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 04-11-2019, 09:13 AM   #121
edslunch
Franchise Player
 
edslunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler View Post
Hydrogen makes up 0.00005% of the atmosphere which makes harvesting it from the air not feasible. To refine from water takes more energy than you get back which makes it an energy storage medium not a fuel. Compare that to oil, coal, natural gas etc. which is the result of millions of years of (mostly) solar energy being concentrated into a small space. And you get much more energy back versus what is needed to bring the energy to market.

To put fossil fuel into perspective a Tesla battery weighs 1000+ pounds and contains as much energy as less than 2 gallons of petrol.

I understand what youíre saying but take issue with saying that Hydrogen is not a fuel. To me a fuel is some material that can be used to provide energy for some equipment or process. Hydrogen is exactly that. I think what you mean is that it isnít a net energy source given the energy required to isolate it.
edslunch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to edslunch For This Useful Post:
Old 04-11-2019, 09:14 AM   #122
Weitz
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99 View Post
Dont look at Facebook comments...literally the worst possible medium to garner public opinion.
Especially because 30% are likely people just trolling.
Weitz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2019, 09:15 AM   #123
troutman
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
 
troutman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Winebar Kensington
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99 View Post
Dont look at Facebook comments...literally the worst possible medium to garner public opinion.
Unfortunately, that is where many people get most of their information. Any news story to do with the climate attracts hoards of hoax posters.

35% of respondents to our poll don't believe that #1 is the correct statement.
__________________
https://www.mergenlaw.com/
http://cjsw.com/program/fossil-records/
twitter/instagram @troutman1966

Last edited by troutman; 04-11-2019 at 09:17 AM.
troutman is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
Old 04-11-2019, 09:30 AM   #124
burn_this_city
Franchise Player
 
burn_this_city's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee View Post
Youíre not wrong and nuclear I think should be vastly more of our energy mix. But also people donít realize what energy use also entails beyond power.

It means fertilizer. Roads. Plastics of all types. Fuel for jets cars, anything. It means textiles, manufacturing, metallics, construction materials... everything. it literally means everything in our current societyís fabric.

And nuclear doesnít solve all of these other problems. It solves power. We canít and donít have nuclear reactor capability for planes or cars. We need technology to come a long long long way.
Atomic energy would allow us to synthesis fuels and run DAC to counter the emissions. We really need a clean near limitless energy source to make all the other pieces work. Fusion would be ideal, but we can't wait for it.
burn_this_city is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2019, 09:31 AM   #125
stampsx2
First Line Centre
 
stampsx2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Yes facebook is brutal for accurate information, it’s brimming with climate alarmists. Yes we should help keep climate change under control but climate alarmists will make it sound like life on earth will end in the next 20 years.

The glaciers are melting but according to national geographic we can expect 1-2 feet of sea level rise in the next 100 years.

Every year oceans rise by 3.2 millimeters.

Matter of fact, if all the glaciers in the world melted, sea levels will rise by 60 meters. At current climate temperatures, it would take 5000 years to melt all the glaciers on the planet. By that time, we will probably be looking at colonizing a different solar system.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/m...horeline-maps/
stampsx2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2019, 09:43 AM   #126
troutman
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
 
troutman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Winebar Kensington
Exp:
Default

http://www.impactlab.org/news-insigh...nge-mortality/
  • Even after accounting for adaptation, an additional 1.5 million people die per year from climate change by 2100 if past emissions trends continue. For comparison, road injuries killed roughly 1.4 million people worldwide in 2016, and diabetes, ranked as the seventh leading cause of death worldwide, killed 1.6 million people in 2016. These projections include net gains in many regions of the world where lives will be saved from fewer cold days.
  • Extreme heat is measurably deadlier for the poorest third of the world, and the decline in cold-related deaths does not offset the harm caused by temperature rise. Higher incomes make societies more resilient to extreme heat, allowing people to make a range of protective investments, including in air conditioning and better building insulation. But for the most vulnerable developing countries, even optimistic economic growth projections do not provide complete protection. The findings show warming caused by an additional ton of CO2 harms 72 percent of the global population, while the rest benefit on net, primarily due to a decrease in cold days.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ng-and-health/

Quote:
Researchers believe that global warming is already responsible for some 150,000 deaths each year around the world, and fear that the number may well double by 2030 even if we start getting serious about emissions reductions today.

A team of health and climate scientists from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the University of Wisconsin at Madison published these findings last year in the prestigious, peer-reviewed science journal Nature. Besides killing people, global warming also contributes to some five million human illnesses every year, the researchers found. Some of the ways global warming negatively affects human health—especially in developing nations—include: speeding the spread of infectious diseases such as malaria and dengue fever; creating conditions that lead to potentially fatal malnutrition and diarrhea; and increasing the frequency and severity of heat waves, floods and other weather-related disasters.
__________________
https://www.mergenlaw.com/
http://cjsw.com/program/fossil-records/
twitter/instagram @troutman1966
troutman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2019, 10:04 AM   #127
Thor
God of Hating Twitter
 
Thor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman View Post
If you look at Facebook comments, it seems about 30% say hoax.
Did you hear the Sam Harris podcast with that lady who researched the anti-vaxxer movement, then Russian bots?

She made some fascinating points about how they make it seem as if far more people hold a position that is in reality.
__________________
Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
Thor is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
Old 04-11-2019, 11:16 AM   #128
MoneyGuy
Franchise Player
 
MoneyGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman View Post
If you look at Facebook comments, it seems about 30% say hoax.
You must have smarter friends than I do. Iím seeing 50 per cent in one thread, however Iím sure thatís not representative of my friends.
MoneyGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2019, 11:26 AM   #129
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stampsx2 View Post
Yes facebook is brutal for accurate information, itís brimming with climate alarmists. Yes we should help keep climate change under control but climate alarmists will make it sound like life on earth will end in the next 20 years.

The glaciers are melting but according to national geographic we can expect 1-2 feet of sea level rise in the next 100 years.

Every year oceans rise by 3.2 millimeters.

Matter of fact, if all the glaciers in the world melted, sea levels will rise by 60 meters. At current climate temperatures, it would take 5000 years to melt all the glaciers on the planet. By that time, we will probably be looking at colonizing a different solar system.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/m...horeline-maps/

Remember when Gore said the arctic would be ice free in 5-7 years, back in 2008? Some of the predictions are absolute garbage and do not help. I remember one about how climate change is causing more earthquakes or some nonsense.
Fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2019, 01:44 PM   #130
Flamenspiel
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman View Post
Unfortunately, that is where many people get most of their information. Any news story to do with the climate attracts hoards of hoax posters.

35% of respondents to our poll don't believe that #1 is the correct statement.
To me that just shows that on average Facebook users are not that clever. Time magazine posted a study on GPAs a few years ago and found Facebook users were a full point lower than the average student.
Flamenspiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2019, 01:59 PM   #131
Jason14h
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flamenspiel View Post
To me that just shows that on average Facebook users are not that clever. Time magazine posted a study on GPAs a few years ago and found Facebook users were a full point lower than the average student.
Cause the non users are at their jobs and working! Not commenting and posting on stuff like this

Oh crap better get back to work !
Jason14h is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2019, 06:44 PM   #132
photon
The new goggles also do nothing.
 
photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snootchiebootchies View Post
Yes, generating hydrogen by electrolysis is a net energy loss. Hydrogen makes sense in certain applications where gains in efficiency from using it in a combustion device helps offset some of the loss from generating the hydrogen.
What efficiency from using it in a combustion device? Burning it is really inefficient unless you're just after the heat (i.e. heating a home).

In a car, burning hydrogen is horribly inefficient, you're far better off going wind turbine -> battery -> move car than wind turbine -> generate hydrogen -> burn hydrogen -> move car.

Fuel cells are far better to use with the hydrogen, and that's still not as good as a battery.

Where hydrogen really has an advantage is in energy density. Batteries are big and heavy, takes a lot of batteries to store the same amount of energy as a few kg of hydrogen.
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
photon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2019, 06:47 PM   #133
wwkayaker
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman View Post
35% of respondents to our poll don't believe that #1 is the correct statement.
I haven’t read all of the posts. Have any of the hoaxers shown up? We should have a flat earther poll and see how it correlates.
wwkayaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2019, 07:17 PM   #134
The Fonz
Our Jessica Fletcher
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wwkayaker View Post
I havenít read all of the posts. Have any of the hoaxers shown up? We should have a flat earther poll and see how it correlates.
Are there physicists presenting research papers that call into question the theory that the earth is round? Cause there are plenty that dispute climate change modelling, as well carbon dioxide and itís greenhouse effect.

I donít think itís fair to imply that those who donít believe in anthropogenic climate change, are flat-earthers, or gravity deniers like was suggested earlier in this thread.

I didnít vote hoax, btw.
The Fonz is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to The Fonz For This Useful Post:
Old 04-11-2019, 07:48 PM   #135
zamler
Franchise Player
 
zamler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by photon View Post
Where hydrogen really has an advantage is in energy density. Batteries are big and heavy, takes a lot of batteries to store the same amount of energy as a few kg of hydrogen.
But it gets offset by the complexity of the fuel cell system the Toyota Mirai weighs 4100 lbs that's portly for a car about the size of a Prius. It's as slow as a Prius too and not much more efficient.
zamler is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to zamler For This Useful Post:
Old 04-11-2019, 09:41 PM   #136
photon
The new goggles also do nothing.
 
photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fonz View Post
Are there physicists presenting research papers that call into question the theory that the earth is round? Cause there are plenty that dispute climate change modelling, as well carbon dioxide and itís greenhouse effect.
I don't think you'll find any physicist disagreeing with the greenhouse effect of CO2, let alone publishing papers that say it, that's basic physics.
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
photon is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Old 04-11-2019, 10:23 PM   #137
The Fonz
Our Jessica Fletcher
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by photon View Post
I don't think you'll find any physicist disagreeing with the greenhouse effect of CO2, let alone publishing papers that say it, that's basic physics.
You’re right, I misspoke. What I should have said was the greenhouse effect of CO2 relative to that of air.

Here is some work done by Dr. Thomas Allmendinger and Dr. Andreas RŁetschi:

“A Novel Investigation about the Thermal Behaviour of Gases under the Influence of IR-Radiation: A Further Argument against the Greenhouse Thesis”

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-acc....php?aid=87335

Quote:
The limiting temperature depends on the gas kind, whereby practically no difference between air and carbon-dioxide could be found. However, a significant difference could be found between the noble gases argon and helium...



It’s interesting work, and I can’t do it justice with a short summary. Ultimately what they found in their study, though, was that the difference in greenhouse effect between pure carbon dioxide and air was negligible.

Edit: a bit more in-depth version of the study in the International Journal of Physical Sciences (https://www.allphyscon.ch/wordpress/...Gases_IJPS.pdf)

Last edited by The Fonz; 04-11-2019 at 10:26 PM.
The Fonz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2019, 10:57 PM   #138
Mathgod
Franchise Player
 
Mathgod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Exp:
Default

https://www.skepticalscience.com/emp...use-effect.htm
Mathgod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2019, 11:22 PM   #139
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fonz View Post
Youíre right, I misspoke. What I should have said was the greenhouse effect of CO2 relative to that of air.

Here is some work done by Dr. Thomas Allmendinger and Dr. Andreas RŁetschi:

ďA Novel Investigation about the Thermal Behaviour of Gases under the Influence of IR-Radiation: A Further Argument against the Greenhouse ThesisĒ

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-acc....php?aid=87335






Itís interesting work, and I canít do it justice with a short summary. Ultimately what they found in their study, though, was that the difference in greenhouse effect between pure carbon dioxide and air was negligible.

Edit: a bit more in-depth version of the study in the International Journal of Physical Sciences (https://www.allphyscon.ch/wordpress/...Gases_IJPS.pdf)
He proposes with limited justification that about 200 years of modeling and measuring the intensity of GHGs is wrong and instead measuring the limiting twmpteratue is the correct way to do it. Then when his measurement of CO2 and air are similar states that the green house affect isnít impacted by CO2.

There seems to be a significant lack of justification for why his experiment is actually measuring the properties of the Green House potential of various gasses.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2019, 12:26 AM   #140
accord1999
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Exp:
Default

The argument over CO2 is what its effect is on temperature (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity). In 1979, a off-hand guess of 3C +- 1.5C per doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was made. Despite significant research on this topic (which might very well be the single most important equation in all of climate science), the most recent IPCC report in 2014 is still basically in that range. There's a significant difference in the impact to civilization of 1.5C increase per doubling versus 4.5C.





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
accord1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to accord1999 For This Useful Post:
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 12:27 AM.

Calgary Flames
2022-23




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