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 10-16-2019, 01:32 PM   #1641
powderjunkie
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fonz View Post
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...
powderjunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
#-3
Old 10-16-2019, 01:41 PM   #1642
Erick Estrada
Franchise Player
 
Erick Estrada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Fernando Valley
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler View Post
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.
Erick Estrada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2019, 01:45 PM   #1643
Erick Estrada
Franchise Player
 
Erick Estrada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Fernando Valley
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie View Post
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 01:47 PM.
Erick Estrada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2019, 01:48 PM   #1644
The Fonz
Our Jessica Fletcher
 
The Fonz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie View Post
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 youíre response is that atmospheric CO2 has risen 100 ppm?

I donít understand what point you were trying to make.
The Fonz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2019, 01:59 PM   #1645
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fonz View Post
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 youíre response is that atmospheric CO2 has risen 100 ppm?

I donít understand what point you were trying to make.
It isnít an additional .01%. Itís 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 canít have an affect is false.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2019, 02:04 PM   #1646
The Fonz
Our Jessica Fletcher
 
The Fonz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG View Post
It isnít an additional .01%. Itís 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 canít 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".
The Fonz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2019, 02:18 PM   #1647
Flamenspiel
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler View Post
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 childrenís networks could provide ample coverage.
Flamenspiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2019, 03:04 PM   #1648
Muta
Franchise Player
 
Muta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auckland, NZ
Exp:
Default

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/

Muta is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Muta For This Useful Post:
Old 10-16-2019, 03:12 PM   #1649
New Era
Franchise Player
 
New Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fonz View Post
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/
New Era is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to New Era For This Useful Post:
Old 10-17-2019, 11:28 AM   #1650
Ozy_Flame

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

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.
Ozy_Flame is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ozy_Flame For This Useful Post:
Old 10-17-2019, 01:30 PM   #1651
Erick Estrada
Franchise Player
 
Erick Estrada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Fernando Valley
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame View 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.
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 01:32 PM.
Erick Estrada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2019, 01:30 PM   #1652
FireFly
Franchise Player
 
FireFly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muta View Post
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 View Post
I can wash my penis without taking my pants off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moneyhands23 View Post
If edmonton wins the cup in the next decade I will buy everyone on CP a bottle of vodka.
FireFly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2019, 01:33 PM   #1653
Wormius
Franchise Player
 
Wormius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Somewhere down the crazy river.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireFly View Post
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.
Wormius is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2019, 01:33 PM   #1654
Erick Estrada
Franchise Player
 
Erick Estrada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Fernando Valley
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireFly View Post
Not to nitpick this chart or anything, but how exactly did they measure the CO2 levels 700,000 years ago?
Hypothesis of course.
Erick Estrada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2019, 01:41 PM   #1655
FireFly
Franchise Player
 
FireFly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Found the answer, nevermind
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimbl420 View Post
I can wash my penis without taking my pants off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moneyhands23 View Post
If edmonton wins the cup in the next decade I will buy everyone on CP a bottle of vodka.
FireFly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2019, 01:41 PM   #1656
icecube
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: compton
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada View Post
Hypothesis of course.
__________________
"F### Maya Angelou"- White Out 403
icecube is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to icecube For This Useful Post:
Old 10-17-2019, 01:45 PM   #1657
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada View Post
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.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Old 10-17-2019, 01:52 PM   #1658
MelBridgeman
Franchise Player
 
MelBridgeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireFly View Post
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
ďLine up all kinds of people to write op-eds.Ē
MelBridgeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2019, 02:10 PM   #1659
Snuffleupagus
First Line Centre
 
Snuffleupagus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada View Post
Hypothesis of course.
No, not at all, core samples are actually over 99% persact
Snuffleupagus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2019, 03:03 PM   #1660
Erick Estrada
Franchise Player
 
Erick Estrada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Fernando Valley
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG View Post
Not really,

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/fe...ology_IceCores

They measure the air in the ice trapped at the time it was deposited.
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 03:08 PM.
Erick Estrada 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 11:47 PM.

Calgary Flames
2017-18




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