Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

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

View Poll Results: What role do humans play in contributing to climate change?
Humans are the primary contributor to climate change 314 64.08%
Humans contribute to climate change, but not the main cause 130 26.53%
Not sure 26 5.31%
Climate change is a hoax 20 4.08%
Voters: 490. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-07-2019, 10:06 AM   #1401
Resolute 14
One of many who is too boring; thinks that there should be rules regarding grammar in custom user titles, and also makes moderators wonder if there is a charachter limit here. I mean come on- you would think that would be a limitation in the software
 
Resolute 14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Exp:
Default

They are basically the climate change equivalent of those anti-abortion loonies who drive the aborted fetus truck.

Their methods will convince exactly zero people, and instead only foster resentment against them.
__________________

Resolute 14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2019, 10:07 AM   #1402
MillerTime GFG
First Line Centre
 
MillerTime GFG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Mckenzie Towne
Exp:
Default

I would absolutely lose my mind...I just saw a couple videos on it. I would probably go full crazy.
MillerTime GFG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2019, 10:41 AM   #1403
WhiteTiger
Franchise Player
 
WhiteTiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weitz View Post
I suspect this isn't the best way to gain traction for your cause. Inconveniencing the average person who is trying to get to work isn't going to help you.
You are so right, and yet it happens time and time and time again. The methods don't seem to work, but they sure like to use them.

Though, I suppose, the goal is "news coverage" and not "new recruits"...I guess it works that way.
WhiteTiger is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2019, 10:43 AM   #1404
Locke
ness Monster
 
Locke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteTiger View Post
You are so right, and yet it happens time and time and time again. The methods don't seem to work, but they sure like to use them.

Though, I suppose, the goal is "news coverage" and not "new recruits"...I guess it works that way.
"Climate Change and Human Responsibility."

Maybe we need fewer humans? Who do we get rid of?

Well...through this action I think a large group just identified themselves as useless, perhaps we should start with them?
__________________
- "Somebody may beat me, but they're going to have to bleed to do it."
- Steve Prefontaine
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
Locke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2019, 02:07 PM   #1405
CalgaryFan1988
Franchise Player
 
CalgaryFan1988's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Back in Ottawa
Exp:
Default

It's nice that in the US they are promoting planting trees in order to stabilize climate change instead of just adding a carbon tax.
CalgaryFan1988 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2019, 02:17 PM   #1406
New Era
Franchise Player
 
New Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988 View Post
It's nice that in the US they are promoting planting trees in order to stabilize climate change instead of just adding a carbon tax.
And that is pretty much copping out on putting in place a real solution and kicking the can further down the road. You can only plant so many trees on an acre. The soil and watershed can only support so many plants. Then there are areas where trees are not meant to grow. The idea of planting trees is a wonderful idea in principle, until you start looking at the ecological impact of such a plan. While it is better than nothing, larger more comprehensive plans need to be developed and implemented as soon as possible. The time for kicking cans down the road was so 1970s.
New Era is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to New Era For This Useful Post:
Old 10-07-2019, 05:07 PM   #1407
CalgaryFan1988
Franchise Player
 
CalgaryFan1988's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Back in Ottawa
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era View Post
And that is pretty much copping out on putting in place a real solution and kicking the can further down the road. You can only plant so many trees on an acre. The soil and watershed can only support so many plants. Then there are areas where trees are not meant to grow. The idea of planting trees is a wonderful idea in principle, until you start looking at the ecological impact of such a plan. While it is better than nothing, larger more comprehensive plans need to be developed and implemented as soon as possible. The time for kicking cans down the road was so 1970s.
I agree with you, but it's still better than simply implementing a carbon tax.
CalgaryFan1988 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2019, 05:42 PM   #1408
Scroopy Noopers
Pent-up
 
Scroopy Noopers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Ontario, unfortunately.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988 View Post
I agree with you, but it's still better than simply implementing a carbon tax.
Where do they get the additional funding for such a project?
Scroopy Noopers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2019, 11:14 PM   #1409
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers View Post
Where do they get the additional funding for such a project?
General tax revenue.

Green projects shouldn’t be funded with green taxes. A project is worth doing or not based on its expected outcome.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Old 10-08-2019, 03:28 AM   #1410
Leeman4Gilmour
First Line Centre
 
Leeman4Gilmour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Normally, my desk
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era View Post
And that is pretty much copping out on putting in place a real solution and kicking the can further down the road. You can only plant so many trees on an acre. The soil and watershed can only support so many plants. Then there are areas where trees are not meant to grow. The idea of planting trees is a wonderful idea in principle, until you start looking at the ecological impact of such a plan. While it is better than nothing, larger more comprehensive plans need to be developed and implemented as soon as possible. The time for kicking cans down the road was so 1970s.
https://www.technologyreview.com/f/6...bon-emissions/

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...nopy-emissions

It's more than just kicking a can down the road and is not copping out. Sure, "larger, more comprehensive plans" would be great. But, why not start with a simple chapter 1 of said plan.

Posted this before, but demonstrates viability of actually implementing the start of a "comprehensive plan";

https://interestingengineering.com/e...lanting-record
Leeman4Gilmour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2019, 10:28 AM   #1411
New Era
Franchise Player
 
New Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour View Post
This has already been debunked. I wish people would stop bringing it up because it is one of the dumbest ideas ever thrust upon the debate. This was a model by MIT that projected how many trees would have to be planted to act as a carbon sink to absorb the carbon we have been injecting into the atmosphere. Even the author has said it is all for not if we don't also cut emissions.

Crowther's projections were we would need to plant 1.4 trillion trees, which about 1/3 of the trees already in existence. This is virtually impossible and could have dire effects on biomes and their sustainability and possibly make the situation of warming worse.

https://www.llnl.gov/news/models-sho...global-warming

https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-...limate-change/

You can't just arbitrarily plant trees and think they will not have negative ramifications. There are only so many nutrients and only so much water in the watershed. When you increase the number of plants it taxes the soil and creates an unhealthy environment for plant survival. By packing in more trees you create competition and the strongest plants will survive. Others will die off and create the blanket of debris that creates the conditions for uncontrollable wild fires. Sustainability of the plants is the most important thing, and the concept suggested does not take that into consideration.

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

What people don't understand is that the environment can only handle so many plants and trees in an area. Then there is the conditions in which the plants are going to grow. We are thinking in present terms, not future terms. What does the future condition look like and will plants be able to grow in those conditions, or will they require more nutrients and water to do so. Studies show that future conditions - increased temperatures - will make it more difficult for plants to survive and competition for resources will be even greater.

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/ea...34113.full.pdf

The same problems affect food crops that we rely upon.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...1111/gcb.12069

While we may think that planting trees is a great idea it is going to do more harm to the fragile ecosystems we rely upon to survive. Couple that with the fact that it takes a tree over a decade to mature to the point where it starts acting as a carbon sink and you have even greater challenges. Environmental conditions continue to degrade as temperatures rise, making it more difficult for plants to survive. Without proper management of the plants and increases in the resources needed to sustain them, we are actually doing greater damage than good.

http://le.uwpress.org/content/78/4/559.full.pdf

https://www.greenbiz.com/article/cou...climate-change

"Other scientists question not only the practicality of the study's claims, but also the study's very methodology. "Many of the allegedly available restoration areas are clearly unsuitable for more trees than they currently support. If you look closely at the map, a large proportion of these areas are in regions where soils are permanently frozen," says Eike Luedeling, a climate change researcher and professor of horticultural sciences at the University of Bonn.

"The methodology implicitly (probably not on purpose) implies that carbon stock is proportional to canopy cover, i.e. ecosystems without trees contain no carbon. This is clearly false and strongly inflates the global estimate [of restoration]."

Jan Börner, Luedeling's colleague and a professor for economics of sustainable land use at the University of Bonn, is similarly skeptical. Börner says that some areas being proposed for restoration under the current study are already in use for other purposes. Börner considers the study to be an "interesting academic exercise ... but as a [climate change] mitigation strategy proposal (and it is being advertised as such), it sends a misleading signal to the international climate policy debate."


It is not a practical solution.

Quote:
It's more than just kicking a can down the road and is not copping out. Sure, "larger, more comprehensive plans" would be great. But, why not start with a simple chapter 1 of said plan.
Because its an idea a kindergarten kid would propose. On surface, yeah, it kind of makes some sense. But when you actually start looking into the idea and what the ramifications are, its an incredibly short sighted and not well thought out plan. These are complex problems that require complex solutions, and pinning the hopes of the planet on an idea a four year old would suggest is flat out scary.

Quote:
Posted this before, but demonstrates viability of actually implementing the start of a "comprehensive plan";

https://interestingengineering.com/e...lanting-record
Wonderful. They planted all of those trees. Now, how many of those trees will survive and mature to the point of making a difference? The biome they were planted in is grassland. How many resources will they eat up that will cause damage to the biome? Will they be sustainable? It's one thing to put a plant in the ground, its another bringing it to maturity. This will be a great exercise to observe. I hope the media circles back in one year, three years, and five years to see how well this new "forest" is doing and if it survives. Considering the conditions that Ethiopia finds itself, I'm skeptical.
New Era is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to New Era For This Useful Post:
Old 10-08-2019, 10:55 AM   #1412
Ozy_Flame

Posted the 6 millionth post!
 
Ozy_Flame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Exp:
Default

Thought this was a relevant article to share. Solar is becoming a potent market in Alberta, and some of the energy driven from solar is partnering with our O/G sector, such as TC Energy.

Solar power is the red-hot growth area in oil-rich Alberta

CALGARY — Solar power is beating expectations in oil and gas rich Alberta, where the renewable energy source is poised to expand dramatically in the coming years as international power companies invest in the province.

Fresh capital is being deployed in the Alberta’s electricity generation sector for both renewable and natural gas-fired power projects after years of uncertainty caused by changes and reversals in the province’s power market, said Duane Reid-Carlson, president of power consulting firm EDC Associates, who advises on electric projects in the province.

“From the mix of projects that we see in the queue at the (Alberta Electric System Operator) and the projects that have been announced, Alberta has no shortage of thermal and renewable projects,” Reid-Carlson said, adding that he sees “a great mix” of independent power companies and foreign firms looking to build renewable projects in Alberta.
Ozy_Flame is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2019, 11:04 AM   #1413
TheIronMaiden
First Line Centre
 
TheIronMaiden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Somewhere in Time
Exp:
Default

It would be interesting to see how much has changed in terms of percentages since 2017.

TheIronMaiden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2019, 11:21 AM   #1414
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

You can see Alberta live here:


http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/ip/Market...DReportServlet
__________________
Air Canada - We're not happy until you're not happy.
Telus - Almost as bad as Winnipeg.
Calgary Roads Dept - Ya, we'll get to that.
Fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Old 10-08-2019, 12:36 PM   #1415
TheIronMaiden
First Line Centre
 
TheIronMaiden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Somewhere in Time
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
That is super cool! Thanks!
TheIronMaiden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2019, 06:07 PM   #1416
stampsx2
First Line Centre
 
stampsx2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

I’m sooo not a George Carlin fan but,

George Carlin on climate change (nsfw - a swear)

https://youtu.be/ko3w02ycBwI
stampsx2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2019, 06:14 PM   #1417
rubecube
Franchise Player
 
rubecube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stampsx2 View Post
I’m sooo not a George Carlin fan but,

George Carlin on climate change (nsfw - a swear)

https://youtu.be/ko3w02ycBwI
I am a Carlin fan, but I think I'll take the word of climate scientists who've spent decades learning and working in this field over that of a comedian's. Crazy idea, I know.
rubecube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2019, 06:17 PM   #1418
Scroopy Noopers
Pent-up
 
Scroopy Noopers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Ontario, unfortunately.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stampsx2 View Post
I’m sooo not a George Carlin fan but,

George Carlin on climate change (nsfw - a swear)

https://youtu.be/ko3w02ycBwI
Maybe listen to the whole bit. His underlying tone isn’t what you think it is. He ends it by saying we are all done for, and that...

“We won’t leave a trace either, thank god for that”
Scroopy Noopers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2019, 07:08 PM   #1419
Oling_Roachinen
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube View Post
I am a Carlin fan, but I think I'll take the word of climate scientists who've spent decades learning and working in this field over that of a comedian's. Crazy idea, I know.
You'd take a climate scientists prediction of the future over someone who's actually from the future?

Oling_Roachinen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2019, 08:00 PM   #1420
stampsx2
First Line Centre
 
stampsx2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube View Post
I am a Carlin fan, but I think I'll take the word of climate scientists who've spent decades learning and working in this field over that of a comedian's. Crazy idea, I know.
I believe in scientific facts but not environmental alarmism or climate change fanatisicm. Carlin has about as much credibility as a climate change alarmist. Both take it to the extreme.
stampsx2 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 08:28 PM.

Calgary Flames
2017-18




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016