How to Do Your Part to Stop Global Warming

" Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation."

Carbon dioxide and other air pollutants collect in the atmosphere, trapping in the sun's heat. The good news, is that there are simple steps you can take to take, to help do your part in the fight against global warming!

Step 1: Your Home

Lights

One of the easiest things you can do, to help with global warming, is change your light bulbs. Start using Compact Fluorescent bulbs. It takes about three CF bulbs to use the same amount of energy as one traditional light bulb. Plus, they last longer.

Turn off the lights when you leave the room, you don't need them on, so why have them on? It will save the world, and money.

General Electricity Usage

Even when one of your electronic devices is turned off, it still uses electricity. So buy a power strip, and just unplug it whenever you aren't using your stuff.

Don't leave your computer on all day. If you won't turn it off, at least put it on hibernate or stand by when you're gone.

Don't run your dishwasher, unless it's totally full

Air dry your clothes, instead of using the dryer

Take shorter showers, and use a low-flow shower head

The House

Make sure all of your walls and ceilings are insulated.

Switch to double pane windows, they keep more heat in your home.

Buy some caulk and weather stripping for you doors and windows that sometimes leak out air.

Wives will like this one - Replace those old energy inefficient appliances, in favor of newer ones that use less energy.

Ask your electric company if you can purchase renewable energy. It will cost more, but you'll have piece of mind.

A low flow toilet is a good idea too. Toto and American Standard Cadet are two brands that are supposed to make good low flow toilets.

Water Heater

Insulate your water heater, and turn it down to 120 degrees Fahrenheit

Switch to a tank less heater..water will be heated as needed, instead of keeping a tank of heated water.

Comments

[ElectricUmbrella]

Regarding my previous comments: I've changed my possition on global warming since I last posted comments on this 'ible. For now, I guess I have no opinion on it.
To Global Warming skeptics: remember that laymen like me and you are likely to misunderstand certain science, which could lead us into trouble.
EU

[jj.inc]

Its no longer Global Warming, Its climate change do to the different climate variances right now.

[willrandship]

like the record lows in weather temp? :P

[jj.inc]

Yes, exactly

[SherlinDukes]

The best you can do to save our Earth is, encourage others to Conserve. Share information about recycling and energy conservation with your friends, neighbors and co-workers, and take opportunities to encourage public officials to establish programs and policies that are good for the environment. You can organize social programs and plays to make people realize, the hazards of Global Warming. Cover your pots while cooking because, it saves a lot of the energy needed for preparing the dish. Even better are pressure cookers and steamers they can save around 70% of energy.  Ways to stop Global Warming

[jj.inc]

oops left something out, plant a tree

[jekin]

It's good practice to reuse and recycle, its good practice to NOT pump loads of co2 into the atmosphere, its good practice to do a lot of things that people are not doing. Perhaps we deserve the chaos that global warming might bring to us. Ways to stop global warming

[jj.inc]

chaos, LOL

[harley_rly]

global warming....lol

[sabr686]

what a croc o' crap

[harley_rly]

totally

[harley_rly]

lol...global warming. whatta joke...if those stupid scientists are right about what they say, then what will happen is it will heat so much that the ice caps melt, and the oceans get colder due to loss of salinity and additional water, which will then dramatically affect the climate causing a drop in temperature and possibly another ice age, so the whole global warming thing is probably a natural cycle

[Maccaro]

Don't trees give out CO2 at night as well so they balance it out. some bacteria reduce CO2 and having a large library can lock carbon into a solid state that would not be gotten rid of.

[Weissensteinburg]

No, trees only take in Co2 and give out oxygen.

[Maccaro]

Tree's definately respire insted of photosynthesise when there is no light giving of CO2 and making alchohol in the plant.

[Pumpkin$]

ok guys if you are gonna play lib. I can too!
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
LOL there's YOUR sign!

[totally_screwed]

Pumpkin$,
So you take your science from the newspapers! I'm really impressed!

I have to make do with science from scientists. Sniff!

---

FYI the so-called “expert” in the “Australian” article was Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist!
What do biologists study? Erm, they study biology. Duh!

What Marohasy went on to say was dishonest cherry-picked facts, lies and deceit. Nothing to do with science. She has political & ideological reasons for what she says!

What are the scientists called that study the climate? Erm, I know this, they're mm..., they're called climatologists!

What do biologists know about climate science? Zip!

Marohasy is not looking quite so expert in climatology now!

So, it might be an idea to look at what world respected working climate experts are saying about the climate!

It can be clearly seen that the graph wiggles, but that the overall trend is clearly upwards. There is no reason to expect anything very different in the foreseeable future.

Source of graph Climatic Research Unit and the UK Met. Office Hadley Centre:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2007.gif
See http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ for a description of the data and this graph.

Similar graphs are available from NASA / GISS

Introductory material on a variety of climate-related subjects intended for the interested layperson.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/

A small selection:
The American Institute of Physics http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html

The American Geophysical Union
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml

The American Meteorological Society
http://www.ametsoc.org/amsnews/2007climatechangerelease.pdf

National Academies of Science
http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf

The American Association for the Advancement of Science
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2007/0218am_statement.shtml

Please don't mistake these for actual science, they are press releases and policy regarding climate change, but are based upon solid science. The science is absolutely amazing, and worrying.

[Iwanttolearnplz]

YAY FOR HOCKEY FOR HOCKEY GRAFFFZ FUCKN NOOB

[Pumpkin$]

you what actually I'll quit before we arrive to reasonable conclusion ok? hail Algore, the man who has twenty jets, uses more electricity thatn three houses and drives your nemesis, the common suv.

[Pumpkin$]

wow, I can't imagine a biologist knowing..... not like animals they study need to live in varied climates... also we've apparently had ice age once so it's not too far out of the possible this could be another cooling cycle your name is pretty appropriate if you go through the world with that belief GLOBAL WARMING!?!

[Belcher1035]

What happened before 1850?

[totally_screwed]

Belcher1035
I'm not sure that I want to make further long posts on this Instructable, because I have no intention to derail it any more than it has been. In fact I apologise for my posts which only occurred because of certain individuals who were spreading untruths.

I am NOT being accusatory, but in my experience, most people who are genuinely interested look for themselves, although it has to be said that it is difficult to know where to start. It is a sad truth that most (but not all) enquiries like this are not genuinely innocent inquiries for help or knowledge but in-fact deteriorate and mutate into being intentionally provocative and are troll-behaviour.

Back to your question: “What happened before1850?”
To be honest, I'm not absolutely sure.

Personally, I'd have to research this. If you are really interested in the answer to this question, I would recommend that you research this yourself. But I am happy to give you some pointers.

One good reason for suggesting that you research this yourself. is that I might not be being truthful, it is the nature of argument is that someone who is less knowledgeable can never win against the more knowledgeable, even if the expert is lying. There is a lot of bad information out there and most of it is funded by ExxonMobil, laundered by being disseminated by a large network of intermediary individuals (including some scientists) and organisations. Another, reason for self-reliance, is that I cannot possibly answer all potential questions. So a curious individual would be best advised to learn how to satisfy their own curiosity.

I try to avoid the intermediary sources and look at the science, but it has to be said that some science is pretty opaque to the non-specialist and the next-best choice is a non-political blog like www.realclimate.org (RC). RC is a not-for-profit site run by working climatologists, who demystify the science for the layman.
If you don't like RC, there are few AFAICT non-political alternatives.

A good place to start is http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
Lists of common (so-called) skeptical arguments can be found together with links to numerous sources of information.

Many sites that claim to “tell the truth about the climate” are in reality, thinly disguised sources of a venomous political ideology and serve a range of cleverly crafted climate fallacies, cherry-picked science, and barefaced lies, intended to deceive the unwary. Examples are www.john-daly.com, www.climatepolice.com and www.junkscience.com (at least two of these are funded to some extent by Exxon).

Science and politics do not mix! Politically motivated individuals often think they know better than the scientists, the truth is that they rarely do! Political interference with science deemed inconvenient is common.
Google political interference with science

Now back to your question:
It is useful to understand the background to early measurements.

The background to the above dataset is explained here:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf

A more general background
Northern Hemisphere Surface Air Temperature Variations: 1851–1984
P.D. Jones, S.C.B. Raper, P.M. Kellyo, and T.M.L. Wigley
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0450/25/2/pdf/i1520-0450-25-2-161.pdf

Travelling backwards in time, progressively earlier instrumental temperature measurements decline in coverage, resolution and accuracy and end in 1592 with the invention of the thermometer by Galileo.

CET
Central England Temperature is representative of a roughly triangular area of the United Kingdom enclosed by Bristol, Lancashire and London. The monthly series begins in 1659, and is the longest available instrumental record of temperature in the world. Now CET is clearly not global.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/cet.html

It is reasonable to deduce that temperature measurements before a certain date cannot rely upon instrument measurement and must be derived from proxy measurements. Proxy measurements are imperfect, but the evidence obtained so far are in good agreement.

IPCC WG1 AR4 Report
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Historical Overview
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch01.pdf

Paleoclimate
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch06.pdf
Page 467, Fig. 6.10 Past temperature reconstructions, going back ~2000 years.

I hope this helps you, but you really are on your own, apart from guidance you can obtain here and there.

If you really get stuck, you can contact me through Instructables.

[BnryZombie]

None of the global warming arguments are based on scientific facts. The true fact of the mater is economic gain by so called "experts". They only want to perpetuate their grant funding. This grant money is also put forth by special interest groups. These groups need these reports to fuel their scare tactics. The "End of the Earth". Everytime the earth has faced a global event it has "healed" itself. Did you know that most of of our oxygen comes from the ocean? Don't get me wrong trees do provide a good amount as well. 65 million years ago the earth was covered with a lot more water than it is now. The temperatures were higher on average than they were now. Can you tell me what made it so hot back then? Was there Cars and huge factories then? No Just plants and animals. It might be correct that an ice age happens every 100,000 years. But if you add all of the years the earth has been heating since the last ice age end. Then calculate a slop of temperature increase over the last 200 years (years since the "real industrial age") and add the current output of greenhouse gases produced by man you see an increase in temperature of 0.068% per year to come by human contribution. In fact the current rate of temperature increase is one degree every century. Fact 1890 the average tempature for the whole year was 14.0 degrees Celsius, 57.20 fahrenheit. In 2008 the average temperature was 14.6 degrees celsius, 58.28 fahrenheit. One whole degree fahrenheit in 118 years time.

[Sonoffar]

For some time I have conducted a study of the Warmer / Not Warmer debate. At this time the Warmers are in the majority, but this appears to be changing rapidly. Joe Blow is realizing that if his government does the tax and spend routine that all governments do in order to correct GW he, Joe Blow, is back to a pre-industrial revolution life style. On the other hand there is considerable profit potential for the heads up investor or entrepreneur if current suggested corrections are implemented. I have a solution. It might even make an Instructable. Those who fear the results of GW could simply remove themselves from what they see as a terrible spiral of destruction. A sort of a getting out while the getting is good. All the rest simply live on and take your chances. The population reduction may even slow or reverse the presumed GW and end of the earth. Better yet there are large areas of unpopulated land in the Northern Hemisphere. We could all just begin a slow migration to better living, as our ancestors did. A lack of electricity may make the creation of an Instructable somewhat difficult however.

[mr.incredible]

I agree here... GW/GCC is a scam and a religion for the tree huggers. It takes the same leap of faith that recognized religion ask. There is no science to support it. Follow the money. It is all aimed at hyping up average dimwitted people into screaming something has to be done. Then taxes go up Al Gore gets rich flying around in his incredibly large jets. These people are incredibly ego centric to think that man is that significant a force on nature. The planet warms and cools cyclically. Currently we are in a cooling cycle. The average temp for the earth has actually fallen over the last 10 years. Man contributes less than 1% to the overall scheme of things. There is a primary LAW of nature that says "Matter can neither be created or destroyed it only changes from one form to another". Everything on the planet has always, and will always be here. (with the exception of some meteorites and astroids) Mostly all of the pollutants we put into the air falls back to the ground as grim. It's heavier than air. Look at your car in the city after a particularly dry evening, it's covered in pollutants. As for CO2, It is also heavier than air. Fill an empty aquarium with it and you can float a tinfoil boat on the surface. Don't get me wrong... I don't think we should go willy-nilly about polluting the planet and using the resources indiscriminately. We do need to be better stewards of what we have. I'm just saying don't get all caught up in the hype. If you are interested in helping, find out the facts for your self. Study both sides of the argument and make better choices for your self and your family. Don't just go regurgitating what the fearmongers are telling you. By the way... the pictures above with the Arctic bigger and smaller happen every year. It's called summer and winter. Watch "Deadliest Catch" on Discovery Channel. The ice pack can move miles a day as it freezes. And... Polar Bears like it warmer. They don't have to go as far to find food.

[cavingboy92]

It is not Global Warming. It Is Global Climate Change. Some parts of the world are getting colder, while other parts are getting warmer

[wenpherd]

where did you abuat gw?

[Weissensteinburg]

?

[wenpherd]

globul warming

[miols]

i cant wait for conservatives to eat you!

[Weissensteinburg]

Are you kidding? Have you read the rest of the comments?

[JusCoz]

Wow, such controversy. I agree Weissensteinburg, this one received far more comments than the hot dog cooker, although these are less entertaining, (and far more regurgitated). I just think that the reality no one can deny is that humans haven't figured out a way to co-exist without clearly defined boundaries. Life will continue to move forward as it will, regardless of what Anderson Cooper tells us. If we want to irradicate the cancer on this planet, it would require mass genocide, not compact florescence. It won't be until a concensus is reached to stop "wanting it now, wanting it good, and wanting it cheap (REAL CHEAP)" that we see a turn around. Glad to see moral and ethical beings still exist though, even if that just means a bunch of guilty white people get together online to discuss what EVERYONE ELSE is doing wrong.

[totally_screwed]

JusCoz You may well by right that life will continue to move forward. Presumably, you mean by evolution. It is unlikely that mankind will eradicate all life on earth. But it seems perfectly possible for mankind to render the earth unsuitable for most life, including humans. Humans are only one species, one that has reached plague proportions. We are apparently consuming resources at three times the rate which is sustainable. Have you noticed the other two earths anywhere? Regardless of Anderson Cooper, it is important to recognise that action to combat carbon emissions is vital. We can do enough without genocide. If genocide was an option, who would choose? I suspect that if democratically chosen, then the most wasteful individuals would be selected first. If you see one of my earlier posts this would be: Emissions per Capita Tonnes United States 20.1 Canada 18.3 Australia/New Zealand 17.7 Russia 11.7 South Korea 10.4 Japan 9.9 OECD Europe 8.2 The per capita average is ~ 7.8 Your suggestion that there is an element of hypocrisy among the posters, may or not be true. What is evidently true, is that unless one lives a zero-carbon life, then one is part of the problem. I suspect that includes almost everyone likely to be reading this. Another truth is that another problem is that emissions grow with the world population, Hopefully population growth can be stabilised without war or genocide. (I am not suggesting either as a last resort). Let's hope that with voluntary / compulsory reductions in carbon emissions, via energy efficiency, insulation and better technology, we are able to meet the 87% reductions required by 2050 to achieve only a 2 degree global temperature rise! Yes, 87% reduction! That means using only 13 % of our current energy requirements!

[Sonoffar]

totally_screwed, The replacement and protection of our precious bodily fluids is the solution required.

[Pumpkin$]

were's china on that chart?

[Gambit]

It is Per Capita, which means per person in the area. So China, having more people with only slightly more pollution will still have less Per Capita. That is why Canada is so high up on the charts. We have so much heavy industry and only 32 million people.

[Pumpkin$]

ya just make sure that the lable "per capita" is not changed :)

[mystazsea]

OK... simple science.....does everyone remember Highschool chemistry...
Here is a process that is simple and is already functional now..ready to use and as you will see most of your items around your house were created and powered by this very process or a variation of it...
C02 levels?///??Hmmm...well arguing whether they are increasing or not is pointless...I say create your own non polluting fuel/power at home and kill two birds with one stone...and while your at it...think bigger....
how about 7 with one blow
A simple process that every product around you right now was probably created by
yet why is this not being used to combat C02 levels...I think its better to ect that question to your local politician, as if they know anything about anything ....be warned though you may get a few strange cars and phone taps if you ask this particular question..

I have at home Several solar power Electrolyser( a big one!!) to produce Hydrogen on demand...Home built very efficient...
I got sick of hearing people whinging about Co2 levels......My advice is
act for yourself....
the old line " 7 with one blow..."

Want to never pay for fuel/ power again....?

One device...many applicationss...based on a system that is already
happening in the natural world....one that the industrial world has used since its inception to create the product s needed

Ion

Blah blah

its just that we have so many little engines
in the world busy making heat....do an experiment at home...
put 10 motors inside a closed box and watch the temp rise...
Why do you think computers have exhaust fans...
its not the co2 its the heat of so many billions of engines ....
There is a way.....
The internal combustion engine ICE when created in 1838 or there abouts was powered by water electroloysis...then some clever cookie decided that they couldnt have people running around just having free transport..
Way too much freedom for the government to handle....
so they decided to use a substance that they could charge you for and also
while they were at it..a substance that damages the engine so badly that you need to get regular services to maintain the exceedingly poor state of combustion that is found when you use that particular fuel..
and to top it off burns so inefficiantly that up to 40% of the fuel you pay good money for goes out the exhaust unused to pollute our lungs and water etc
I am talking about Petrol here...
No need to think really hard about it...its simple business..
If you could figure way to delude people into paying for something they dont really need then you have a guaranteed source of income ...
and then if you create all kinds of scenarios that potentially threaten the supply of said product then then you can ask any price you like for it..
Basic premise of business....create a demand (Advertising)...feed it (product) then raise the price( income)

Save time and money on energy / fuel ...make it at home
and reduce Co2 levels yourself.....If I can do this and I have only High school education and a creative brain...
Its all about asking the right questions
dont look where the finger is pointing...rather what the other hand hiding..

why the big wigs arent really doing anything about the problem.......its simple really
Ok check these out....do your research kids...and build it....real simple
Save money ...never pay for fuel or power again....and create your own
chem lab factory in your back yard....
make any chemical or compound you light and figure it out...
just be nice and dont hurt anyone..or create bombs....bombs although fun are
guaranteed to get unwanted attention turn in your direction
Waiting for the Government to do something is pointless
The truth is that the gov only wants your money so they can build more weapons and buy extra gear for their mansions...I say build your own mansion..and help out every one you know......Free yourself from the yoke of
slavery that we all allow from ignorance
its called "uninformed consent."
google that if you like

its your planet dudes...do you want a dead one or a cool living one
ok enuff preaching.....heres the links to get you started...
Remember...Keep it Simple Sweetheart

Einstein said that all the best ideas are simple but no more than that..

just do your research and then build your own multi tasking machine that
produces power/water/fuel/Chemicals
Geez i ramble a bit too much really...so anyway to the actual stuff you can build
Link 1 for Co2 reduction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_hydroxide
do the math...
link 2 for electrolysis or read a highskool chemistry book
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis
then read about
Ultra violet light effect on electrolysis
and then variable Harmonic frequency modulation..
or just you tube Sololuminescence
Stanley meyer or
The Joe cell...have a laugh and enjoy your self..
and never stop learning.....

Truth & Will

Ninja Wombats are cool

[Davvik]

It's very easy to ignore you when you don't make sense. You have to remember that people such as myself (or the general public) don't always know a lot about science, therefore we don't understand all of your technical wording in there. We usually understand all the basics of grade 9 science. One thing about your machine there, one of the chemicals you are using includes Lye. Lye is nearly impossible to get in Canada now unless you have major connections in the black market. The government has taken it off of the store shelves and has stopped companies from manufacturing it in commercial use because it is causing environmental problems with ecosystems. And I agree, Ninja Wombats are cool

[JusCoz]

MMMmmm, I love statistics! Even if 4 out of 5 stats are just made up on the spot! Lol! I agree totally screwed, that humans do have an obligation, individually as well as as a whole to try and undue the damage we have wrought upon this Delicate Ethereal Sphere. What I guess I managed to lose in the translation of my previous post was exactly where I stand.

I would never condone Genocide, so let's scratch that off the list. I only mentioned it to help people realise the magnitude of this problem. If global warming is as bad as certain people would have us beleive, then I suppose the powers that be will continue to keep people in the dark for as long as possible. Ironically for our own good, since human behaviour is irratic enough, without mention of armaggedon. (the apocalyptic event, not movie)

What I think that everyone is going to have to agree upon is that there is no way it's going to be easy. Like any other addiction, our first stage of denial is drawing to a close, and it's probably the easiest stage.

According to our brightest minds, by the year 2050 we can expect our population to be anywhere from 8 to 11 billion people. Combine that with the exessive strain added by new disease, increased poverty and added tension as world power shifts from the west back towards the east, the likelyhood that we will meet an 87% reduction in global emissions is proposterous.

I can hear your mind turning right now, considering how far we've come in modernizing energy wasting appliances. We've devised new ways to power our devices, and certainly our overall KNOWLEDGE alone should make it easy to acheive such a lofty goal.

But consider how many new people are getting computers every day, how many people are hooking up their cells, their TV's and DVR's...China alone will no doubt consume more energy than all other countries combined, as their currency surges, and more and more people there are moving above the poverty line.

And what about that poverty line? What ever happened to saving the whales? I must say, for all their muster, a tree huggers attention span is frightfully short lived.

It won't be until we can bring everyone in the world the amenities we take for granted at an emission rate one tenth of that we expect for our own daily lives, that a balance can be acheived.

As an analogy, it's as though 30% of the earth's population got addicted to X and has called a global intervention for their problem. Meanwhile, the other 70%!! are sitting around going "what are we doing here?", or "I'm not addicted yet, but if I want to try it, why not? They did it!" Realistically, it won't be global warming, but good 'ol Hubris that turns this planet into a bubbling mass of magmatic goo, and deep sea-vent shrimp will eat platters of crispy humans with a side of marinera.