View Poll Results: What role do humans play in contributing to climate change?
|
Humans are the primary contributor to climate change
|
|
395 |
63.00% |
Humans contribute to climate change, but not the main cause
|
|
164 |
26.16% |
Not sure
|
|
37 |
5.90% |
Climate change is a hoax
|
|
31 |
4.94% |
10-16-2019, 12:32 PM
|
#1641
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fonz
I don't think anyone disputes that climate change is real. The climate has been changing on Earth for 4.5 billion years.
The argument, from what I can tell, is over the impact of a .01% increase in atmospheric CO2. There is skepticism and disagreement that this additional .01% of atmospheric CO2 is having undesirable effects on our environment, if any at all.
|
I nominate The Fonz as our spokesperson to set Greta straight
The ~9800 years preceding the last 200 years showed a gentle increase from about 265ppm to ~280ppm.
Around 1912, atmospheric CO2 levels breached the 300 ppm threshold for the first time in at least 2.1 million years. In the last few years we've broken through 400ppm!
Dry air is still composed of roughly 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, and 0.04% carbon dioxide... messing with the hundreths of decimal points is obviously no big deal because we have so much air...
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-16-2019, 12:41 PM
|
#1642
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Fernando Valley
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
Did I say heckle and belittle her? I'd love if we could have an adult dialog but I don't see that happening.
|
If she has another hissy fit I think you just have to turn the other cheek and reply with thoughtful countering arguments that paint a realistic picture of the oil sands rather than the tainted view that most outsiders have been led to believe.
|
|
|
10-16-2019, 12:45 PM
|
#1643
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Fernando Valley
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
I nominate The Fonz as our spokesperson to set Greta straight
The ~9800 years preceding the last 200 years showed a gentle increase from about 265ppm to ~280ppm.
Around 1912, atmospheric CO2 levels breached the 300 ppm threshold for the first time in at least 2.1 million years. In the last few years we've broken through 400ppm!
Dry air is still composed of roughly 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, and 0.04% carbon dioxide...messing with the hundreths of decimal points is obviously no big deal because we have so much air...
|
When you consider the massive increase in human population as well as the increased levels of industrialization over the last 100 years a 0.01% raise in CO2 levels is actually pretty sensible. I'm actually surprised it's not higher as going from 200 million to 7.5 billion people was always going to affect the environment in a negative manner.
Last edited by Erick Estrada; 10-16-2019 at 12:47 PM.
|
|
|
10-16-2019, 12:48 PM
|
#1644
|
Our Jessica Fletcher
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
I nominate The Fonz as our spokesperson to set Greta straight
The ~9800 years preceding the last 200 years showed a gentle increase from about 265ppm to ~280ppm.
Around 1912, atmospheric CO2 levels breached the 300 ppm threshold for the first time in at least 2.1 million years. In the last few years we've broken through 400ppm!
Dry air is still composed of roughly 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, and 0.04% carbon dioxide...messing with the hundreths of decimal points is obviously no big deal because we have so much air...
|
I might be missing something in this post.
I had said I believe the climate dispute is over what kind of impacts the .01% additional atmospheric CO2 is having (if any) on our environment, and you’re response is that atmospheric CO2 has risen 100 ppm?
I don’t understand what point you were trying to make.
|
|
|
10-16-2019, 12:59 PM
|
#1645
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fonz
I might be missing something in this post.
I had said I believe the climate dispute is over what kind of impacts the .01% additional atmospheric CO2 is having (if any) on our environment, and you’re response is that atmospheric CO2 has risen 100 ppm?
I don’t understand what point you were trying to make.
|
It isn’t an additional .01%. It’s 30% more CO2 which makes up .04% of the atmosphere. A drug might only weigh a gram with the active ingredients being mg so only represent .00001% of your mass but they have an impact.
The general implication that something is a small % by volume therefore can’t have an affect is false.
|
|
|
10-16-2019, 01:04 PM
|
#1646
|
Our Jessica Fletcher
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
It isn’t an additional .01%. It’s 30% more CO2 which makes up .04% of the atmosphere. A drug might only weigh a gram with the active ingredients being mg so only represent .00001% of your mass but they have an impact.
The general implication that something is a small % by volume therefore can’t have an affect is false.
|
I had worded it incorrectly. What I was trying to say, is that I think people are skeptical that CO2 going from .03% to .04% of the atmosphere is having a negative/measurable impact on the environment. I don't think many people are questioning whether "climate change is real".
|
|
|
10-16-2019, 01:18 PM
|
#1647
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
So we have to bow down to a climate zealot so we don't anger the twitter mob?
|
I think she can be ignored by the mainstream press, certainly YTV and the other children’s networks could provide ample coverage.
|
|
|
10-16-2019, 02:04 PM
|
#1648
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auckland, NZ
|
Here's a great site (NASA's) on the evidence of human-attributed climate change, including a graph showing the unnatural atmospheric CO2 increase since the Industrial Revolution:
NASA: Global Climate Change
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Muta For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-16-2019, 02:12 PM
|
#1649
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fonz
I don't think anyone disputes that climate change is real. The climate has been changing on Earth for 4.5 billion years.
|
That's actually not what is being discussed. The issue is the human impact on the environment that is feeding climate change. Completely different discussions, and yes, there are people who question the validity of either question.
Quote:
The argument, from what I can tell, is over the impact of a .01% increase in atmospheric CO2. There is skepticism and disagreement that this additional .01% of atmospheric CO2 is having undesirable effects on our environment, if any at all.
|
This is false. In the actual community that study the subject matter, real scientists who are subject matter experts in their fields, have found consensus in the unified theory of what is causing rapid climate change around the globe. The level of skepticism is low and the ability to present another unified theory is non-existent.
Where there is disagreement you will find a great deal of disinformation and a concerted effort by interests who would lose vast amounts of wealth and power should a shift in our reliance on their products were to take place. This is no different than what big tobacco did to hide the lethality of their products. What is really ironic is the same researchers and companies used to sway the public on cigarettes are the same ones that are framing and swaying the public on climate science.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-sway-public1/
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-17-2019, 10:28 AM
|
#1650
|
Posted the 6 millionth post!
|
Interesting article on fuel economy and buyer habits in Canada from the World Economic Forum:
Canada has the worst fuel economy in the world. Here's why
TL,DR:
Far and away the biggest reason for Canada’s fuel inefficient vehicles comes down to cost. Simply put, the cost to purchase and operate a gas guzzler in Canada (or the U.S.) is far less than the rest of the world.
This cost difference comes in two forms: upfront charges for vehicle registration and gas prices.
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ozy_Flame For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-17-2019, 12:30 PM
|
#1651
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Fernando Valley
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame
Interesting article on fuel economy and buyer habits in Canada from the World Economic Forum:
Canada has the worst fuel economy in the world. Here's why
TL,DR:
Far and away the biggest reason for Canada’s fuel inefficient vehicles comes down to cost. Simply put, the cost to purchase and operate a gas guzzler in Canada (or the U.S.) is far less than the rest of the world.
This cost difference comes in two forms: upfront charges for vehicle registration and gas prices.
|
I didn't need to read that article to know that North America's infatuation with pickup trucks has led to poor fuel economy relative to the rest of the world. The issue is that the domestic automakers are highly dependant on pickup truck sales (it's essentially all that keeps them in business) so good luck with either government dealing with this head on by applying a gas guzzler tax on the purchase of each and every one of these used for non-business commuting. GM employs over 100k people in Ontario and the Silverado and Sierra are built in Oshawa. This isn't like killing off O&G in Alberta as the federal government fully knows they cannot do anything that's going to jeopardize jobs in Ontario and Quebec. It's one of those things where the government likes to preach that they are conscious about the environment but not to the point they will make hard decisions that will cost them votes in the two most important provinces.
Last edited by Erick Estrada; 10-17-2019 at 12:32 PM.
|
|
|
10-17-2019, 12:30 PM
|
#1652
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muta
Here's a great site (NASA's) on the evidence of human-attributed climate change, including a graph showing the unnatural atmospheric CO2 increase since the Industrial Revolution:
NASA: Global Climate Change
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
|
Not to nitpick this chart or anything, but how exactly did they measure the CO2 levels 700,000 years ago?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimbl420
I can wash my penis without taking my pants off.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moneyhands23
If edmonton wins the cup in the next decade I will buy everyone on CP a bottle of vodka.
|
|
|
|
10-17-2019, 12:33 PM
|
#1653
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Somewhere down the crazy river.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireFly
Not to nitpick this chart or anything, but how exactly did they measure the CO2 levels 700,000 years ago?
|
CO2 trapped in rock or ice.
|
|
|
10-17-2019, 12:33 PM
|
#1654
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Fernando Valley
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireFly
Not to nitpick this chart or anything, but how exactly did they measure the CO2 levels 700,000 years ago?
|
Hypothesis of course.
|
|
|
10-17-2019, 12:41 PM
|
#1655
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Calgary
|
Found the answer, nevermind
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimbl420
I can wash my penis without taking my pants off.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moneyhands23
If edmonton wins the cup in the next decade I will buy everyone on CP a bottle of vodka.
|
|
|
|
10-17-2019, 12:41 PM
|
#1656
|
In the Sin Bin
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: compton
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
Hypothesis of course.
|
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to icecube For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-17-2019, 12:45 PM
|
#1657
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
Hypothesis of course.
|
Not really,
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/fe...ology_IceCores
They measure the air in the ice trapped at the time it was deposited.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-17-2019, 12:52 PM
|
#1658
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireFly
Not to nitpick this chart or anything, but how exactly did they measure the CO2 levels 700,000 years ago?
|
ice cores are one way
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie Telford The chief of staff to the prime minister of Canada
“Line up all kinds of people to write op-eds.”
|
|
|
|
10-17-2019, 01:10 PM
|
#1659
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
Hypothesis of course.
|
No, not at all, core samples are actually over 99% persact
|
|
|
10-17-2019, 02:03 PM
|
#1660
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Fernando Valley
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
|
I stand corrected although this article states ice only provides direct evidence of temperature and rainfall and not on a global scale.
Last edited by Erick Estrada; 10-17-2019 at 02:08 PM.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:17 PM.
|
|