Earth Hour 2010 @ 20:30

[stulid]

I couldn't give a monkeys about earth hour.

Climate change is natural and something to do with the sun.

Temps have been fluctuating up and down for thousands of years, have you tree huggers forgotten that we have just had one of the coldest januarys in along time.

I'm of to boil the kettle now for no reason.

 

[Tefal]

themselves some money and cut down on the amount of resources we are using to power something not needed.

But the power is still made it's just wasted instead.


There has to be a predictable and sustained drop before power companies/NG reduce the amount of power from stations.

 

[BigglesPiP]

But the power is still made it's just wasted instead.


There has to be a predictable and sustained drop before power companies/NG reduce the amount of power from stations.

Not entirely true.

If there is a sudden drop, there will be reduced load on the power stations, and the frequency on the grid will rise.

One way to deal with this is to waste energy while the right number of stations are shut-down or throttled-down.

But that thing in Wales can buy the excess power (which is cheap), and use it to pump water up a hill. Then it lets it fall back down to generate power to sell back when there is a spike in demand, these are predicted events, such as world cup final advert breaks. It's response time is measured in a small number of seconds.

Back to the frequency having been wrong for a short time, later in the day they will run it slightly higher (or lower) for as long as is needed to keep the same number of cycles in each day, as some clocks rely on mains being 50Hz.

Basically I'm trying to say that a drop (or spike) on demand that isn't predictable or sustained doesn't mean a waste. Unless by sustained, you mean anything more than a few seconds.

 

[atpbx]

http://www.newscientist.com/article...al-warming-is-down-to-the-sun-not-humans.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/11/climatechange.climatechange1

From a brief Google search. An interesting paragraph from the Guardian article:

Even though there is almost no argument among scientific circles about the role of human activities as the main driver of climate change, a recent poll suggested that the public still believes there is significant scientific uncertainty.


Either way I'm done. I haven't got the time nor inclination to debate this subject.

That article, and your position, is nonsense.
There is a lot of debate among climate scientists, its just any dissenting voices have been refused a platform to air their opinions.
Thats the basis of the massive row going on over "Climategate" that and the fact that the IPCC have been using made up data in their reports.

 

[bloodiedathame]

I do hope they were the expensive hand-made beeswax candles, not the 'normal' candles, which are all made of fossil fuel (i.e. paraffin). How ironic that this 'campaign' promotes movie nights and everyone stands around burning tons of fossil fuel (pumping out carcinogenic fumes in the process) to highlight pollution.

Even if they are made of fossil fuels I would imagine that burning a candle for an hour still uses less energy than having a light on.


They should have done this campaign during the day when the lights would have been off already!

PS To those of you who think that turning on more lights and appliances was a really cool and rebellious thing to do and think it's going to get you some internet kudos by bragging about it on here, grow up.

We have one planet, treat it with some respect.

 

[Memphis]

I can't even begin to tell you how much electronics were on in my house last night...

Still, if it made people feel better...

Oh and some of the self-righteous people in here are hilarious!

 

[Rotty]

http://www.moviewavs.com/php/sounds...00&quote=102_treehug.txt&file=102_treehug.mp3

 

[FosterK]

I think it's a complete farce. The way I see it, if you REALLY want to change the world, turning off your power for an hour isn't the way. As far as I'm concerned, the only purpose it serves is to give overzealous and self-important 'new age' ***** more of an ego boost.

Yesterday afternoon in work, some posh hippie (the kind who say 'yah' after everything and drive a Prius) came in with his son looking to buy two torches because he was having a 'power cut' that evening. I suggested candles instead if it was for earth hour, but no. I even suggested the wind-up torches we have, but no. He wanted two big yellow plastic torches. Plastic being made from crude oil, which as we all know, is fantastic for the environment. He wanted batteries for them too.

When he went to the till, he popped his car keys down and got out his wallet - oh, and he'll have a plastic bag thanks. I **** you not.

It's people like him that make me cynical about these climate change 'events'. He's more likely than not caused a larger impact by driving to the shops, buying plastic products, and batteries, and a plastic bag, and driving home than would have been caused if he'd just left his bloody lights on for the hour.

The frustrating thing is that despite the best intentions, Earth hour, from what I can see, serves little purpose other than to buff the already over-inflated egos of pro-green hippies.

 

[Jet]

That article, and your position, is nonsense.
There is a lot of debate among climate scientists, its just any dissenting voices have been refused a platform to air their opinions.
Thats the basis of the massive row going on over "Climategate" that and the fact that the IPCC have been using made up data in their reports.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Scientific

The scientific consensus on climate change is that human activity is the main cause of present-day global warming. However, political, economic, and public debate continues regarding the reality and extent of global warming and what actions to take in response. Numerous authors, including several scholars, have asserted that some conservative think tanks, corporations and business groups have engaged in deliberate denial of the science of climate change since the 1990s.[12][13][4][5][14][15][16] Several commentators have criticized the phrase as an attempt to delegitimize skeptical views, and for injecting morality into the discussion about climate change.[17][18][19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the US. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "[w]hile 84% of scientists say the earth is getting warmer because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels, just 49% of the public agrees."[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming


Whilst I'm interested in science I have no scientific education so I can't and won't debate the science involved. But looking at the above, who am I going to believe? Some people on an internet forum or the scientific consensus of the world?

To me this feels like the MMR thing all over again.

 

[Sinny]

What do I get if I switch my bedside lamp off?

 

[Le_Petit_Lapin]

I'll only forget.

 

[GreatAuk]

What do I get if I switch my bedside lamp off?

More sleep.

 

[big_white_dog84]

Turning the lights off for an hour will do nothing. The Generators in the National grid will be running at a fairly high capacity to meet demand for Saturday night. Electricity from the grid cannot be stored in a giant battery - it would be good if it could. If everyone turned everything off in the UK at this time the electricity would still be being produced and therefore wasted.

Sometimes there is a lot of nonsense posted on this forum. This is one of those times. If demand reduces by 1GW during earth hour, can you please explain to me where this excess energy is going to be dumped? Your comment about generators running at 'high capacity' I'm guessing is loosely based around the concept of 'spinning reserve'. However there is never an excess of electricity being generated over demand.

As for the 2nd / 3rd poster who posted the rubbish about his electricity only coming from a nuclear power plant - unfortunately you don't understand the way the grid operates.

 

[Fenris]

Sometimes there is a lot of nonsense posted on this forum.

Guess we're luckily it's balanced by all the arrogant self righteous drivel then aren't we.


Not talking about you btw.

 

[Tombstone]

the scientific consensus of the world?

Mind you of course, scientific consensus doesnt necessarily mean its correct. I can think of a few rather major times in history when "scientific consensus" was wildly wrong

 

[Embed]

Woop my area won in the uk for most supporters
https://earthhourmap.wwf.org.uk/

 

[bloodiedathame]

Even though climate change isn't scientifically proven it doesn't hurt to get involved.

 

[Jet]

Mind you of course, scientific consensus doesnt necessarily mean its correct. I can think of a few rather major times in history when "scientific consensus" was wildly wrong

Of course but quite why you would disagree with the consensus without being extremely knowledgeable in the subject or actively involved in the research is quite perplexing.

Not to mention the fact that probably everyone in this thread is happy to take the scientific community's opinion on almost every other subject, from medicine to evolution, at face value.

Out of interest what major times were you thinking of?

Irrelevant of whether you agree with human influenced climate change there is nothing wrong with reducing your energy usage.

 

[HeadlessChicken]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Scientific

The scientific consensus on climate change is that human activity is the main cause of present-day global warming. However, political, economic, and public debate continues regarding the reality and extent of global warming and what actions to take in response. Numerous authors, including several scholars, have asserted that some conservative think tanks, corporations and business groups have engaged in deliberate denial of the science of climate change since the 1990s.[12][13][4][5][14][15][16] Several commentators have criticized the phrase as an attempt to delegitimize skeptical views, and for injecting morality into the discussion about climate change.[17][18][19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the US. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "[w]hile 84% of scientists say the earth is getting warmer because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels, just 49% of the public agrees."[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming


Whilst I'm interested in science I have no scientific education so I can't and won't debate the science involved. But looking at the above, who am I going to believe? Some people on an internet forum or the scientific consensus of the world?

To me this feels like the MMR thing all over again.

I'm glad there are people still like you who are willing to say they don't know and don't have the background to make an informed decision. It's the same conclusion I have come to and have since steered my environmental science degree towards energy and sustainable development instead of climate change.

I would caution a little on the side of using wiki and certain tabloids / websites as credible info tho. I accept the majority of the data on wiki may be correct, but it's academically a no-go and some sources you will find referenced are beyond rubbish Trying to pick decent reports from the millions of crap ones is nigh on impossible, and all will almost certainly be leaning one way or another depending on the publisher.

 

[izzy eckerslike]

As already pointed out - the Earth warms & cools as a natural event, always has & probably always will regardless of mans efforts to change it.