Do you care about the environment?

ibarelycare

I've been listening to people talk about Earth Hour over the last few days and it just made me think how little I'm arsed about the environment. I just have the attitude that I don't care what happens to the world after I die!

Probably the only thing I do to help the environment is recycle...and that's only when I'm bothered walking out to the blue bin. I know I should care more, but I just don't....that's a terrible attitude isn't it?

What do other AHers do for the environment (if anything)?

dlofnep

No, not at all

I do care, but I don't consciously make an effort to change it.

MaybeLogic

No, not at all

Care for the environment???
What has the environment ever done for me?


Serious answer: I do care just not enough to do much about it. I do recycle and don't litter but that's about it.

Danbo!

Recycle bins in Meath are Blue? Wow, weird.

Gummy Panda

In Ireland, the first step is for people to learn to use a fúcking bin.

So much rubbish, especially take away packaging, gets dumped on the ground when there is a bin a few metres away.

Gone Drinking

No, not at all

If i was in Meath, i'd be looking for a new environment

jameshayes

Does the environment care about me?

ibarelycare

Stee wrote: »

Recycle bins in Meath are Blue? Wow, weird.

Blows your mind doesn't it?

phasers

There is nothing I care less about tbh

we'llallhavetea_old

unfortunately no. just couldn't really be arsed.

sbsquarepants

ibarelycare in i barely care shocker, hold the front page!:)

Lux23

I recycle and I don't drive but these are more financial choices rather than environmental. I really don't care what happens to the planet.

Glenster

No, or charity or the good name of ireland or any stuff like that.

That's not to say I dont recycle or donate to charity or cheer on the ireland team, it's just the done thing.

happyfriday

Slightly

Yeah I do, something that has happened only in the last year or two. I try to do as much as I can, even though I know it's probably still not enough. I will be turning off my lights on Saturday.

Truley

Slightly

Is "earth hour" that thing where everyone has to switch off their electricity for sixty minutes? I'm not into those gimmicks but I think I am very environmentally conscious in my day to day life. I recycle all of my rubbish and all foodwaste gets composted (live in an apartment btw.) Very conservative with the amount of electricity I use, I use only natural household cleaning products including beauty products too. On top of that I always get refills instead of buying more. I cycle everywhere, don't own a tv and of course I would never ever throw litter on the ground. Being 'arsed' about the environment isn't about what happens after we die, eh what about all the animals that are affected by the way we live?

Queen-Mise

No, not at all

I find it very hard to care when I see the rich and famous jetting around the world like its a playground including our own politicians. Paris hilton xmas 12 months ago built a full ski slope in her garden in los angelos ffs. I cant imagine any of them paying their carbon credits. China another huge creator of damage to our environment.
I put out all my bins and Dont rubbish - that is all I am willing to do.

IvySlayer

Slightly

I do care about my enviroment.

Global Warming does not exist though. It's a myth.

El Siglo

Slightly

IvySlayer wrote: »

I do care about my enviroment.

Global Warming does not exist though. It's a myth.

I beg to differ!

I do care about the environment, not in that whole saving trees and whales way.

tipperaryboy

No, not at all

i think earth hour is a bit of a gimmick.nearly everyone now has several pieces of technology that require charging from time to time so i think everyone should wait until the battery is nearly gone on your phone/ipod etc and then charge it.

anniehoo

Slightly

I care alot about the environment, i try not to waste electricity, i dont always flush straight away , i recycle, i dont drop litter ever but thats hardly going to save the whales now is it?? I also drive, smoke, go on holidays by plane, buy mass produced products, eat meat...!!

This Earth Hour thing, while a good thing for drawing attention to energy wasting is no more than a gimmick. The power surge when all the lights are turned back on will probably negate any good effect tbh.

I think Global warming isnt exactly true, but climate change most definitely is and the Earths weather systems do alter to compensate for the effects of human activity. But, thats hardly exclusive to our generation either.

I think anyone who doesnt care about the environment at all is incredibly selfish tbh. We're a tiny fleck in Natures eye and it can and does steam roll us when it feels like it so we cant afford the luxury to sit back and do nothing. Even if its just not wasting water..it shows you care about a vital resource that keeps us all alive.But, with a worldwide population of nearly 7bn people it needs a global majority effort to have any lasting positive impact on the future.

El Siglo

Slightly

anniehoo wrote: »

I care alot about the environment, i try not to waste electricity, i dont always flush straight away , i recycle, i dont drop litter ever but thats hardly going to save the whales now is it?? I also drive, smoke, go on holidays by plane, buy mass produced products, eat meat...!!

This Earth Hour thing, while a good thing for drawing attention to energy wasting is no more than a gimmick. The power surge when all the lights are turned back on will probably negate any good effect tbh.

I think Global warming isnt exactly true, but climate change most definitely is and the Earths weather systems do alter to compensate for the effects of human activity. But, thats hardly exclusive to our generation either.

I think anyone who doesnt care about the environment at all is incredibly selfish tbh. We're a tiny fleck in Natures eye and it can and does steam roll us when it feels like it so we cant afford the luxury to sit back and do nothing. Even if its just not wasting water..it shows you care about a vital resource that keeps us all alive.But, with a worldwide population of nearly 7bn people it needs a global majority effort to have any lasting positive impact on the future.

While the rest of your post I entirely agree with, earth hour is a total gimmick. The bold text is what I have a contention with.

Here's the CO2 concentrations from Muana Loa.

Here's the CO2 radiative forcing.

Now these are produced by NOAA, which is a fairly reputable organisation. Just looking at these two graph and maybe even looking at CH4 (Methane), NOx (oxides of nitrogen) and the associated radiative forcings, it doesn't take an environmental scientist to come to some reasonable hypothesis that anthropogenic GHG increases are promoting some kind of warming effect.

hooradiation

IvySlayer wrote: »

Global Warming does not exist though. It's a myth.

Wow, well that's me convinced. You should really get that paper which conclusively proves that theory of yours published.

Being the person to redefine how we look at the word is a very rare opportunity and you should seize it now before someone else beats you to it.

Bonito

Slightly

If I went any further I'd be helping baby seals in oil spills and participating in that tidy towns volunteering.

Nulty

No, not at all

IvySlayer wrote: »

I do care about my enviroment.

Global Warming does not exist though. It's a myth.

El Siglo wrote: »

I beg to differ!

I do care about the environment, not in that whole saving trees and whales way.

hooradiation wrote: »

Wow, well that's me convinced. You should really get that paper which conclusively proves that theory of yours published.

Being the person to redefine how we look at the word is a very rare opportunity and you should seize it now before someone else beats you to it.

Wording is everything.

There are 0 instances of the phrase "global warming" in that document. IvySlayer said "Global Warming" is a myth. Climate Change is something thats pretty hard to deny, what with there being a cycle of ice ages and all.:rolleyes:

Global Warming, IMO, gives the impression that we as humans are wholly or mostly responsible for this rapid change in climate. I for one realise that we are not helping but also that our relatively insignificant output of carbon blah blah blah has no real meaningful effect on the processes at work.

IN YOUR FACE!

:cool:

epgc3fyqirnbsx

No, not at all

I care about my immediate enviroment, I hate litter. Really hate it.

And if I ever catch any of those cunts who have been dumping rubbish in my area I'm tear them a new arsehole

ibarelycare

Jennifer Polite Quartet wrote: »

I care about my immediate enviroment, I hate litter. Really hate it.

And if I ever catch any of those cunts who have been dumping rubbish in my area I'm tear them a new arsehole

That is one thing...I really do hate litter. I can't stand seeing people throw anything on the ground. If I smoke in the car, I never throw the butts out the window, I put them in an empty bottle and throw them in the bin when I get out. I was putting out a smoke outside a shop last week and I accidentally dropped the butt and went to pick it up and this woman was like "Ah leave it, you'll just dirty your fingers!" Ehhh I've just been smoking a dirty cancer stick, so I don't mind picking it up!

anniehoo

Slightly

El Siglo wrote: »

While the rest of your post I entirely agree with, earth hour is a total gimmick. The bold text is what I have a contention with.

Here's the CO2 concentrations from Muana Loa.

Here's the CO2 radiative forcing.

Now these are produced by NOAA, which is a fairly reputable organisation. Just looking at these two graph and maybe even looking at CH4 (Methane), NOx (oxides of nitrogen) and the associated radiative forcings, it doesn't take an environmental scientist to come to some reasonable hypothesis that anthropogenic GHG increases are promoting some kind of warming effect.

I dont know what "radiative forcing" means sorry but i appreciate your stats to back up your argument.

Im not definitively denying in your words "anthropogenic GHG increases are promoting some kind of warming effect" im just reluctant to use the blanket statement "global warming" as its actually been shown that the worlds average temperature has actually fallen for the past 4 years.

I think the world "compensates" for different gaseous levels that have an atmospheric effect (therefore a climate effect) so i prefer the term "climate change". The problem i see is if it tries to compensate itself too much, it will unbalance itself completely with catastrophic worldwide results.

wilson10

Slightly

We must be the dirtiest bastards on the planet.

The state of the roadsides is an absolute disgrace.

Board-in-work

No, not at all

I never used to be arsed about the environment and stuff - but my attitude is slowly changing I think. I used to be of the mind that thought "Sure recycling is a total waste of time, as the energy it takes to recycle something counteracts the good of recycling". But recycling isn't necessarily just about energy use - it's about using the resources we have - sustainably. Recycle paper - waste of energy etc - yes - but if we all did it we may not have to plant so many trees. Globally that could affect people in different ways - re-distribution of land, more water, less soil errosion. I didn't necessarily care about the environment - but I do care that we all deserve the right to clean air, clean drinking water, and a bit of land to live on. Then one day I realised it's probably the same thing.

Hank_Jones

I don't care about the enviroment because I don't feel I'm really destroying it.

I'm not a fat cat who owns big multi-national corporations which are spewing crap into the atmosphere, I'm not American, I drive a small car which isn't particularly bad for the enviroment...

I'm only one man..

Greyfox

I couldn't care less about the enviroment, theirs loads of things more important but it's a good thing that some people do

anniehoo

Slightly

Hank_Jones wrote: »

I don't care about the enviroment because I don't feel I'm really destroying it.
I'm only one man..

Multiply that by 7bn and thats an awful of people not giving a crap about the life sustaining resource that is our world. You dont know what you've got till its gone..and all that!

Board-in-work

No, not at all

Greyfox wrote: »

I couldn't care less about the enviroment, theirs loads of things more important but it's a good thing that some people do

The environment is what surrounds us, and it is what sustains life - what are these 'other things' that are 'more impotant'. There's probably other things that are more important to you personally which is a different thing..

Hank_Jones

See you snipped my comment so that it seems kind of out of context now.

I don't care about the enviroment because I'm certainly not one of the people who is ruining it to a high degree.

anniehoo

Slightly

Hank_Jones wrote: »

See you snipped my comment so that it seems kind of out of context now.

Unsnipping your comment doesnt make me change my opinion to be honest it just validates it more.

Hank_Jones wrote: »

I don't care about the enviroment because I don't feel I'm really destroying it.

I'm not a fat cat who owns big multi-national corporations which are spewing crap into the atmosphere, I'm not American, I drive a small car which isn't particularly bad for the enviroment...

I'm only one man..

Why do you need to be a so called "fat cat" to be ruining the environment? EVERY SINGLE person on this planet has a moral responsibility to at least maintain, sustain or attempt to improve the environment in which you live and breath. Simply saying you dont produce crap on a mulitnational scale to warrant it relevant is complete rubbish. As i said if 7billion people thought like you the world, its resources and its animals would be f*cked in no time. The world doesnt owe you anything, it provides the air you breath, the water you drink and bathe in, the stable atmosphere so you dont burn or freeze to death, the plants and animals that nourish you.It at least deserves to be cared about if nothing else.:rolleyes:

And dont think im some goody two shoes either, ive already said i do what i can but

anniehoo wrote: »

I also drive, smoke, go on holidays by plane, buy mass produced products, eat meat...!!.

. I contribute by my personal consumption to every industry (the fat cats as you call it) that are the biggest polluters in the world.

El Siglo

Slightly

anniehoo wrote: »

I dont know what "radiative forcing" means sorry but i appreciate your stats to back up your argument.

Im not definitively denying in your words "anthropogenic GHG increases are promoting some kind of warming effect" im just reluctant to use the blanket statement "global warming" as its actually been shown that the worlds average temperature has actually fallen for the past 4 years.

I think the world "compensates" for different gaseous levels that have an atmospheric effect (therefore a climate effect) so i prefer the term "climate change". The problem i see is if it tries to compensate itself too much, it will unbalance itself completely with catastrophic worldwide results.

Like the Gaia Hypothesis, right? There's some kind of balance etc... but how come McElwain and Sweeney (2003) have found that some of the warmest years on record were in the 1990s and early noughties? I mean, I don't even like to call it global warming or climate change, it's "environmental change", we tend to wash over the nitrogen cycle, methane etc... but to say that humans aren't responsible for most of what's happening now is just ridiculous. It's proven that CO2 is a principle GHG, it's proven that concentrations have risen exponentially since the start of the industrial revolution, it's been proven for over a hundred years + that CO2 traps heat (long wave radiation in particular). Now, I know that "correlation does not imply causation" but just looking at some of the ice cores from Lake Vostok, Greenland etc... and analysing isotope ratios of δ16O:δ18O, we know that there is a tremendous link, almost parsimonious thesis that heat storage is related to CO2 and other GHGs. We even know through analysing the isotope of Carbon present in the atmosphere, where this carbon is from. When you burn fossil fuels, you release δC14, now most Carbon is δC12, but we've been seeing increases in the latter since the atomic bomb testing of the 1950s. δC14 is fossilised carbon, the kind you get from burning fossil fuels (oil, coal etc...). So not only are we seeing an increase in CO2, but we even know the isotope and origins of such CO2, when the ratio of δC12:δC14 changes, like it is now, and given that δC14 is the extremely rare (1 part per trillion). This for me is the nail in the coffin on the argument, you might not believe me, but isotopes don't ever lie. Fact of the matter is we're seeing an increase in the fossilised isotope of δC14 only goes to prove my point, that humans are responsible for the increase in CO2 and the resultant greenhouse effect.

orourkeda

B*llocks to the environment

El Siglo

Slightly

orourkeda wrote: »

B*llocks to the environment

How apt.

wilson10

Slightly

El Siglo wrote: »

Like the Gaia Hypothesis, right? There's some kind of balance etc... but how come McElwain and Sweeney (2003) have found that some of the warmest years on record were in the 1990s and early noughties? I mean, I don't even like to call it global warming or climate change, it's "environmental change", we tend to wash over the nitrogen cycle, methane etc... but to say that humans aren't responsible for most of what's happening now is just ridiculous. It's proven that CO2 is a principle GHG, it's proven that concentrations have risen exponentially since the start of the industrial revolution, it's been proven for over a hundred years + that CO2 traps heat (long wave radiation in particular). Now, I know that "correlation does not imply causation" but just looking at some of the ice cores from Lake Vostok, Greenland etc... and analysing isotope ratios of δ16O:δ18O, we know that there is a tremendous link, almost parsimonious thesis that heat storage is related to CO2 and other GHGs. We even know through analysing the isotope of Carbon present in the atmosphere, where this carbon is from. When you burn fossil fuels, you release δC14, now most Carbon is δC12, but we've been seeing increases in the latter since the atomic bomb testing of the 1950s. δC14 is fossilised carbon, the kind you get from burning fossil fuels (oil, coal etc...). So not only are we seeing an increase in CO2, but we even know the isotope and origins of such CO2, when the ratio of δC12:δC14 changes, like it is now, and given that δC14 is the extremely rare (1 part per trillion). This for me is the nail in the coffin on the argument, you might not believe me, but isotopes don't ever lie. Fact of the matter is we're seeing an increase in the fossilised isotope of δC14 only goes to prove my point, that humans are responsible for the increase in CO2 and the resultant greenhouse effect.

And whatever you're havin yourself.

El Siglo

Slightly

wilson10 wrote: »

And whatever you're havin yourself.

Quick synopsis:

• CO2 = Greenhouse gas (stores heat),
• Longwave radiation = energy that is reflected off the earth,
• Isotopes = Same chemical element, different number of netrons, making element heavier or lighter,
• δC12 = Nearly all carbon (99% of all carbon),
• δC14 = Carbon that is stored in the earth, released when fossil fuel is burned (very small amount, 0.0000000001%),
• Increase δC14 = Increased use of fossil fuel (people are burning more),
• => Climate change and warming.

ScumLord

Our environment, that is the one that suits humans is fecked.

Peak oil and the destruction of fish stocks will mean we can't feed most the people on the planet. I think there's no point in delaying the inevitable so I pollute and waste as much as possible as I feel if I can accelerate the process and cause the collapse to happen sooner we may save more of nature than allowing it to drag out to the end sucking the life out of every last place on earth.

If you truly care destroy everything you see and bring about the downfall of human society as we know it. It's best for the human race in the long run too.

El Siglo

Slightly

ScumLord wrote: »

Our environment, that is the one that suits humans is fecked.

Peak oil and the destruction of fish stocks will mean we can't feed most the people on the planet. I think there's no point in delaying the inevitable so I pollute and waste as much as possible as I feel if I can accelerate the process and cause the collapse to happen sooner we may save more of nature than allowing it to drag out to the end sucking the life out of every last place on earth.

If you truly care destroy everything you see and bring about the downfall of human society as we know it. It's best for the human race in the long run too.

You just want to be like Will Smith in "I am Legend", don't you?:D

In fairness, you do raise a good point, the current anthropogenic behaviour is fecked, but that doesn't mean that humans are fecked. Our forebearers lived through ice ages and during a time of extreme harship, they still made it through. I reckon once our behaviour changes, things might actually look better. But as 'French Toast' from Hardybucks might say "it's the fuckin' Illuminati" that we have to worry about (US, OPEC, etc...).

citizen_p

No, not at all

not really.....not about emissions etc.... feck it ill be dead before i feel the affects and any kids i have will know lifes unfair.
also the main contrbuters are heavy industry etc.... and my 1 change is miniscual in comparision.

i care more about somone choping down a 100 year old oak tree or an old bilding than somone burning rubbish etc...

edit: about the fish stock oil depletion etc..... oil is gone, no stoping that, but people wont die out. we will survive unless theres somthing that destroys all life on earth. there will be famine etc, but the earth can not sustaion 10 billion etc.. as population and demand grows. in my view the herd must be culled. to put it lightly

Greyfox

Board-in-work wrote: »

The environment is what surrounds us, and it is what sustains life - what are these 'other things' that are 'more impotant'.

Family, friends, women, football, films, books, computer games, TV and survuving the recession. I just don't give a f*** about the enviroment as if it all goes sh*** I won't be around by then!

El Siglo

Slightly

Mousey- wrote: »

not really.....not about emissions etc.... feck it ill be dead before i feel the affects and any kids i have will know lifes unfair.
also the main contrbuters are heavy industry etc.... and my 1 change is miniscual in comparision.

i care more about somone choping down a 100 year old oak tree or an old bilding than somone burning rubbish etc...

edit: about the fish stock oil depletion etc..... oil is gone, no stoping that, but people wont die out. we will survive unless theres somthing that destroys all life on earth. there will be famine etc, but the earth can not sustaion 10 billion etc.. as population and demand grows. in my view the herd must be culled. to put it lightly

That's why an entire global change is needed, everyone needs to do it. We jumped on the industrial revolution, green revolution band wagons quick enough, I'd say we can jump off them as well. You've outlined a key problem, 'it's somebody elses' emissions, not mine, why should I change', this has plagued Kyoto, plagued Cop-15 which was a thundering failure. I don't know how to deal with these problems, all I've outlined is the physical science basis, that the alternative hypothesis of humans (factories, cars, planes etc...) are responsible for the increase in greenhouse gases from fossil fuel use and the subsequent greenhouse effect. This is pretty much proven, (the isotope analysis I've pointed out covers this).
The one thing we should all be preparing ourselves for is massive sea level rise, this could be anything, but it will be greater than what the IPCC fourth assessment points out (i.e. > 1 metre). Adaptation is our goal from here on in, whether you agree with the cause or not.

ScumLord

Mousey- wrote: »

edit: about the fish stock oil depletion etc..... oil is gone, no stoping that, but people wont die out. we will survive unless theres somthing that destroys all life on earth. there will be famine etc, but the earth can not sustaion 10 billion etc.. as population and demand grows. in my view the herd must be culled. to put it lightly

The earth can support 18B as long as we're all prepared to live like Ethiopians, 1B if we want to live like Americans.

Oil isn't gone yet, it's getting very expensive. Plastic products are going up in price but we really haven't begun to see the fall out yet. It's still managing to support the huge population of humans.

I have no doubt the human race will survive, we're just to good at it. Billions will die though.

hooradiation

Nulty wrote: »

Wording is everything.

There are 0 instances of the phrase "global warming" in that document. IvySlayer said "Global Warming" is a myth. Climate Change is something thats pretty hard to deny, what with there being a cycle of ice ages and all.:rolleyes:

Global Warming, IMO, gives the impression that we as humans are wholly or mostly responsible for this rapid change in climate. I for one realise that we are not helping but also that our relatively insignificant output of carbon blah blah blah has no real meaningful effect on the processes at work.

IN YOUR FACE!

:cool:

Wow, in one spectacularly awful post you've managed to convey your ignorance on, well, just about everything in this thread.

well done.

anniehoo

Slightly

wilson10 wrote: »

And whatever you're havin yourself.

I know..someone knows his stuff! Im lost on the all the carbons El Siglos talking about.

El Siglo wrote: »

Like the Gaia Hypothesis, right?

Yeh, the way i see it is earth is a finally balanced biosphere that relies on every system working in harmony together to keep it stable. Overproduction of GHGs, exploitation of forests (carbon dioxide absorbers) etc etc all upset this natural balance and i dont doubt that humans have the biggest impact. Anyone who says otherwise is completely naive.

wrote:

but to say that humans aren't responsible for most of what's happening now is just ridiculous.

+1

wrote:

analysing isotope ratios of δ16O:δ18O.......... in CO2, but we even know the isotope

You've lost me on that bit but it sounds good

wrote:

greenhouse effect.

Another term im not too sure about either,as its basically an extension of the global warming term and if the average temperature has decreased over the last few years it cant be a "greenhouse". I think im of the view that the crazy weather we've seen over the last decade or so is basically an upset of the natural balance of the earths natural cycles and its way of correcting itself. Keeping it balanced though is the issue.

ScumLord

Greyfox wrote: »

Family, friends, women, football, films, books, computer games, TV and survuving the recession. I just don't give a f*** about the enviroment as if it all goes sh*** I won't be around by then!

Why are you 60? If your under 30 you will see the collapse happen, Fish is set to run out around 2050 and by some peoples accounts we're already passed peak oil.

There's absolutely no way the human race will band together to solve this. The EU is not reducing the amount of fish that people can catch and they're one of the better government agencys. The Japanese are actively trying to wipe out Bluefin Tuna to increase the value of the of frozen Bluefin tuna they're stock piling.

Demand for oil increases year on year so that's increasing too.

El Siglo

Slightly

I'll make this very simple (not being condescending, I had to learn it and still do and it's still tricky to me!), because it's major part of the science.

All element have a nucleus or nuclide (a centre or "nut" as it's called in greek), and are made up of protons and neutrons (like the guts) and electrons which orbit (i.e. fly around the nucleus), all of these have a charge, electrons are negatively charged, while protons are positively charged and neutrons have no charge at all. Most hydrogen is the exception as it's only got one proton, one electron and no neutron, when it gains a neutron (e.g. like in an hydrogen bomb blast, it becomes deuterium or tritium) Grand.

However, some times elements put on a little weight when they get old (some times they take a crash diet like in an nuclear fission or enrichment but we won't get into that one).
So, what happens is that some atoms might gain an extra neutron, this changes the mass (weight) of the atom but not the atomic number (it's like Man Utd are still the same team even in their away jerseys).
So δ16O (delta (first letter) oxygen 16) delta means change, like when you did differentiation in maths, is the same element as δ18O (i.e. they're both chemically 'oxygen') but their weights are different, in this case the δ18O is heavier than δ16O (like Glenda Gilson and Rosanna Davidson are both models but one is heavier than the other). This has massive impacts.
If an ice core was examined, and the ratio of δ16O : δ18O was worked out from the water, if there was more δ18O at a particular period of time, then for the snow to fall (because ice cores are formed by snow), there needed to have been not a lot of sunlight, because it's a heavier isotope that only needs a small bit of energy for it to go from water vapour in the atmosphere to condense and fall as snow or rain. This is one example.
The same thing can be said about carbon, again the type of isotope found, tells us where it came from in a geological way, like the δ14C discussed. Hope that makes sense now.

anniehoo wrote:

Another term im not too sure about either,as its basically an extension of the global warming term and if the average temperature has decreased over the last few years it cant be a "greenhouse". I think im of the view that the crazy weather we've seen over the last decade or so is basically an upset of the natural balance of the earths natural cycles and its way of correcting itself. Keeping it balanced though is the issue.

You're touching on the Milankovich cycles in this one, i.e. the change of the earth's orbit (obliquity) and precession of the equinoxes (seasons) and the axial tilt (the angle the earth is at) and how if there was an increase of temperature or ghgs, the earth can correct itself accordingly and the two things cancel each other out, right? Yes this has happened or it's theoretically has happened but nobody has been around to see it! It's just that we're not in a Milankovich cycle just yet and usually Milankovich forcings tend to cancel each other out. Example would be if the 100,000 year cycle where the obliquity of earth orbit changes (i.e. from an egg shape to a disk orbit around the sun) but the equinoxes is still in favour of the Northern hemisphere (i.e. our part of the earth juts out towards the sun, even though we orbit further away).
Again, there are certain problems with all of this and it is highly theoretical. Also we've a problem which nobody has touched on just yet, and that's feedback loops. Example: if we've more CO2, wouldn't that mean more photosynthetic action by plants (making food from CO2 and sunlight), so wouldn't that mean that CO2 levels lower? What if we heat up the boreal peat areas of the Tundra, these are massive stores of CH4 (methane) which is 400 times more potent a GHG than CO2. If these areas heat, they release thousands and thousands of years worth of CH4, and then you get a positive feedback loop, and more warming etc...

It's not easy being an environmental scientist folks!:D

Hope that explains something!;)

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Slightly

I do care about the environment, but I don't do enough imo. I do recycle and have a compost heap, I also don't litter, I cycle or walk when I can, I control vermin in my local area which may help a little too, not too sure how much, try to use energy saving bulbs, but if I move into an apartment with normal bulbs I won't change them all. What else can I do within reason?