Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum

View Poll Results: What role do humans play in contributing to climate change?
Humans are the primary contributor to climate change 385 64.27%
Humans contribute to climate change, but not the main cause 154 25.71%
Not sure 32 5.34%
Climate change is a hoax 28 4.67%
Voters: 599. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-17-2019, 07:52 AM   #261
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wookster View Post
Im not promoting it either way, but a simple google search shows that its mostly funded by Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies like State Farm, Prudential and Pfizer. Although yes, it looks like Exxon has contributed a bit as well but it doesn't appear that "big oil" as you put is actually the majority contributors.



Regardless, I don't care who funds it as long as what is printed is factual, and this appears to be factual and provides real theory like the Benz Limit etc. But please feel free to point out anything that isn't factual and provide some evidence other than just your opinion and I'll be happy to read that as well.
So the first thing that isn’t factual is saying that 1 million on a Drilling rig will produce 300 Mkwh of electricity then comparing the cost to solar
Panel costs. The conversion of each of these energy sources to the grid has completely different costs and ignoring and presenting it as a six times cost
Difference between the two just isn’t factual based on the cost of actually purchasing solar energy.

Even the Benz limit and photovoltaic limit stuff assumes that we can’t get better at manufacturing wind and solar panels. There is still a theoretical 25% or so left on efficiency after that a 50% reduction in manufacturing and installation would reduce costs 4 fold which would put it far cheaper than coal:NG. The issue comes from the assumption that we need multiple 10 fold advancements like computers and telecom had. We don’t.

So Id go with the article is pretty terrible regardless of source. It takes factual theory and Strawmams

Last edited by GGG; 04-17-2019 at 12:23 PM.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2019, 12:20 PM   #262
corporatejay
Franchise Player
 
corporatejay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh View Post
I've had a brilliant macro-economics professor at Cornell. He used to say: <<Whenever you guys see someone proclaiming something "for the sake of our children!", it probably means that good logic and sound economic sense cannot be used to support the argument. Most of the time, it also means that politicians somewhere want to get some additional billions of tax dollars.>>

As for personal sacrifices, I don't want to make any mandatory personal sacrifices for something that is arbitrary. Over time, issues that once seemed unresolvable tend to get resolved. New scientific discoveries come, new technologies get developed in time etc. I also don't want to make any personal sacrifices knowing that the sacrifices are allocated unevenly and unfairly. Why should I pay carbon tax for myself (driving an efficient vehicle, installing an efficient furnace) and for someone who gets a full refund for driving a stinky old clunker and burning fire wood?

If humans are in fact the primary cause of climate change, then most of the damage comes from SE Asia (China, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia), where about half of the world population live and pollute everything around them like there's no tomorrow. What sacrifices are they willing to make and can they even make them without devastation?
__________________

Last edited by corporatejay; 04-17-2019 at 12:22 PM.
corporatejay is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to corporatejay For This Useful Post:
Old 04-17-2019, 12:49 PM   #263
VladtheImpaler
Franchise Player
 
VladtheImpaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers View Post
Nuclear is the only answer.
Absent something unforeseen, fusion is the long-term hope, and nuclear needs to hold the fort until then. Merkel was an idiot to pull the German nuclear stunt. Those are just my opinions, but I am far removed from any scientific pursuits or even casual interest, so please tell me I am wrong and why.
__________________
Cordially as always,
Vlad the Impaler

Please check out http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...94#post3726494

VladtheImpaler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2019, 01:44 PM   #264
zamler
Franchise Player
 
zamler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Exp:
Default

zamler is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to zamler For This Useful Post:
Old 04-18-2019, 07:43 AM   #265
Lanny_McDonald
Franchise Player
 
Lanny_McDonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wookster View Post
Im not promoting it either way, but a simple google search shows that its mostly funded by Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies like State Farm, Prudential and Pfizer. Although yes, it looks like Exxon has contributed a bit as well but it doesn't appear that "big oil" as you put is actually the majority contributors.
You should dig a little deeper, because how these “institutes” are funded matters. Let’s quickly review who gave over a million dollars to the Manhattan Institute and where their fortunes were made.

The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation* ($8,351,560) Petro Chemical
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...ley_Foundation
John M. Olin Foundation ($6,779,500) Petro Chemical
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...lin_Foundation
Searle Freedom Trust* ($5,886,000) Pfizer
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph..._Freedom_Trust
Sarah Scaife Foundation ($5,765,000) Gulf Oil
https://www.desmogblog.com/scaife-family-foundations
William E. Simon Foundation ($4,066,200) Merchant Banking
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...mon_Foundation
Diana Davis Spencer Foundation ($3,525,000) https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/h...cer-foundation
Smith Richardson Foundation ($2,904,966) Vicks Vapo Rub
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...son_Foundation
The TWS Foundation ($2,882,896) Private
Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation ($2,100,000) Koch Industries
https://www.desmogblog.com/koch-family-foundations
John Templeton Foundation ($1,959,000) Investment Banking
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...ton_Foundation
Mercer Family Foundation ($1,734,225) Hedge Fund
https://www.desmogblog.com/mercer-family-foundation
Ravenel and Elizabeth Curry Foundation ($1,696,000) Hedge Fund
Brady Education Foundation ($1,620,000) Private
Gilder Foundation ($1,330,300) Hedge Fund – Trustee of the Manhattan Institute
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...Richard_Gilder
Walton Family Foundation* ($1,236,512) Walmart
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...ily_Foundation
F.M. Kirby Foundation ($1,142,500) Woolworth Company
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...rby_Foundation
National Philanthropic Trust ($1,099,798) Philanthropic shell
Exxon Mobil ($1,060,000) Exxon
DonorsTrust ($1,053,115) – Philanthropic shell used heavily by the Bradley, Simon and Koch Foundations (Koch Industries).
https://www.desmogblog.com/who-donors-trust
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($1,015,755) Koch Industries
https://www.desmogblog.com/koch-family-foundations
Thomas W Smith Foundation ($1,009,186) Education
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/e...servative.html
Jaquelin Hume Foundation ($1,000,000)
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...ume_Foundation
*American Legislative Exchange Committee funder

The really interesting thing about this list is that it is literally a who’s who of conservative funders who try to manipulate public opinion on issues ranging from climate science to political bias in education to political activism and stacking of the courts to forwarding Christian fundamentalism as a central core belief in our public services. This is the intent of these foundations, to affect policy so it aligns with the ideals of their benefactors, even long after the benefactors are dead.

Something that really needs to be understood is the intent of these think tank organizations. These are policy groups who were set up to counter academia and “produce” research to support political policy. It is not true research like is done in academia, it is directed issue driven research written with an outcome in mind. A policy position is defined, then the research is conducted to find information that can support the position, even if the information is incomplete or mischaracterized. Many of these papers sound credible until you look at the assumptions and dismantle them. But too many people are intellectually lazy and will not take the arguments apart or do the research. They will instead take what is said, because it is said with such conviction, and accept it as factual.
Quote:
Regardless, I don't care who funds it as long as what is printed is factual, and this appears to be factual and provides real theory like the Benz Limit etc. But please feel free to point out anything that isn't factual and provide some evidence other than just your opinion and I'll be happy to read that as well.
You should care who is paying for something, because the source of the money usually is indicative of the outcome from these “institutions.” Canadians really haven’t been subject to the propaganda that comes from these think tanks, but that is changing as Canada adopts the machinations of the American political system. You’re going to have to get better at recognizing where information is coming from and what spin is being put on the data.

Let’s just jump right in and see how factual some of these initial assumptions are.

Scientists have yet to discover, and entrepreneurs have yet to invent, anything as remarkable as hydrocarbons in terms of the combination of low-cost, high-energy density, stability, safety, and portability. In practical terms, this means that spending $1 million on utility-scale wind turbines, or solar panels will each, over 30 years of operation, produce about 50 million kilowatt-hours (kWh)—while an equivalent $1 million spent on a shale rig produces enough natural gas over 30 years to generate over 300 million kWh.

GGG already took this one apart. No need to rehash.

Solar technologies have improved greatly and will continue to become cheaper and more efficient. But the era of 10-fold gains is over. The physics boundary for silicon photovoltaic (PV) cells, the Shockley-Queisser Limit, is a maximum conversion of 34% of photons into electrons; the best commercial PV technology today exceeds 26%.

This is inaccurate. It only describes what is possible using a single layer PV. Tandem and multi-layer PVs outperform this limit, with a theoretical efficiency of 86.8%. The practical application is in a dual layer (44% efficiency) and tri layer (49%) construction. That is without augmentation of the solar cell through concentration of the light using devices such as focusing bezels. Light concentration acts as a force multiplier as well, creating greater levels of efficiency and reaching those theoretical limits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shockl...Queisser_limit


Wind power technology has also improved greatly, but here, too, no 10-fold gains are left. The physics boundary for a wind turbine, the Betz Limit, is a maximum capture of 60% of kinetic energy in moving air; commercial turbines today exceed 40%.

This is true, but an overstatement and mostly misdirection. The Betz Limit does indeed state this restriction, but this is no different than pointing out the inefficiency of the combustion engine, only reaching heights of 38% thermal efficiency, which does not speak to the inefficiency of the rest of the vehicle design and such. This is a limit that we can accept and build into future solutions, just like we accept the inefficiency of the combustion engine. So this is really a moot point and an assumption that doesn’t hold much merit. There are limits in everything, it is the application that matters.

https://rentar.com/efficient-engines...on-efficiency/
https://www.greencarreports.com/news...-of-38-percent

The annual output of Tesla’s Gigafactory, the world’s largest battery factory, could store three minutes’ worth of annual U.S. electricity demand. It would require 1,000 years of production to make enough batteries for two days’ worth of U.S. electricity demand. Meanwhile, 50–100 pounds of materials are mined, moved, and processed for every pound of battery produced.

This is irrelevant. There are other ways of storing energy, including other types of batteries. Short term storage is a requirement, for solar and wind but can easily be achieved through cheap and inexpensive solutions like salt water batteries. In a commercial or residential application larger storage can be built into the footprint of a building, and built in as part of the solution. Pointing to Tesla’s giga factory manufacturing capacity as a fail point for this technology is a strawman.

Those are the main assumptions. The rest of the paper is also specious, but the most damning thing is the misappropriation of information in the paper itself. The paper is rife with sections that suggest one thing when the actual article their attribution leads to says something completely different. They take a complex paper and distill it down to a single comment bereft of context or accuracy.

Examples include their quote from Bill Gates saying “we need scientific miracles.” That is a misquote of what he actually said and taking the quote way out of context (something these think tanks do with regularity). Gates was explaining in an interview that we need some “miracles” like those we saw with the microporcesser and some of the pharmaceuticals that have been developed over the past couple decades, and that the problem is lack of research and development dollars in the system. The article (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...iracle/407881/) was more focused on research and development funding than it was on the subject of renewable energy, but that didn’t stop the use of the salacious quote from being used for easy gain.

Another is the claim that Google engineers made the claim “we don’t have the answers.” Well, yes they did, but not in the context of what was said in the attributed article (https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/ren...climate-change.) The issue is very complex and the engineers have a very different take than that presented.
The article is rife with disinformation and flat out lies, but it is written in a very engaging narrative tone that people will easily swallow. It is part and parcel of these think thanks whose job it is to create disinformation and make the public believe one thing, even if the actual research and commentary they use says something completely different. So long as they can extend the discussion, they are worth every penny their benefactors are paying for their services. When it comes to climate science, there is a massive industry that working hard to keep us burning dinosaur carcasses and dino farts, even if it means we speed up the demise of our own species. The list is long and proud, and many of them quite recognizable.
https://www.desmogblog.com/global-wa...enier-database
This is why media literacy matters. And why everyone should source the information they consumer and understand context.
Lanny_McDonald is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Old 04-25-2019, 01:42 PM   #266
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Interesting technology here for Geothermal:


News release:
https://www.newswire.ca/news-release...811377148.html



Company:

https://eavor.com/technology/
Fuzz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2019, 07:07 PM   #267
#-3
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
Interesting technology here for Geothermal:


News release:
https://www.newswire.ca/news-release...811377148.html



Company:

https://eavor.com/technology/
I've gotta say Geothermal on mass scales just seems scary.

I think screwing with the earth crust on the scale that would be required to effect change should require allot of evidence as to it's safety first.
#-3 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to #-3 For This Useful Post:
Old 04-25-2019, 08:54 PM   #268
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by #-3 View Post
I've gotta say Geothermal on mass scales just seems scary.

I think screwing with the earth crust on the scale that would be required to effect change should require allot of evidence as to it's safety first.
If you were to review their AER application I suspect you would find significant evidence of the safety of these wells. A high level of geoscience and geophysics analysis is required to drill anything in Alberta.

The wells will likely be monitored to ensure proper cement bond and casing integrity between different layers to prevent contamination of fresh water. In this case because it is a closed system there doesn’t appear to be a concern about fracture pressure like you have with high pressure disposal wells or CSS operations.

The self sealing mud seams novel.

What are you specifically concerned about?
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Old 04-25-2019, 09:28 PM   #269
Mathgod
Franchise Player
 
Mathgod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by #-3 View Post
I've gotta say Geothermal on mass scales just seems scary.

I think screwing with the earth crust on the scale that would be required to effect change should require allot of evidence as to it's safety first.
K cool, so you're completely against fracking then?
Mathgod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2019, 08:39 AM   #270
Lubicon
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Exp:
Default

If the application is available on the ERCB website I'll need to give it a look. It sounds simple but I am intrigued by the drilling and wellbore design portion of the system. My background is in drilling so I am curious as to how they actually intend to drill multiple lateral sections from a single vertical wellbore. That is technically feasible but pretty expensive to do unless they are doing something new.

Regarding concern about large scale geothermal projects I don't see a major issue with them. Even on a large scale the amount of energy we would be removing in the form of heat is pretty minuscule in the overall temperature profile of the planet. This heat is naturally being generated regardless of what happens and will not speed up or decline due to any geothermal system removing a small portion of it.
Lubicon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2019, 08:43 AM   #271
Northendzone
Franchise Player
 
Northendzone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Exp:
Default

figured this is just as good of a place as any to post this - but i had to laugh my head off the other day at Trudeau and McKenna as they trotted out Harrison Ford as their latest climate hero. this is a guy that owns multiple airplanes, cars and homes. hardly the beacon of living a low carbon footprint lifestyle. i can only assume that leo dicaprio was not available

does anyone in the government not ask these questions before they trot out a celebritiy, or do they really think the public is that stupid/gulliable.

of course lets not forget to mention both trudeau and mckenna constantly yelling about climate change as they log thousands of air miles.

then of course both had to suggest that the flooding in ottawa is climate change related. rivers have been flooding in the spring since the dawn of time. some rivers, like the red river in manitoba flood on a somewhat regular basis.
__________________
If I do not come back avenge my death
Northendzone is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Northendzone For This Useful Post:
Old 04-26-2019, 08:44 AM   #272
Muta
Franchise Player
 
Muta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auckland, NZ
Exp:
Default

As part of action on climate change, NYC plans to ban the construction of glass skyscrapers:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...5adcb-25219915
Muta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2019, 09:12 AM   #273
The Fonz
Our Jessica Fletcher
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Exp:
Default

Is there a legitimate reason why politicians on the left, who champion themselves as saving the environment while right leaning politicians ruin it, are opposed to nuclear?

How can any "environmentalist" be taken seriously if they are opposed to the cleanest, most reliable source of energy we have access to?
The Fonz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2019, 09:17 AM   #274
iggy_oi
Franchise Player
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fonz View Post
Is there a legitimate reason why politicians on the left, who champion themselves as saving the environment while right leaning politicians ruin it, are opposed to nuclear?

How can any "environmentalist" be taken seriously if they are opposed to the cleanest, most reliable source of energy we have access to?
If I had to guess I’d say the risk of a Chernobyl or Fukushima incident would probably be their biggest legitimate concern.
iggy_oi is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to iggy_oi For This Useful Post:
Old 04-26-2019, 09:30 AM   #275
Scroopy Noopers
Pent-up
 
Scroopy Noopers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Plutanamo Bay.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi View Post
If I had to guess I’d say the risk of a Chernobyl or Fukushima incident would probably be their biggest legitimate concern.
But in reality it is hardly a concern.

Please view this for details on those incidents, and how exaggerated the fallout was (skip to 10:30 for this topic):
Scroopy Noopers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2019, 09:49 AM   #276
Northendzone
Franchise Player
 
Northendzone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Exp:
Default

and NYC itself will apparently be cutting out the purchase of processed red meat. so i am guessing at a city owned snack bar you will likely not be able to buy a typical hot dog - maybe a tofu dog or something

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muta View Post
As part of action on climate change, NYC plans to ban the construction of glass skyscrapers:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...5adcb-25219915
__________________
If I do not come back avenge my death
Northendzone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2019, 11:29 AM   #277
zamler
Franchise Player
 
zamler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers View Post
But in reality it is hardly a concern.
Tell that to Japan they have changed their entire energy strategy due to Fukushima. 100,000 people were displaced the area is not inhabitable for 40 years or more. Over 500 people died.
zamler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2019, 12:45 PM   #278
Scroopy Noopers
Pent-up
 
Scroopy Noopers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Plutanamo Bay.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler View Post
Tell that to Japan they have changed their entire energy strategy due to Fukushima. 100,000 people were displaced the area is not inhabitable for 40 years or more. Over 500 people died.
Data from the video I posted (United Nations Study):

Quote:
Fukushima
- 0 radiation related deaths
- 1500 deaths due to displacement (being pulled out of nursing homes, hospitals, mass panic). When in reality everyone was safer staying in place, to reduce contact with radiation.
- 20,000 people died in the Tsunami.
- no increase to thyroid cancer rates.
He then goes on to show the results of these students from Paris who flew to Fukushima wearing devices to detect radiation levels. And the flight & security check points gave them far more exposure than they recorded in Fukushima.

They really aren’t as scary as we’ve always believed.
Scroopy Noopers is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Scroopy Noopers For This Useful Post:
Old 04-26-2019, 01:20 PM   #279
stone hands
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler View Post
Tell that to Japan they have changed their entire energy strategy due to Fukushima. 100,000 people were displaced the area is not inhabitable for 40 years or more. Over 500 people died.
this is kind of a red herring since fukishima was a problem due to it's location and not the actual nuclear power plant part
stone hands is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2019, 01:26 PM   #280
zamler
Franchise Player
 
zamler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stone hands View Post
this is kind of a red herring since fukishima was a problem due to it's location and not the actual nuclear power plant part
Not a red herring there is no perfect location for a nuclear power plant. I am not against nuclear in fact all for it except the consequences of failure are too great IMO.
zamler is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:01 AM.

Calgary Flames
2022-23




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021