Does Earth Hour actually help the environment? Fri, March 25, 2011
Do you plan on sitting in the dark this Saturday night?
Around the world, people will make the symbolic gesture of showing they support a cleaner world and lower-carbon lifestyle by raising their carbon output.
Earth Hour, started in 2007, encourages people to show their support for the planet by turning their lights off and enjoying the world by candlelight. The problem, of course, is for most Canadians that means turning off a low-carbon energy source and burning pure fossil fuels.
The absurdity is likely lost on most professional environmentalists.
Didn't take long after all. Apparently it's 6%...I don't suppose that that 1% would allow me to claim we were BOTH wrong, would it lol.
Thanks!
Maz, 2009-04-01 15:20:09
Sorry Uplink...
Should have thought over what you said before responding. You may well be right over-all, what I meant was that Volcanic activity only produces 1% of what human activity generates. As to the rest, I have no idea how much CO2 is generated by rotting vegetation, but I suspect it's substantial. I guess the point is that all the naturally occuring stuff has been in balance for...well, ever I guess. The difference is our contribution.
Maz, 2009-04-01 15:15:18
BigW...
Will do...I went on memory which occasionally serves me wrong. I'll look tomorrow.
Uplink...
I think you've got it backwards. Man-made CO2 far out-weighs naturally produced.
Maz, 2009-04-01 15:00:10
Sorry, but this is a long one in reply to Kurt...
Kurt…
You’re both right and wrong. Volcanic activity, although playing a significant role in atmospheric CO2 back in the Phanerozoic and Devonian periods, plays an insignificant role in modern times. Volcanic emissions only comprise 1% of that from human sources. In North America alone we generate 5 tons of CO2 per person (almost five times higher than anywhere else in the world). You are however absolutely correct in stating that water vapour comprises the primary ‘greenhouse gas’ (followed by CO2); counting clouds, estimates indicate that up to 80% of the greenhouse effect comes from atmospheric water. However, things are interactive. Infrared radiation normally reflecting into space is trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases, warming the air, which in turn increases % water vapour. The water vapour warms the air further thereby creating a positive feedback cycle. The balance in this equation is supposed to be an increase in radiant energy passing from the atmosphere into space, but we are adding new greenhouse gases faster than the system can respond (de-forestation also reduces our ecosystem’s ability to respond). Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 levels have risen by approx 35%...and that IS based on samples of Arctic ice. I don’t remember all the specifics but there are three types of carbon checked for; C-12, C-13, and C-15 (?). Of these, two are natural in origin, the third from industrial sources. The increase in CO2 was predominately industrial in nature. Wrt your question about why the upper atmosphere isn’t heating up; I don’t know, but I could theorize. Consider a parking lot as the upper atmosphere, and a parked car as the inner atmosphere. The car will continue to heat up internally due to the physics of heat reflection long after the external temp has stabilized. That strikes me as a pretty similar situation to atmospheric composition. I’ll have to look to see if I can learn more about that. Mars? There are three reasons that come to mind as to why Mars is so cold. First, it’s so far from the sun that it receives much less solar radiation. Secondly, the atmosphere is so thin (although deeper) that even though it has a predominant CO2 content, only small amounts of the radiation bouncing off the surface get trapped. Greenhouse gases are supposed to act as an insulating barrier; a blanket if you will. Mars’s blanket is full of holes. Finally, as you pointed out, water vapour is the dominant greenhouse gas. There is no ‘free’ water on Mars.
Finally, I too remember the 'ice-age' scare in the 70s. As a young child I used to worry about glaciers reaching Toronto. Although there may well be fear mongerers who claim that global warming will lead to human extinction, I neither said that or believe it. I’ve read estimates that state if all the fossil fuel reserves in the world were burnt and released into the atmosphere, our planet would still sustain a liveable atmosphere. It would, I suspect, make life a little uncomfortable in the equatorial regions. To balance that, anyone who owns tundra land now well may make a nice profit lol.
Maz, 2009-04-01 14:55:58
The CO2 given off by man made sources is less than 1% of that naturally produced volanoes, water evaporation, rotting leaves etc.
Fossil fuels are only the largest man made contribution to the C02 in the atmosphere, but when compared to natural sources, it is a pittance.
That is a fact, proven and indisputable yadayada...
uplink, 2009-04-01 13:07:30
Yes it does help but I don't need extremists to tell me its a good thing to save energy that is just economical common sense.
Do I expect us to sacrifice our well being so the clowns who preach to us as they fly around the world expressing their beliefs. Not an fn chance.
So walk or bike to the store/work/bus if you can instead of driving. One its good for you to walk etc... and gives youtime to think.
Green planet yes for the right reasons but not extremist stop all production attitudes
Bucadogg, 2009-04-01 12:35:15
Maz,go back and research your "Facts".
Germany has a third of the worlds installed capacity for wind power generation. Yet according to figures from the German Wind Energy Association (BWE), 18,685 plants with a capacity of 20,622 megawatts were in operation at the end of 2006. They generated 30.5 billion kilowatt hours of electricity in 2006. This corresponds to a share of around 5 percent in Germany's total electricity consumption. A far cry from the 40 percent you claim.
Big W, 2009-04-01 12:35:08
Shawn -
I use my real name wherever I post. I do this because I stand behind what I write. My way of thinking is if one can't stand behind what they write and use their real name, they are cowards.
Over the years I've watch people nymshift and create a herd of sockpuppets to gather around them for 'support', but you can tell who is nymshifting quite easily if you put your mind to it. Grammer, spelling and a hundred other subtle things gives a person away.
And it becomes like a fascinating game to me: reading, studying and identifying nymshifters. They're usually insecure, have a minimum education but the odd one or two are highly intelligent sociopaths.
These people usually look for credence and affirmation from the online community because they have difficulty forming friendships with peers.
And so on.
Best,
Karen (the one and only!)
Karen Smith (the one and only), 2009-04-01 11:43:11
Wow.I t seems we are blessed with a top scientist on this site,who knows all the answers...KURT
Just another environment hating right winger
EH?
tweetypie, 2009-04-01 09:54:13
Maz, nothing I said was pointed at you. It was a general observation. I respect that people have a cause and if it makes sense and is not self serving (PETA anyone) then I have nothing but respect for the casue. Your note is well written and taken.
Bowie, 2009-04-01 09:06:05
Does Earth Hour actually help the environment? 
Didn't take long after all. Apparently it's 6%...I don't suppose that that 1% would allow me to claim we were BOTH wrong, would it lol.
Thanks!
Maz, 2009-04-01 15:20:09
Should have thought over what you said before responding. You may well be right over-all, what I meant was that Volcanic activity only produces 1% of what human activity generates. As to the rest, I have no idea how much CO2 is generated by rotting vegetation, but I suspect it's substantial. I guess the point is that all the naturally occuring stuff has been in balance for...well, ever I guess. The difference is our contribution.
Maz, 2009-04-01 15:15:18
Will do...I went on memory which occasionally serves me wrong. I'll look tomorrow.
Uplink...
I think you've got it backwards. Man-made CO2 far out-weighs naturally produced.
Maz, 2009-04-01 15:00:10
Kurt…
You’re both right and wrong. Volcanic activity, although playing a significant role in atmospheric CO2 back in the Phanerozoic and Devonian periods, plays an insignificant role in modern times. Volcanic emissions only comprise 1% of that from human sources. In North America alone we generate 5 tons of CO2 per person (almost five times higher than anywhere else in the world). You are however absolutely correct in stating that water vapour comprises the primary ‘greenhouse gas’ (followed by CO2); counting clouds, estimates indicate that up to 80% of the greenhouse effect comes from atmospheric water. However, things are interactive. Infrared radiation normally reflecting into space is trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases, warming the air, which in turn increases % water vapour. The water vapour warms the air further thereby creating a positive feedback cycle. The balance in this equation is supposed to be an increase in radiant energy passing from the atmosphere into space, but we are adding new greenhouse gases faster than the system can respond (de-forestation also reduces our ecosystem’s ability to respond). Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 levels have risen by approx 35%...and that IS based on samples of Arctic ice. I don’t remember all the specifics but there are three types of carbon checked for; C-12, C-13, and C-15 (?). Of these, two are natural in origin, the third from industrial sources. The increase in CO2 was predominately industrial in nature. Wrt your question about why the upper atmosphere isn’t heating up; I don’t know, but I could theorize. Consider a parking lot as the upper atmosphere, and a parked car as the inner atmosphere. The car will continue to heat up internally due to the physics of heat reflection long after the external temp has stabilized. That strikes me as a pretty similar situation to atmospheric composition. I’ll have to look to see if I can learn more about that. Mars? There are three reasons that come to mind as to why Mars is so cold. First, it’s so far from the sun that it receives much less solar radiation. Secondly, the atmosphere is so thin (although deeper) that even though it has a predominant CO2 content, only small amounts of the radiation bouncing off the surface get trapped. Greenhouse gases are supposed to act as an insulating barrier; a blanket if you will. Mars’s blanket is full of holes. Finally, as you pointed out, water vapour is the dominant greenhouse gas. There is no ‘free’ water on Mars.
Finally, I too remember the 'ice-age' scare in the 70s. As a young child I used to worry about glaciers reaching Toronto. Although there may well be fear mongerers who claim that global warming will lead to human extinction, I neither said that or believe it. I’ve read estimates that state if all the fossil fuel reserves in the world were burnt and released into the atmosphere, our planet would still sustain a liveable atmosphere. It would, I suspect, make life a little uncomfortable in the equatorial regions. To balance that, anyone who owns tundra land now well may make a nice profit lol.
Maz, 2009-04-01 14:55:58
Fossil fuels are only the largest man made contribution to the C02 in the atmosphere, but when compared to natural sources, it is a pittance.
That is a fact, proven and indisputable yadayada...
uplink, 2009-04-01 13:07:30
Do I expect us to sacrifice our well being so the clowns who preach to us as they fly around the world expressing their beliefs. Not an fn chance.
So walk or bike to the store/work/bus if you can instead of driving. One its good for you to walk etc... and gives youtime to think.
Green planet yes for the right reasons but not extremist stop all production attitudes
Bucadogg, 2009-04-01 12:35:15
Germany has a third of the worlds installed capacity for wind power generation. Yet according to figures from the German Wind Energy Association (BWE), 18,685 plants with a capacity of 20,622 megawatts were in operation at the end of 2006. They generated 30.5 billion kilowatt hours of electricity in 2006. This corresponds to a share of around 5 percent in Germany's total electricity consumption. A far cry from the 40 percent you claim.
Big W, 2009-04-01 12:35:08
I use my real name wherever I post. I do this because I stand behind what I write. My way of thinking is if one can't stand behind what they write and use their real name, they are cowards.
Over the years I've watch people nymshift and create a herd of sockpuppets to gather around them for 'support', but you can tell who is nymshifting quite easily if you put your mind to it. Grammer, spelling and a hundred other subtle things gives a person away.
And it becomes like a fascinating game to me: reading, studying and identifying nymshifters. They're usually insecure, have a minimum education but the odd one or two are highly intelligent sociopaths.
These people usually look for credence and affirmation from the online community because they have difficulty forming friendships with peers.
And so on.
Best,
Karen (the one and only!)
Karen Smith (the one and only), 2009-04-01 11:43:11
Just another environment hating right winger
EH?
tweetypie, 2009-04-01 09:54:13
Bowie, 2009-04-01 09:06:05