Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Do you care about the environment?

2»

Comments

  • #32
    anniehoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,597 ✭✭✭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!


  • #33
    Board-in-work
    Closed Accounts Posts: 135 ✭✭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..


  • #34
    Hank_Jones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,783 ✭✭✭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.


  • #35
    anniehoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,597 ✭✭✭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.


  • #36
    El Siglo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,803 ✭✭✭El Siglo


    Slightly
    anniehoo wrote: »
    I dont know what "radiative forcing" means sorry :o 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.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    orourkeda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,916 ✭✭✭✭orourkeda


    B*llocks to the environment


  • #38
    El Siglo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,803 ✭✭✭El Siglo


    Slightly
    orourkeda wrote: »
    B*llocks to the environment

    How apt.


  • #39
    wilson10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 512 ✭✭✭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.


  • #40
    El Siglo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,803 ✭✭✭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.


  • #41
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,787 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    El Siglo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,803 ✭✭✭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...).


  • #43
    citizen_p
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,494 ✭✭✭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


  • #44
    Greyfox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,280 ✭✭✭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!


  • #45
    El Siglo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,803 ✭✭✭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.


  • #46
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,787 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #47
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭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.


  • #48
    anniehoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,597 ✭✭✭anniehoo


    Slightly
    wilson10 wrote: »
    And whatever you're havin yourself.
    :D 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 :D
    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.


  • #49
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,787 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #50
    El Siglo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,803 ✭✭✭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!;)


  • #51
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    anniehoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,597 ✭✭✭anniehoo


    Slightly
    El Siglo wrote: »

    Hope that explains something!;)
    It does but my degree was 10 yrs ago and i should be able to "argue" my point better than you did. Fair play :)

    Kudos ( first time ive said this) El Siglo..you're a savage virtual env scientist and you've made me think about alot of issues i havent had to debate in a long time. Cheers


  • #53
    Lanaier
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 604 ✭✭✭Lanaier


    No, not at all
    Queen-Mise wrote: »
    China another huge creator of damage to our environment.

    Considering their population and the fact that just about everything is made in China it's kind of hard for us to give them too much sh1t about it without being hypocrites.
    Almost a quarter of Chinese emissions are exported to the US, Europe and Japan.

    I care about the environment but I'm not going to have a heart attack about the way it's currently being treated by mankind.
    The "environment" has been around a lot longer than us and will still be just fine long after all traces of us have been washed away.
    It's mainly our own circumstances that may change for the worse and if everyone (those of us who are wealthy by global standards at least) cant do even a little to help then we are screwed anyway.

    Aesthetically though, things like litter piss me off, and living the smoggiest city in the world really makes you appreciate places like Ireland.

    Anyway, whatever your opinion, I hope you'll enjoy this discussion between this Lord Monckton guy and a greenpeace campaigner as much as I did.

    Total pwnage.



    Viewable here if I did that link wrong:
    http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=8907


  • #54
    The Big Red Button
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,390 ✭✭✭The Big Red Button


    No, not at all
    It's not something I tend to lose any sleep over, to be honest, and I don't make any massive effort to save the environment etc.

    Having said that, I think that the way I live in relatively OK in this regard. I'm usually fairly conservative with electricity (purely out of stinginess! :p), my rubbish gets recycled, I drive a small car and don't drive it often at all (but that's only due to my current circumstances, living very close to work etc, I love driving!), I'd never ever litter, and in a situation where I had a choice, I would go for the more environmentally friendly option even if it took a small bit of extra effort.

    Really though, even though the effort of private individuals and households are commendable and must be pretty significant when combined, in my opinion the real decisive factor is the efforts made on a business-wide, industry-wide, international scale - this is what will make the real difference to the future of the planet.


  • #55
    El Siglo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,803 ✭✭✭El Siglo


    Slightly
    For more information and discussion on climate change, because this has been a fairly decent thread.
    Please support the Environmental Science Forum. It's desperately needed, and it'll deal with a lot of the issues and more that we've discussed here in a fairly informal manner.
    anniehoo wrote:
    It does but my degree was 10 yrs ago and i should be able to "argue" my point better than you did. Fair play

    Kudos ( first time ive said this) El Siglo..you're a savage virtual env scientist and you've made me think about alot of issues i havent had to debate in a long time. Cheers

    Thanks very much, glad you're interested!:D


  • #56
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,046 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Four reasons for not caring..

    Poverty, Aids and Malaria are killing people every day.. This is worse and deserves more attention. Altho it doesn't keep me awake at night either.
    The way they had to change 'global warming' to 'climate change'. And ClimateGate. And Al Gore set to make a killing of his investments.
    The earth used to be a gigantic volcanic eruption and it got all the way to an ice age and back here again.. We really arn't as important as we think we are.
    Fourth reason is that I really just don't care. Litter is the only thing i'm worried about.


  • #57
    El Siglo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,803 ✭✭✭El Siglo


    Slightly
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Four reasons for not caring..

    Poverty, Aids and Malaria are killing people every day.. This is worse and deserves more attention. Altho it doesn't keep me awake at night either.
    The way they had to change 'global warming' to 'climate change'. And ClimateGate. And Al Gore set to make a killing of his investments.
    The earth used to be a gigantic volcanic eruption and it got all the way to an ice age and back here again.. We really arn't as important as we think we are.
    Fourth reason is that I really just don't care. Litter is the only thing i'm worried about.

    Poverty, can be mitigated with decent environmental policies, e.g. Irish Aid in Africa have been running community environmental programmes to deal with this.

    AIDS and Malaria, well AIDS can only survive for 20 minutes in the open, however increase temperatures and we might see some changes in this. Also Malaria responds to climate change as mosquitos can migrate to different parts of the world that are getting warmer, spreading malaria.
    If you want to cure; poverty, AIDS, and Malaria, look at the environment. Now, I've a lecture to go to, can't discuss further for another while!


  • #58
    Nulty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,843 ✭✭✭Nulty


    No, not at all
    Most of this thread went over my head but the immediate part about litter and our local environment, etc. is easier to get ones head 'round.

    Anyone gone litter collecting in their area or even thought about it? I was walking (avoiding the carbon issue;)) down to collect my dole th'other day and looked at the bushes which had more rubbish in them than leaves. I'm really motivated to go get a big black bag, fill it and think "thats my bit done!"

    I'm actually now going to make this commitment now. Next time it doesn't look like death out side, I'm gonna do a Captain Planet. I reckon it should at least off set the rubbish I've dropped.

    Anyone else feeling socially responsible?


Advertisement
Advertisement