thought, if the Live Earth concert can inspire even one person to do something truly great to combat global warming, then I think it would have been successful.

ice60
July 8th, 2007, 04:21 PM
there's a simpsons about bart falling in to a well and no one can get him out. all the pop stars decide to put on a all day event like live earth, singing about bart being stuck in a well.

live earth is a bit like that i think. it's a bit too touchy-feely and limp wristed for me

lets all hold hands and sing cum by yar lol

who do these pop stars think they are? who are they to preach to me? bunch of wan***s

ice60
July 8th, 2007, 04:27 PM
lol here are the lyrics about the boy stuck in a well
We're Sending Our Love down the Well

Sting: There's a hole in my heart
As deep as a well
For that poor little boy,
Who's stuck halfway to Hell...

Sideshow Mel: Though we can't get him out,
We'll do the next best thing...

McBain: We go on TV
And sing, sing, sing!

All: And we're sending our love down the well...

Krusty: All the way down!

All: We're sending our love down the well...

Krusty: Down that well!

ice60
July 8th, 2007, 04:30 PM
lol

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5866040981415726981

corney91
July 8th, 2007, 05:01 PM
there's a simpsons about bart falling in to a well and no one can get him out. all the pop stars decide to put on a all day event like live earth, singing about bart being stuck in a well.

live earth is a bit like that i think. it's a bit too touchy-feely and limp wristed for me

Yeah it is a bit like that...how can they get him out by singing?


Though we can't get him out,
We'll do the next best thing...

How is it even the next best thing?...lol

scotty32
July 8th, 2007, 06:44 PM
there was sumfin on tv a while back called The Great Global Warming Swindle (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=220010842208417568&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&total=158&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=9)

ice60
July 8th, 2007, 07:37 PM
How is it even the next best thing?...lol
that's the point, it's just not.

some intellectual probably told those singers some mumbojumbo that it's ok for them to have a big carbon-footprint and they fell for it. their egos are so big they actually believed their own BS, now we can all laugh our asses off watching them :lolflag: and all the touchy-feely crowd will say "we" don't understand. i love it. we should have live earth every year lol


there was sumfin on tv a while back called The Great Global Warming Swindle (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=220010842208417568&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&total=158&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=9)
everyone should have to watch that! i'll watch it now i missed it when it was on.

ButteBlues
July 8th, 2007, 07:54 PM
there was sumfin on tv a while back called The Great Global Warming Swindle (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=220010842208417568&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&total=158&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=9)
Again, scientists all over the world know more about global warming than Joe Schmuck.

ice60
July 8th, 2007, 08:22 PM
Again, scientists all over the world know more about global warming than Joe Schmuck.
tell the truth now, you haven't watched it have you? or if you have you didn't understand it.

ButteBlues
July 8th, 2007, 08:33 PM
tell the truth now, you haven't watched it have you? or if you have you didn't understand it.
I guess you must be right - a few no-name, self-titled "scientists" know more about the realities of the world than thousands of scientists from the best scientific academies around the world.

But then again, I guess everything you see in a flash video must be the God-given truth.

ice60
July 8th, 2007, 08:43 PM
I guess you must be right - a few no-name, self-titled "scientists" know more about the realities of the world than thousands of scientists from the best scientific academies around the world.

But then again, I guess everything you see in a flash video must be the God-given truth.

i haven't watched it, i'm about to, but i don't really need to watch it because i already know the facts. 8)

wolfen69
July 8th, 2007, 09:11 PM
I declare partial ********!

We are having minor climate changes. That is the obvious part. That it is caused by some CO2 is pure ******** until proven otherwise. Dont belive everything you read because most of it is political propaganda.

... and no a few concerts wont stop our planet from doing what it is doing, stop being so naive.

you're a loser. pitiful.

tagra123
July 8th, 2007, 10:23 PM
Sure, because a random Internet site has more truth to its statements than almost every respected scientific institution in the industrialized world.

I don't doubt that most of the CO2 in the air isn't made by us, but the very large amounts we _are_ making are having a vastly negative impact on the Earth.

Did you even read about it or do you let the media feed you the information that they want you to have.

What cracks me up is that a consensus is not science. Oh, it makes me feel good to buy Algore's theory, hook line, and sinker. Somebody pat me on the back I bought a fluorescent light bulb, I bought a go kart instead of a car. If you seriously think its about anything other than money and power then you better get your head examined or do some reading for yourself.

If you would have read the article you would see that water vapor is the major factor contributing to greenhouse effect.

I conserve for my own $$$. What really gets me is the hypocrisy of these people. Practice what you preach or just shut up already!!!! It's really hard to listen to someone who won't even take their own advice because it is distasteful. Maybe someone should buy Algore a ticket to Alaska and he can sit on a glacier and measure it each day.

By the way there are many scientists that disagree with the C02 = Global Warming. Open some books and read already.

ice60
July 8th, 2007, 10:24 PM
i just watched that documentary. i think if you believe all that live earth crap you should watch it too.

there are so many subjects that i have to pay no attention to (like this CO2 BS) because it makes me ill thinking how so many people go along with it without having a clue. if i followed what was happening with the EU more closely i'd have some kind of break-down i think lol, but that's another subject.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=220010842208417568

tagra123
July 8th, 2007, 10:27 PM
that's the point, it's just not.

some intellectual probably told those singers some mumbojumbo that it's ok for them to have a big carbon-footprint and they fell for it. their egos are so big they actually believed their own BS, now we can all laugh our asses off watching them :lolflag: and all the touchy-feely crowd will say "we" don't understand. i love it. we should have live earth every year lol


everyone should have to watch that! i'll watch it now i missed it when it was on.

Love it!

Didn't bother with watching.

Sting is still alive???????????

Let me guess I'll bet Sting sang a song called "I'm the King of Green".

ice60
July 8th, 2007, 10:55 PM
Love it!

Didn't bother with watching.

Sting is still alive???????????

Let me guess I'll bet Sting sang a song called "I'm the King of Green".
i can't imagine i'd take part in something about carbon-footprints when i owned 3/4 houses 5/6 cars a private jet etc, etc. what are these people on??

just think about it for a second, how could you seriously take part in something like live earth if you are a pop-star? it's the most ridiculous thing i've seen in at least 2 weeks lol

JBull
July 8th, 2007, 11:42 PM
i haven't watched it, i'm about to, but i don't really need to watch it because i already know the facts.

You are sooo smart. Its amazing how intelligent you are about climate change. We should cancel the 2,500 scientists who make up the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change and put you in charge since you watched a video about it on the internet.

They can't fool you, you're waaay tooo smart. Of course you also know they never put a man on the moon, it was all staged. And you know this because you read a report about it by a scientist that has an internet video about it. Oh, yea -of course the Earth is only 5,000 years old. You can read that in the bible on page one. And then there's all the creation scientists. You should watch their internet video about it so you won't be fooled by the mainstream science. DNA and carbon dating are all bunk. Don;t be fooled.


Seriously, did you read the four reports written by the UN IPCC's which contains the top 2,500 scientists on this issue? Or did you disregard all of their research based on a handful of alternative scientists who publish marginal claims?

Since you already know all the facts and have concluded that Global Warming is a farce, please explain to us why you have more credibility than the official scientific panels who research this issue. Thanks for enlightening us. I'll call the IPCC tomorrow and tell them to stop the research because some guy on the Ubuntu forum said there's no Global Warming.

ice60
July 8th, 2007, 11:51 PM
please explain to us why you have more credibility than the official scientific panels who research this issue.

i spent 10 years doing research with the British Antarctic Survey and have lectured around the world on my findings :lolflag:

ice60
July 9th, 2007, 12:01 AM
ok, maybe that was a bit of an exaggeration. i listened to a podcast about it once. well, i thought it was pretty funny :twisted:

ButteBlues
July 9th, 2007, 12:11 AM
ok, maybe that was a bit of an exaggeration. i listened to a podcast about it once. well, i thought it was pretty funny :twisted:
My point exactly.

You don't know anything beyond what a completely biased and uninformed "documentary" fed you. So kindly stop talking about issues you are clearly entirely unknowledgeable about.

ice60
July 9th, 2007, 12:24 AM
My point exactly.

You don't know anything beyond what a completely biased and uninformed "documentary" fed you. So kindly stop talking about issues you are clearly entirely unknowledgeable about.

no that's absolutley not true at all, i've read enough, and followed the subject since Kyoto, to know there are many facts debunking man-made global warming.

i don't read any UN papers any more because i don't like the UN, it's a joke.

i've read far more then the average person. you could get 1000 experts in this thread to try and explain it to me and i wouldn't change my mind because i know i'm right.

JBull
July 9th, 2007, 12:37 AM
i can't imagine i'd take part in something about carbon-footprints when i owned 3/4 houses 5/6 cars a private jet etc, etc. what are these people on??

just think about it for a second, how could you seriously take part in something like live earth if you are a pop-star? it's the most ridiculous thing i've seen in at least 2 weeks lol

Since the above criticism was about Sting, here's what he is doing:

His organization builds "green" houses for victims of disaster and other displaced people, such as in New Orleans. During the Live Earth interview he admitted that he has a large carbon footprint because of his music career. Therefore, he says, he must do something larger for the environment than most people. And he does. There are plenty of artists in Live Earth that are good targets for charges of hipocrisy.:guitar:

JBull
July 9th, 2007, 12:39 AM
no that's absolutley not true at all, i've read enough, and followed the subject since Kyoto, to know there are many facts debunking man-made global warming.

i don't read any UN papers any more because i don't like the UN, it's a joke.

i've read far more then the average person. you could get 1000 experts in this thread to try and explain it to me and i wouldn't change my mind because i know i'm right.

Well, pick your favorite "fact" and lets discuss it here.

BTW, I don't mean to pick on you specifically. There are a lot of others in the forum to whom my criticism applies. No personal offense intended.

ButteBlues
July 9th, 2007, 12:45 AM
no that's absolutley not true at all, i've read enough, and followed the subject since Kyoto, to know there are many facts debunking man-made global warming.

Offer such facts here then.


i don't read any UN papers any more because i don't like the UN, it's a joke.

So you're denying proven scientific findings by thousands of the world's best scientists because you dislike the global organization to which they made their report?

Yeah - that makes loads of sense.


i've read far more then the average person. you could get 1000 experts in this thread to try and explain it to me and i wouldn't change my mind because i know i'm right.

That's a pretty ignorant attitude to have.

Sensible Person - "How can you not believe in gravity?! Every scientist out there knows gravity is real - it's true. You can walk outside and witness gravity!"

Non sensible Person - "Uh, screw off. I'm right and everyone else is wrong."

ice60
July 9th, 2007, 12:58 AM
Since the above criticism was about Sting, here's what he is doing:
no, it really wasn't about sting. i haven't mentioned sting in this thread apart from maybe when i copied and pasted the lyrics to a song.

if i was thinking about anyone it was madonna, i really dislike her and she has been mentioned most in the news. but, i'd have to say it was about all the singers, not anyone in particular.


Well, pick your favorite "fact" and lets discuss it here. i don't know any off-hand, but if i had to come up with something i'd say man-made co2 accounts for 0.005 of the gas in our atmosphere and it's not enough to make a difference to global warming, whereas global warming follows exactly the trend of sun-spots and the sun accounts for 100% of our energy. so, global warming is determined by the sun, not co2

i want to say this because i probably haven't made it clear, this is what i think about global-warming - it's not possible to say whether man-made co2 makes any difference at all, it's next to impossible to make models that will accurately judge future trends, there are just too many factors involved.

ice60
July 9th, 2007, 01:05 AM
Sensible Person - "How can you not believe in gravity?! Every scientist out there knows gravity is real - it's true. You can walk outside and witness gravity!"

Non sensible Person - "Uh, screw off. I'm right and everyone else is wrong."
you don't know much about gravity detection do you lol. gravity waves were predicted by Einstein and scientists are still trying to find them lol

ButteBlues
July 9th, 2007, 01:09 AM
you don't know much about gravity detection do you lol. gravity waves were predicted by Einstein and scientists are still trying to find them lol
Here's a hint: Go outside, and throw something up in the air. Watch as it comes down.

Magic, innit?

ice60
July 9th, 2007, 01:17 AM
Here's a hint: Go outside, and throw something up in the air. Watch as it comes down.

Magic, innit?
i just thought it funny you picked gravity when gravity is so difficult to detect. you could try jumping off a very tall building lol.

don't take it too personally. anyway, i'm going to go and watch 24 in a minute.

it's not possible to say with 100% certainty that man-made co2 does anything much to global warming. and that's a fact. lol i'm going.

ButteBlues
July 9th, 2007, 02:25 AM
i just thought it funny you picked gravity when gravity is so difficult to detect. you could try jumping off a very tall building lol.

don't take it too personally. anyway, i'm going to go and watch 24 in a minute.

it's not possible to say with 100% certainty that man-made co2 does anything much to global warming. and that's a fact. lol i'm going.
Even those scientists who don't believe in global warming recognize that CO2 is responsible for climate shifts throughout Earth's history.

That we're adding a rather large sum of CO2 in the atmosphere that would not exist naturally would have adverse effects is only logical.

ice60
July 9th, 2007, 03:40 AM
i think the documentary will give far more facts then you'll get from me. it's pretty simple to me though, global warming may be happening, but how much of it is down to man-made co2 is impossible to say because there are too many factors and it's far too complicated for anyone to say with any degree of accuracy. that's all there is to it, it's common sense.

where can we find an expert? (we need a second opinon on this, so you can't say me i'm afraid)

Earthwormzim
July 9th, 2007, 03:53 AM
Global Warming certainly does exist. So does Global Cooling. In fact, back in the 70s, everyone was scared silly about Global Cooling. And now, less than 40 yrs later, we are all up in arms about Global Warming. Haha!

Here's a simple thought experiment: Think about the fact that there have been ice ages in the past. In order for there to not be an ice age now, the planet apparently had to warm up. Now...back then there was no industrialization...so, what on Earth could have caused the planet to warm back up (several times) and then cool back down?

I think the obvious conclusion is that the Earth's temperature fluctuates...and it does so naturally. If it is possible that there have been temperatures that were much colder than today, than what makes you think that there cannot be temperatures hotter than today? And what makes you think that they could not occur naturally? Hell, there actually was a period known as the Medieval Warm Period that had temperatures even hotter than they are today, and there were no automobiles and factories back then!

So what is the cause of the fluctuating temperatures on Earth? My bet is the sun. I mean, it is, afterall, a huge-mongous volatile ball of fire, less than a couple-hundred million kilometers away.

Your thoughts?

ButteBlues
July 9th, 2007, 04:08 AM
Global Warming certainly does exist. So does Global Cooling. In fact, back in the 70s, everyone was scared silly about Global Cooling. And now, less than 40 yrs later, we are all up in arms about Global Warming. Haha!

Here's a simple thought experiment: Think about the fact that there have been ice ages in the past. In order for there to not be an ice age now, the planet apparently had to warm up. Now...back then there was no industrialization...so, what on Earth could have caused the planet to warm back up (several times) and then cool back down?

I think the obvious conclusion is that the Earth's temperature fluctuates...and it does so naturally. If it is possible that there have been temperatures that were much colder than today, than what makes you think that there cannot be temperatures hotter than today? And what makes you think that they could not occur naturally? Hell, there actually was a period known as the Medieval Warm Period that had temperatures even hotter than they are today, and there were no automobiles and factories back then!

So what is the cause of the fluctuating temperatures on Earth? My bet is the sun. I mean, it is, afterall, a huge-mongous volatile ball of fire, less than a couple-hundred million kilometers away.

Your thoughts?
No one's debating that.

The issue is, the amount of carbon dioxide we're pumping into the atmosphere is causing the planet to heat faster and higher than it naturally would have, which, as far as things seem to show, will be a continuing trend for decades, which will inevitably raise temperatures to such a point that the world will suffer through things like massive crop failures and more.

JBull
July 9th, 2007, 04:24 AM
Global Warming certainly does exist. So does Global Cooling. In fact, back in the 70s, everyone was scared silly about Global Cooling. And now, less than 40 yrs later, we are all up in arms about Global Warming. Haha!

Here's a simple thought experiment: Think about the fact that there have been ice ages in the past. In order for there to not be an ice age now, the planet apparently had to warm up. Now...back then there was no industrialization...so, what on Earth could have caused the planet to warm back up (several times) and then cool back down?

I think the obvious conclusion is that the Earth's temperature fluctuates...and it does so naturally. If it is possible that there have been temperatures that were much colder than today, than what makes you think that there cannot be temperatures hotter than today? And what makes you think that they could not occur naturally? Hell, there actually was a period known as the Medieval Warm Period that had temperatures even hotter than they are today, and there were no automobiles and factories back then!

So what is the cause of the fluctuating temperatures on Earth? My bet is the sun. I mean, it is, afterall, a huge-mongous volatile ball of fire, less than a couple-hundred million kilometers away.

Your thoughts?

You're right, the sun is a major player. The intensity of the sun is at a very high historical level over the last 100 years. We know this from measurements of Beryllium-10 that can be traced back for the last 1,200 years. So we have a very long record of solar intensity vs. earth temperature. And according to the Royal meteorological Society, "the established view remains that the sun cannot be responsible for all the climate changes we have seen in the past 50 years". Solar intensity only accounts for the current temperature rises over the last 20 years when evaluated relative to the modern C02 content in the atmosphere.

Humans may only account for 0.005 of all CO2 emitted on Earth but that stat is misleading. The natural CO2 emissions have been in balance with natural uptake over eons. Recent deforestation has prevented uptake of C02, which furthers shifts the balance. So its not correct to look at the total amount of C02 emitted but rather to look at the balance of uptake vs emissions. We can absolutely scientifically measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I know of no scientist that denies the concentration of CO2 has increased significantly since the industrial revolution. And scientists all agree that C02 is a primary greenhouse gas. So we can easily see that increased solar activity in conjunction will increased greeenhouse gas leads to the higher temperatures. That is the scientific consensus.

What really sucks about all of this is that is has become so partisan. Within the minority of folks who still deny Global Warming, it is almost a 100% guarantee that they come from the political right, basing their understanding of science on politics and political propagandists.

bobbybobington
July 9th, 2007, 04:29 AM
The argument is simple. The cost of not doing anything about climate change and it being man made outweighs the cost of "crying wolf" and it turning out to not be man made. With a greater odds of it being real and the effects of it would cause than the alternative, therefore no matter your political views (even though this shouldn't be political ) we need to make changes to our society, that takes support of the public, and that if what live earth is about.

JBull
July 9th, 2007, 04:58 AM
The argument is simple. The cost of not doing anything about climate change and it being man made outweighs the cost of "crying wolf" and it turning out to not be man made.

Amen to that. I'm not perfect but I'll do what I can within the confines of my regular life to reduce my carbon footprint. And an added side benefit is that we'll be less dependent on middle eastern oil reserves. What is the bad part about that? I can't understand how anyone could be opposed to cleaner air, possibly solving global warming and reducing dependence on unstable political regions for our energy sources.

ButteBlues
July 9th, 2007, 05:11 AM
Amen to that. I'm not perfect but I'll do what I can within the confines of my regular life to reduce my carbon footprint. And an added side benefit is that we'll be less dependent on middle eastern oil reserves. What is the bad part about that? I can't understand how anyone could be opposed to cleaner air, possibly solving global warming and reducing dependence on unstable political regions for our energy sources.
There are other incentives too.

For things like CFLs, while they cost more immediately, you save ridiculous amounts of money on your monthly electric bill while getting the same amount of light with the bonus of reduced emissions. Why more people haven't switched from incandescent, I'll never know. All my bulbs are CFLs, and not only have I never had to replace a single one yet, but my electric bills are at least $100 USD cheaper because of it.

JBull
July 9th, 2007, 05:14 AM
A neighbor of mine installed solar panels on the top of his house. his electric bill has been reduced to about $40 per month. The cost of solar panels will pay for itself in about five years based on the electric savings. During certain times he has observed his home power meter running backwards, putting extra power into the grid.

ice60
July 9th, 2007, 04:45 PM
The argument is simple. The cost of not doing anything about climate change and it being man made outweighs the cost of "crying wolf" and it turning out to not be man made.
that's something else i might disagree with. one of the reasons the US didn't sign up to Kyoto was exactly because doing something about reducing co2 emissions would seriously hurt millions of people in many different ways. also, the US rightly said the science wasn't proven.

doing something about man-made co2 also hurts the poorest countries and people in the world. especially poor countries that are energy resource rich.

i'd have thought all developed countries went through stages of vast industiral growth which in the process spewed out co2. the end result was increased living standards. if the world as a whole decides to decrease co2 emissions what will happen to all the people in countries that are ready for industrial growth?

PartisanEntity
July 9th, 2007, 09:21 PM
Apparently BBC ratings for the Diana concert dwarfed those for Live Earth. (Diana 11.4 million, Live Earth 3.1 million).

Great comment from the whatreallyhappened.com blog:


I think the public saw through the hypocrisy of ultra-rich rock stars flying in from across the globe in their private jets, cruising to the concert venue in their gas-guzzling limousines, dancing under megawatts of lighting to kilowatts of sound amplification, piling up hundreds of tons of trash ... to tell the rest of us we must live more austere lives.

lol cracks me up, but that is also my opinion of such events.