Jump to content

Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem


Recommended Posts

2. If you want to continue to use the analogy perhaps you can explain why Canada is akin to a 200 lb man and the EU or the Scandanavian countries are 90 lb women.

Canada are the roughnecks that work on oil rigs in -20. Europeans are the office workers. Both jobs are necessary. Both contribute to the shared economy but the roughneck needs more food intake to sustain the lifestyle required for the job. The office workers have no business telling the roughnecks to eat less since the office workers depend on the heat and transport made possible by the roughnecks.

These are obviously generalizations but should illustrate why trade specialization among countries will mean that some countries have to have a higher per capita emissions in order to sustain the same standard if living.

The factors that determine the necessary per capita emissions level for a given level of economic development are:

1) The nature of the economy (i.e. energy intensive or energy production industry).

2) The geography (i.e. is hydro power available, is nuclear politically acceptable, are heating/air conditioning required).

3) The population density (i.e. how practical is mass transit).

Now I am not saying that I know Canada's level should be X - just that whatever level it should be it is going to be a lot higher than European countries.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Canada are the roughnecks that work on oil rigs in -20. Europeans are the office workers.

:lol: hunters & gatherers! Ever hear of the North Sea, the Mediterranean, the Black... and even the Baltic Seas offshore oil/gas production? Apparently, there are significant producing coal mines in Germany, Poland, Greece... and a half-dozen+ other countries in Europe - who knew!!! Surely there's no oil & gas production in those 100's of O&G fields in Europe... surely not! Or shale gas developments... nah, they don't do any of that - do they? ... or European designs on the Arctic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: hunters & gatherers! Ever hear of the North Sea, the Mediterranean, the Black... and even the Baltic Seas offshore oil/gas production? Apparently, there are significant producing coal mines in Germany, Poland, Greece... and a half-dozen+ other countries in Europe - who knew!!! Surely there's no oil & gas production in those 100's of O&G fields in Europe... surely not! Or shale gas developments... nah, they don't do any of that - do they? ... or European designs on the Arctic?

I spent 30 years flying to oil rigs. Most weren't in Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada are the roughnecks that work on oil rigs in -20. Europeans are the office workers. Both jobs are necessary. Both contribute to the shared economy but the roughneck needs more food intake to sustain the lifestyle required for the job. The office workers have no business telling the roughnecks to eat less since the office workers depend on the heat and transport made possible by the roughnecks.

These are obviously generalizations but should illustrate why trade specialization among countries will mean that some countries have to have a higher per capita emissions in order to sustain the same standard if living.

The factors that determine the necessary per capita emissions level for a given level of economic development are:

1) The nature of the economy (i.e. energy intensive or energy production industry).

2) The geography (i.e. is hydro power available, is nuclear politically acceptable, are heating/air conditioning required).

3) The population density (i.e. how practical is mass transit).

Now I am not saying that I know Canada's level should be X - just that whatever level it should be it is going to be a lot higher than European countries.

OK, so roughnecks need to eat enough to make them fat, while office workers need only eat enough to stay skiny. Is that what you're saying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada are the roughnecks that work on oil rigs in -20. Europeans are the office workers. Both jobs are necessary. Both contribute to the shared economy but the roughneck needs more food intake to sustain the lifestyle required for the job. The office workers have no business telling the roughnecks to eat less since the office workers depend on the heat and transport made possible by the roughnecks.

These are obviously generalizations but should illustrate why trade specialization among countries will mean that some countries have to have a higher per capita emissions in order to sustain the same standard if living.

The las time Iooked, ~ two thirds of the economy of any OECD country (including Canada) was was services.

Here's an interesting fact: Natural ressources make up 7% of our GDP.

http://www.horizons.gc.ca/eng/content/significant-shifts-key-economic-sectors

The factors that determine the necessary per capita emissions level for a given level of economic development are:

1) The nature of the economy (i.e. energy intensive or energy production industry).

2) The geography (i.e. is hydro power available, is nuclear politically acceptable, are heating/air conditioning required).

3) The population density (i.e. how practical is mass transit).

Now I am not saying that I know Canada's level should be X - just that whatever level it should be it is going to be a lot higher than European countries.

I agree with the factors, however while Canada is of course different than the EU - it is not THAT different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The las time Iooked, ~ two thirds of the economy of any OECD country (including Canada) was was services.

Here's an interesting fact: Natural ressources make up 7% of our GDP.

http://www.horizons.gc.ca/eng/content/significant-shifts-key-economic-sectors

I agree with the factors, however while Canada is of course different than the EU - it is not THAT different.

You're still not getting it. Forget about the EU and concentrate on some form of apples to apples. In a previous example, I used Germany and pointed out that Canada's per-capita emissions were "only" 50% higher - not more than double as you were trying to claim by using the EU average. But let's look at a very valid reason for Canada's higher usage. Germany's population and landmass give it a population density of about 226 per square Kilometer. Canada's density is 3.5 per square kilometer. This creates a variety of energy challenges. Germany would have dramatically more multi-family dwellings - large apartment buildings. Canada has more single home and duplex/triplex housing. Canada has longer commutes to work - here in the GTA, it's common for people to commute an hour to work. Longer distances to transport goods, etc.......but population density is key and provides scales of economy that we have no chance to duplicate. Australia has a similar landmass and density and surprise! - their per capita emissions are higher than Canada's - even without our cold weather.

Another interesting example is the former Czechoslovakia - now the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Once the same country - now separate since the 90's - similar population densities but different economies. The Czech Republic has a lot of heavy industry and iron and steel and metalworks......Slovakia not so much. The end result - the Czech Republic's per capita emissions are 50% higher than Slovakia's.

So.....how are we doing? Not so clear, is it? We can do better - but keep apples with apples.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're still not getting it. Forget about the EU and concentrate on some form of apples to apples. In a previous example, I used Germany and pointed out that Canada's per-capita emissions were "only" 50% higher - not more than double as you were trying to claim by using the EU average. But let's look at a very valid reason for Canada's higher usage. Germany's population and landmass give it a population density of about 226 per square Kilometer. Canada's density is 3.5 per square kilometer. This creates a variety of energy challenges. Germany would have dramatically more multi-family dwellings - large apartment buildings. Canada has more single home and duplex/triplex housing. Canada has longer commutes to work - here in the GTA, it's common for people to commute an hour to work. Longer distances to transport goods, etc.......but population density is key and provides scales of economy that we have no chance to duplicate. Australia has a similar landmass and density and surprise! - their per capita emissions are higher than Canada's - even without our cold weather.

Another interesting example is the former Czechoslovakia - now the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Once the same country - now separate since the 90's - similar population densities but different economies. The Czech Republic has a lot of heavy industry and iron and steel and metalworks......Slovakia not so much. The end result - the Czech Republic's per capita emissions are 50% higher than Slovakia's.

So.....how are we doing? Not so clear, is it? We can do better - but keep apples with apples.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density

I get it, you are just not understanding me. Yes I am making intersting comparissons - just the way you are. No I am not drawing any firm conclusions, just using the data direct us towards further research.

Also, be careful when you are considering Canada's density. Yes our average density is ~3.5 / sq.km, however it is important to also consider our population distribution, most people live in far denser areas:

Population_Density_Map_of_Canada.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The las time Iooked, ~ two thirds of the economy of any OECD country (including Canada) was was services.

And many of those services depend on oil and resource extraction. I was trying to sort out the different sources of emissions and I found the data to be quite confusing because a large part of the EU emissions picture are 'land use changes' which offset real emissions - these are not real emissions but hypothetical emission reductions which makes them an accounting fiction. On top of that you have the ETS where emissions are offset by purchasing permits - permits which are often based on fraudulent carbon reduction schemes. It appears that some of the EU numbers include these offsets which are also accounting fictions.

Both of these factors make the headline numbers reported for the EU an accounting fiction. What I would like to see is a breakdown of actual emission data for EU vs. Canada. At this point I am not convinced the real difference (after removing the accounting fictions) are as large as they are claimed to be.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

History == last 100 years. A puny time period when you look at the earth's history.

Right and we could fritter away a lot of time waxing on about what was happening 50,000 years ago but does that really matter? No. What matters is what is going to happen in the next 100 years. Maybe 150 if you have grandkids. Currently there are some signs that things aren't going so good. Now I know Exxon Mobil will pat you on your forehead and tell you everything is OK, and BP will likewise tell you they did no damage by dumping 5 million barrels of crude into the Gulf of Mexico. Not all of us want to be lullabied by ancient history or recent BS. Maybe all that missing ice in the arctic does actually mean something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waldo, i believe humans are causing extreme climate change, but how do you explain record lows? http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20131230/GPG0101/312300134/

climate variability exists at all times... you should not expect an absence of record lows; however, in keeping with your U.S. weather station reference:

- a 2009 Meehl et al study (Relative increase of record high maximum temperatures compared to record low minimum temperatures in the U.S.) detailed, per the following graphic, "a comparative ratio of record daily highs to record daily lows observed at about 1,800 weather stations in the 48 contiguous United States from January 1950 through September 2009. Each bar shows the proportion of record highs (red) to record lows (blue) for each decade. The 1960s and 1970s saw slightly more record daily lows than highs, but in the last 30 years record highs have increasingly predominated, with the ratio now about two-to-one for the 48 states as a whole".

temps_2med.jpg

- an update to that 2009 study inclusive of most of 2013 data:

assets-climatecentral-org-images-uploads

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

climate variability exists at all times... you should not expect an absence of record lows; however, in keeping with your U.S. weather station reference:

Actually, that would be in keeping with another member's continued reference to U.S. organizations, their research, and resulting datasets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just waiting for the nay-sayers to cite what has been happening in the last 10 days or so as irrefutible proof against GW. You know that is gonna come.

The AGW hysterians have no compunction about using localized weather patterns to promote their claims. Moving the goal posts for everyone else seems to be the totality of their defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just waiting for the nay-sayers to cite what has been happening in the last 10 days or so as irrefutable proof against GW. You know that is gonna come.

yup; there's certainly no shortage of MLW denier types who haven't a clue how localized weather event trends and their, as appropriate, associated increased frequency and/or increased intensity, are evaluated when considering GW impacts upon them.

Edited by waldo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The AGW hysterians have no compunction about using localized weather patterns to promote their claims. Moving the goal posts for everyone else seems to be the totality of their defense.

Exactly. It's funny how they have no problem using a heat wave in the summer as proof of man made global warming, but if one cites record cold in the winter as the opposite, it's "localized weather". Complete and utter hypocrisy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. It's funny how they have no problem using a heat wave in the summer as proof of man made global warming, but if one cites record cold in the winter as the opposite, it's "localized weather". Complete and utter hypocrisy.

Did I just hear some hypocrisy? Are you saying the current cold is an "opposite? GW scientists have long been saying that GW will cause instability and therefore spikes both hig and low in seasonal weeather-but the overall trend heading up. Have a look above at Waldo's charts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GW scientists have long been saying that GW will cause instability and therefore spikes both hig and low in seasonal weeather-but the overall trend heading up.

Complete and total BS. This is an excuse fabricated when first few spells of cold weather hit a few years ago and AGW ideologues needed a talking point. The other thing is: most skeptics talking about the cold know weather is weather - they are simply pointing it out to mock the hypocrisy of alarmists who drone on endlessly whenever a hot weather event occurs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Complete and total BS. This is an excuse fabricated when first few spells of cold weather hit a few years ago and AGW ideologues needed a talking point. The other thing is: most skeptics talking about the cold know weather is weather - they are simply pointing it out to mock the hypocrisy of alarmists who drone on endlessly whenever a hot weather event occurs.

You think the first few spells of cold weather only hit a few years ago? Well then I will also assume you think those temperature charts were created by meteroligists in cahoots with GW scientists. That goes beyond hypocrisy I'd say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,741
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    timwilson
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • User earned a badge
      Posting Machine
    • User earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • User went up a rank
      Proficient
    • Videospirit earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Videospirit went up a rank
      Explorer
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...