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 10-30-2019, 11:57 AM   #1961
corporatejay
Franchise Player
 
corporatejay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers View Post
How about: China and India are bad so we might as well do #### all. Thatís my favourite.
That's my go to. Feel free to die on that cross by yourself.
__________________
corporatejay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2019, 12:11 PM   #1962
accord1999
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist View Post
Sea levels at the bare minimum will rise enough to displace between 190-340 Million people by 2050. These people will need a place to live, where will they go?
Slightly more inland? Really, due to coastal migration there have probably been more than 190 million people who have moved to coastal areas in the last several decades (like the US, and Eastern China), to live by the sea, on the beach or in the most economically vibrant areas.

Quote:
Severe weather events will be yearly. Who can live in places with tornados every year?



Quote:
Category 5 hurricanes every year?


Quote:
Wildfires burning all the forests?


Quote:
I feel like when people discuss climate change they aren't internalizing what the future already holds
The problem is that the data about extreme events simply don't support these fears.
accord1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to accord1999 For This Useful Post:
Old 10-30-2019, 12:26 PM   #1963
Lanny_McDonald
Franchise Player
 
Lanny_McDonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure View Post
It gets me every single time I hear the argument that natural gas is bad as well and therefore shouldn't be seen as a clean option. It really is the reason we can't get anywhere.
Hmmmm, didn't see that posted anywhere. In fact, just the opposite. We just need to be more aware of the challenges the use of said fuel raises and make sure we use it the right way. Oh, and that extends to our land fill sites, which produce huge amounts of methane and CO2 that are just released into the atmosphere. These could be sources of free energy if we capped them properly and managed the off gassing. If we use our fuels properly, everything is part of the solution!
Lanny_McDonald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2019, 01:06 PM   #1964
PeteMoss
Franchise Player
 
PeteMoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SW Ontario
Exp:
Default

The wildfire chart clearly shows an increase in recent years if you disregard the giant outlier years. Same trend in the US. I'm not going to argue with the rest of the points because they may or may not be true and were also cherry picking the few things on the original list you could dispute and ignored the rest.

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-...st-fires/16392
PeteMoss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2019, 01:08 PM   #1965
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteMoss View Post
The wildfire chart clearly shows an increase in recent years if you disregard the giant outlier years. Same trend in the US. I'm not going to argue with the rest of the points because they may or may not be true and were also cherry picking the few things on the original list you could dispute and ignored the rest.

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-...st-fires/16392
10 years of data for only Canada doesn't really prove anything as far as climate trends go. I believe you need at least 30 years of data to show anything useful, given climate cycles.
Fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2019, 01:08 PM   #1966
PeteMoss
Franchise Player
 
PeteMoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SW Ontario
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999 View Post
Slightly more inland? Really, due to coastal migration there have probably been more than 190 million people who have moved to coastal areas in the last several decades (like the US, and Eastern China), to live by the sea, on the beach or in the most economically vibrant areas.
Going to have to move pretty far inland



https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...e=sectionfront
PeteMoss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2019, 01:10 PM   #1967
Scroopy Noopers
Pent-up
 
Scroopy Noopers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Plutanamo Bay.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteMoss View Post
Going to have to move pretty far inland



https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...e=sectionfront
Only into an entirely different country. No biggie, that always goes smoothly.
Scroopy Noopers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2019, 01:11 PM   #1968
PeteMoss
Franchise Player
 
PeteMoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SW Ontario
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
10 years of data for only Canada doesn't really prove anything as far as climate trends go. I believe you need at least 30 years of data to show anything useful, given climate cycles.
You can use the chart above from accord if you want. 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017 are much higher than normal years.
PeteMoss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2019, 01:12 PM   #1969
Locke
Franchise Player
 
Locke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers View Post
Only into an entirely different country. No biggie, that always goes smoothly.
This could have saved a lot of trouble throughout the 1960s.
__________________
The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!

This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.

The Odds of the Flames winning the Cup this season are approximately 3,720-1
Locke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2019, 01:16 PM   #1970
accord1999
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteMoss View Post
The wildfire chart clearly shows an increase in recent years if you disregard the giant outlier years.
Ignoring data on the assumption that they are "outliers" is also cherry-picking. Truncating data sets to hide earlier data that goes against the theory of things being worse than ever is cherry-picking And if you look at the US, in the 1920s, 30s and 40s, they were regularly experiencing area burn 5x what they are today.

https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireIn...otalFires.html

As for the only thing that I didn't go into detail, sea level I assume, where looking at the data for coastal areas, you find that the local trend hasn't change since they started collecting data. For example Manhattan, Victoria (https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sl...ltrends.html):





accord1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2019, 01:16 PM   #1971
nik-
Franchise Player
 
nik-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteMoss View Post
Going to have to move pretty far inland



https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...e=sectionfront
When the Mekong delta becomes the Mekong Alpha.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji View Post
Johnny eats garbage and isnít 100% committed.
nik- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2019, 01:18 PM   #1972
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Ah, see here is a much more useful graph, I don't know why the one at your link is so limited.
https://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/ha/nfdb


I'm not sure this shows much trend. We have more medium size fires in the past few years, but lacked the monster fires years. Still trough to comment on any type of increasing trend, considering variables like increased population and activity in remote areas, along with changing forestry practices. Pinning whatever you might pluck from the graph on climate change is pretty tough to nail down.
Fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2019, 01:32 PM   #1973
PeteMoss
Franchise Player
 
PeteMoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SW Ontario
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999 View Post
Ignoring data on the assumption that they are "outliers" is also cherry-picking. Truncating data sets to hide earlier data that goes against the theory of things being worse than ever is cherry-picking And if you look at the US, in the 1920s, 30s and 40s, they were regularly experiencing area burn 5x what they are today.

https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireIn...otalFires.html

As for the only thing that I didn't go into detail, sea level I assume, where looking at the data for coastal areas, you find that the local trend hasn't change since they started collecting data. For example Manhattan, Victoria (https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sl...ltrends.html):





Definitely not cherry picking there. I can go pick some Gulf of Mexico cities and show you the rise if that is needed. Or I can just go look at the overall sea levels globally
https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...obal-sea-level

PeteMoss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2019, 01:35 PM   #1974
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

The Gulf of Mexico is a really bad example to look at for sea level rise, as it is more of a subsistence of land that is their problem. I think Accord's point is that the long term trend doesn't show an acceleration of rising sea levels in a lot of locations, as is being predicted to occur. Your long term global one shows a slight acceleration.
Fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Old 10-30-2019, 01:38 PM   #1975
burn_this_city
Franchise Player
 
burn_this_city's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

How much sea level rise is attributed to warming vs humans depleting fossil aquifers and the discharge ending up in the rivers then oceans. I can't remember where I read it, but something like 6-8" of sea level rise in the last 100 years was fossil water discharge from humans.
burn_this_city is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2019, 01:40 PM   #1976
PeteMoss
Franchise Player
 
PeteMoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SW Ontario
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
The Gulf of Mexico is a really bad example to look at for sea level rise, as it is more of a subsistence of land that is their problem. I think Accord's point is that the long term trend doesn't show an acceleration of rising sea levels in a lot of locations, as is being predicted to occur. Your long term global one shows a slight acceleration.
accord's point is the same in every post. Cherry pick some chart that might throw some doubt on climate change or the O&G industry contribution to it and post it. There's overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but hey 'look at this one data point of Victoria BC water levels' - pretty convincing stuff eh.
PeteMoss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2019, 01:44 PM   #1977
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteMoss View Post
accord's point is the same in every post. Cherry pick some chart that might throw some doubt on climate change or the O&G industry contribution to it and post it. There's overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but hey 'look at this one data point of Victoria BC water levels' - pretty convincing stuff eh.
Instead of being dismissive, can you discuss why if anthropogenic climate change is causing sea level rise, why does your global chart show very little acceleration, and what is the cause of sea level rise at the start of the chart before our emmisions would have caused it?
Fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Old 10-30-2019, 01:47 PM   #1978
Leeman4Gilmour
First Line Centre
 
Leeman4Gilmour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Normally, my desk
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteMoss View Post
accord's point is the same in every post. Cherry pick some chart that might throw some doubt on climate change or the O&G industry contribution to it and post it. There's overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but hey 'look at this one data point of Victoria BC water levels' - pretty convincing stuff eh.
I don't want to put words in his/her mouth, but I read accord's posts regarding sea level as "yes they are rising, but there doesn't seem to be a change in trend since 1850". Which your overall graph supports.
Leeman4Gilmour is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Leeman4Gilmour For This Useful Post:
Old 10-30-2019, 01:54 PM   #1979
PeteMoss
Franchise Player
 
PeteMoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SW Ontario
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
Instead of being dismissive, can you discuss why if anthropogenic climate change is causing sea level rise, why does your global chart show very little acceleration, and what is the cause of sea level rise at the start of the chart before our emmisions would have caused it?
I'm sure your google works just well as mine.

Here you go - read all 80 pages and let me know your thoughts. Heck it even talks about local readings differing from global. All your concerns will be addressed I'm sure.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo...er13_FINAL.pdf
PeteMoss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2019, 02:03 PM   #1980
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

That was a great discussion, thanks.
Fuzz 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 05:01 PM.

Calgary Flames
2022-23




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