MadMonk Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Climate science also suggested a mere 40 years ago that we were headed into an ice age using the very same knowledge you cited, that theory has been updated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Wrong!!!!!! Oil sands GHG emissions were 41.9 Mt (1 Mt = 1 million tonnes) in 2009. This equals: 6.5 per cent of Canadian emissionsless than 0.1 per cent of global emissions Canada's total emissions grew by 100 Mt between 1990 and 2009, with oil sands emissions responsible for 25 per cent (25 Mt) of this increase; transportation was responsible for 44 per cent (44 Mt). Edit - climate change isn't just caused by man BTW - even scientists know that - so stop with the propaganda green peace type lies...that's why it's no longer called "Global Warming".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 You know....i'm actually a little offended to think that you think you could link a graph from the pro-oil sands Alberta gov't website, and try to pass it off as a 'legitimate' source of impartial information. But what I absolutely love the most about your post, it's not the missing link to your info, though it gave me a chuckle to think that you thought I wouldn't be able to figure out where it came from....it's that you have the nerve to call the graph and the information that I provided through a highly respected scientific journal 'Nature', as "propaganda".....and you serve the rest of us a plate full of tripe from a website designed to completely gloss over the truth about the tar sands, which like the regulations it purports to be following, is most likely also created by the very same oil and gas industry. And that's all of the electricity generated across the country COMBINED in comparison to the Tar Sands output of Green-House Gases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Offended? You? No way! Your report is old! And "estimate"... Here's the Canadian Government site: http://ec.gc.ca/ges-...En&n=8BAF9C6D-1 Also - I love how it's worded "This will make the tar sands industry the largest producer of greenhouse gases of any industry in Canada except electricity generation." Instead of, The Tar Sands is the 2nd largest of industry in Canada. So, back to your original comment "Forgive me for not taking anything you say on this topic as remotely credible considering you earn an income derived from Canada's largest source for greenhouse gases there in Alberta via the tarsands." I'm right, you're wrong - admit it - game over. Tarsands is NOT the largest source. It's the second largest INDUSTRY source - no where near the OVERALL LARGEST SOURCE of GHG in Canada. Oh - what's with the dig on me working for Suncor as a contractor? I'm on the front line so to speak - I get to influence them first hand with what I can control (Computer systems). Why do I keep sticking up for them? I'm tired of all the environmental BS going on out there. You really want to cut down on GHG? Tell those stupid environmentalists and ethanol lobbyists to retract putting ethanol in our gasoline. If our gasoline was pure from ethanol, we would have less GHG coming out of our vehicles and industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Kinda pathetic? You're such a generous guy Sharp! You really want to cut down on GHG? Tell those stupid environmentalists and ethanol lobbyists to retract putting ethanol in our gasoline. If our gasoline was pure from ethanol, we would have less GHG coming out of our vehicles and industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langdon Algur Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 <p> I see that in regions of the globe it's certainly warming, data also reflects that. No argument there. I can see in lab tests that CO2 has environmental impacts. OTOH, I'm sceptical of warming being due to humans. One can presume CO2 has some impact, but to the degree of which.. I'm not sure, doubtful in fact at the moment, such broad climate change is something we're that in control of, and have the capacity to stop, reverse, and so on, like Captain Climate saves the planet . Models.. predictions, nothing more, without all of the variables, in fact. It's like predicting the Stanley Cup Finals winner, looking at a list of recent winners, but not even knowing a handful of teams. The precautionary notion of "just in case we're right" is one of the principle scare tactic reasons I despise religion, it's a detraction from learning, I've found out that basing such important decisions like that out of irrational fear is more often detrimental compared to doing nothing. Added to that, highly prominent political influences come from those who are adding to the element of fear that already exists because they stand to gain substantially from ideas such as carbon taxes. My main car is a Ford Escape Hybrid, but I bought it because in the long run it saves huge amounts on gas because I live in the middle of the GTA, not out of fear, not out of carbon guilt.. there are logically economic ways to get people to switch to more energy efficient means of doing things, but it's very difficult in some cases and requires more certainties. I don't think more certainties for the masses is that egregious. I would like to wait and see if any climate model can be highly accurate, and see if this pattern represents more long term climate change than perhaps a few decades then changes again to start up a new environmentalist/alarmist movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langdon Algur Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 How do climate change sceptics get their funding? http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/28/climate-change-sceptic-willie-soon http://www.good.is/post/prominent-climate-change-skeptic-getting-paid-by-oil-coal-companies/ http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2012/02/23/how-to-kill-the-global-warming-cause/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langdon Algur Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Offended? You? No way! Your report is old! And "estimate"... Here's the Canadian Government site: http://ec.gc.ca/ges-...En&n=8BAF9C6D-1 Also - I love how it's worded "This will make the tar sands industry the largest producer of greenhouse gases of any industry in Canada except electricity generation." Instead of, The Tar Sands is the 2nd largest of industry in Canada. So, back to your original comment "Forgive me for not taking anything you say on this topic as remotely credible considering you earn an income derived from Canada's largest source for greenhouse gases there in Alberta via the tarsands." I'm right, you're wrong - admit it - game over. Tarsands is NOT the largest source. It's the second largest INDUSTRY source - no where near the OVERALL LARGEST SOURCE of GHG in Canada. Oh - what's with the dig on me working for Suncor as a contractor? I'm on the front line so to speak - I get to influence them first hand with what I can control (Computer systems). Why do I keep sticking up for them? I'm tired of all the environmental BS going on out there. You really want to cut down on GHG? Tell those stupid environmentalists and ethanol lobbyists to retract putting ethanol in our gasoline. If our gasoline was pure from ethanol, we would have less GHG coming out of our vehicles and industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 "net emissions from the combustion of gasoline are greater than those from burning ethanol" except guess what - your fuel economy is worse by 10 to 15 percent - which means everyone is using more fuel which means more oil from the tar sands to compensate which means more emissions....also, small engines like those found in motorcycles, lawn mowers, etc - are damaged by ethanol - which means more repairs and waste to the land fills... http://superbikeblog.blogspot.ca/2010/10/ethanol-scam-and-your-motorcycle-engine.html http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/280463 And many many more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 From your link "As stated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 4th Assessment Report, warming of the climate system is unequivocal (IPCC 2007). Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations. The contribution of human activities to enhancing the greenhouse effect has been recognized worldwide by both the scientific and policy communities." So I guess we can agree then that climate change does exist and it is man-made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langdon Algur Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 What about the climate changes that happened on earth before man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Your 'credible graph' is old an uncredible. Do you not see how the tar sands =/= ALL forms and sources of electricity generation?? The Tar Sands are a single source of energy.....the electricity generation sector includes, gas, coal, etc... all across the country. Only when you add them all up, do they produce more GHG than the Alberta Tar Sands. That's like saying Russia isn't the largest land mass on earth, because all the other land in the world combined is by far bigger. That's like saying China isn't the most populace place on earth, because the rest of Asia combined has more people. You're so desperate to win an argument that it's kinda pathetic. 'Game Over'?? Grow up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langdon Algur Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 @Heretic Here is another "Gov't website" that shows that yes the climate has always been warming and cooling but the rate it's been changing at recently is alarming http://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=En&n=3E75BC40-1#Section2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 What about them? You mean that they took thousands of years to occur whereas the climate change we are seeing is occuring in decades. The source you quoted "on the government website" say's that. It also say's climate change is occuring due to our actions, again your source not mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Kinda pathetic? You're such a generous guy Sharp! Greenhouse-Gas Emissions During a Fuel’s Life Cycle Analysis of greenhouse-gas emissions from ethanol and gasoline depends on measurements during all stages of their product life cycles, including production, distribution, and combustion of the fuels. In that regard, ethanol has advantages over gasoline during certain stages but disadvantages during others. On balance, the use of corn ethanol that has been produced at plants fueled by natural gas (which accounts for most of the United States’ production of ethanol) is estimated to generate fewer greenhouse-gas emissions than the use of gasoline. Producing ethanol from corn and distributing it emits more greenhouse gases than producing gasoline from crude oil and distributing it. (That is, planting, fertilizing, and harvesting corn as an ethanol feedstock uses more fossil-fuel energy than does drilling for petroleum, refining it into gasoline, and delivering it to customers.) But the relationship is reversed for other phases of the fuels’ life cycles: After accounting for the carbon dioxide that is removed from the atmosphere when the corn is grown, net emissions from the combustion of gasoline are greater than those from burning ethanol. Looking at the entire life cycle of the two fuels, research conducted at Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) compared the greenhouse-gas emissions of ethanol and gasoline. 43 That research, which has been widely accepted by federal agencies, found that the use of corn ethanol as it is currently produced—using coal-fired and natural gasfired plants—reduces life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions by about 20 percent when compared with the use of gasoline. 44 Calculated on the basis of the volume of ethanol used in the United States last year, that percentage reduction is equivalent to about 14 million metric tons of carbon dioxide and equivalent gases, or CO2e.45 That amount is about 0.7 percent of the total greenhouse-gas emissions generated in the transportation sector during 2008.46 The reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions depends critically on which fuel is used to produce ethanol. The ANL researchers found that if corn ethanol was produced at a plant that used natural gas to fuel its production processes, the life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions for ethanol would be about 30 percent lower than those for gasoline. In contrast, corn ethanol that was produced by using energy derived from burning coal would increase lifecycle greenhouse-gas emissions by 3 percent compared with gasoline (because the burning of coal produces a much greater volume of emissions than does the burning of natural gas). Most ethanol plants in the United States are fueled by natural gas. The rest are coal fired or fired jointly by coal and natural gas. The ANL researchers’ finding that ethanol releases fewer life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions than gasoline releases has been challenged by some analysts. An alternative viewpoint is that the production of corn ethanol produces more life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions than gasoline does because the production of such ethanol relies more heavily on fossil fuels than the ANL researchers’ estimates recognize.47 Such analysts also contend that the reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions derived from using by-products of ethanol production to displace the production of other goods—such as animal feeds or fertilizer— are smaller than those assumed in the ANL analysis. 48 Those criticisms are not widely embraced, however. Some observers argue that such contentions are based on outdated data, on overestimates of how much fossil fuel is used in farming and in ethanol production, and on underestimates of the extent to which the use of by-products from ethanol production reduces the amount of fossil fuels used for producing other goods.49 http://www.cbo.gov/s...-08-ethanol.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 For the deniers and 'skeptics' out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MANGO Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 yah they never go after politicians like that....I wish they would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyzer Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 I don't know if shes mentally handicapped or has some sort of personal problem, but I'm 110% sure that Bill Nye has accomplished more in his lifetime than she ever will, even if she lived to 500. Not only is he a Mechanical Engineer from Cornell, but he's been involved in aeronautics and countless other space program initiatives. He's a boss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockeyfan87 Posted July 14, 2012 Author Share Posted July 14, 2012 Decades? I don't think so. Man's contribution has been for hundreds of years... Got this from yahoo answers (not saying it's right or wrong): "Man-made (anthropogenic) climate change / warming can be traced back to when prehistoric man moved away from hunter / gatherer to agriculture and started clearing forests - about 20,000 years ago. Most of Europe was covered by forest and was gradually cleared over the following centuries. A similar process has happened in North America over the last few centuries with the arrival of European settlers." Don't get me wrong, I agree that mankind is contributing to climate change and bringing it about faster - what I disagree with is the individual finger pointing cherry picking expert wanabes that blame a single source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 He up'd his cool level even more in my books: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.